# Staggering Strike



## 0-hr (Apr 26, 2007)

I just want to get a confirmation that this feat is meant to function as written (I have an erratta but it's a bit old, and I don't keep up with the non-erratta mumblings from WotC). It seems a little too good to be true so I wanted to check before we start using it in our current campaign.



> Staggering Strike (From Complete Adventurer)
> 
> You can deliver a wound that hampers an opponent's movement.
> 
> ...




You don't give up any any sneak attack dice? This doesn't take a standard action or anything? Seems like a no-brainer, though the multiple FORT saves each round is going to slow play a bit.


----------



## Psimancer (Apr 26, 2007)

Yep, plays as written, no further errata. My monk/rogue currently has this feat and it's great!

Edit: Why is it not too good/broken? It only leaves the opponent staggered - they still get to take a standard action: attack (but not full), cast a spell, move (but then no attack), or potentially charge. And they can still 5 ft. step.

And just as a point of reference, check the Fort save on your group Tank; what is the likely hood of this working on him? Assuming he doesn't have Uncanny Dodge?

Its good against mooks, but against a BBEG???


----------



## Wish (Apr 26, 2007)

I've played with it extensively.  It doesn't work all that well, in practice.  It's certainly worth a feat, but several conditions must be met for it to work:

1)  You must successfully sneak attack.
2)  The target must fail a fortitude save.
3)  The target must give a hoot that it failed a fortitude save.

#1 is harder to get than you might think (uncanny dodge, concealment, fortification, constructs, undead, elementals, etc.)
#2 is also harder to accomplish than you might think.  The DC isn't likely to be more than 35 or 40, and often considerably lower.  At the levels where that damage is happening, excellent to absurdly good fort saves are also happening.
#3 also doesn't happen as often as you might like.  If the BBEG was just going to take a 5' step back and fire a sudden maximized energy admixed scorching ray into your face, he's still going to be able to do exactly that.

All that said...

When it works, it's an absolute thing of beauty.  When you charge, and power attack, and crit the marilith and you get to say something like, "And make a DC 104 fort save or be staggered for a round," that's just poetry.  When the marilith looks at you and your pitiful little charging AC and your questionable hp total, and her six magic weapons and can only use one of them to retaliate against you... makes it worth it.


----------



## 0-hr (Apr 26, 2007)

But that's not how it will work in practice. In reality it would be:

Primary attack: make a Fort 17 or be staggered!
Off Hand attack: make a Fort 16 or be staggered!
Iterative attack: make a Fort 23 or be staggered!
Imp TWF attack: make a Fort 12 or be staggered!

And that's even more annoying when the bad guy was just going to cast a spell anyway. 4+ extra dice rolls (for this one character's turn) and it doesn't even matter. But since it's an absolute freebie, the rogue is going to ask for every save 'just in case'.

I'm a player so this ruling help me, but I'd still rather have it just be once a round, or reduce sneak attack by 1d6 or do SOMETHING to make the rogue consider whether to use it or not.


----------



## Deset Gled (Apr 26, 2007)

Psimancer said:
			
		

> Edit: Why is it not too good/broken? It only leaves the opponent staggered - they still get to take a standard action: attack (but not full), cast a spell, move (but then no attack), or potentially charge. And they can still 5 ft. step.




I've never seen this feat is play, but that sounds pretty darn potent to me.  Being limited to a standard action can be a huge issue.


----------



## Particle_Man (Apr 26, 2007)

It certainly puts most of the Ambush feats in Complete Scoundrel to shame, doesn't it.  

I see it as the answer to the "paper tiger" problem with the rogue, that if they stay next to a BBEG, then they can suffer a full attack and their low AC will mean they will get hurt bad.  Now they have a chance to reduce that to merely one attack by the BBEG.

Mind you, this feat would be useless vs. a Swordsage, Warblade or Crusader, since their maneuvers usually take a standard action to accomplish anyhow.


----------



## Psimancer (Apr 26, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Being limited to a standard action can be a huge issue.





			
				Wish said:
			
		

> The target must give a hoot that it failed a fortitude save.



Wish totally nailed it when he made this comment. The BIG advantage of this feat is that it stops the iterative attacks of an opponent. That in and of itself can speed things up (if that what you are worried about). To be really honest, it only seems to come up every 2nd combat or so (undead, constructs, inability to flank, etc)


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (May 3, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> It certainly puts most of the Ambush feats in Complete Scoundrel to shame, doesn't it.




It really doesn't take much to put them to shame, IMHO.  As a veteran rogue player, I will state right now I would NEVER take one of those horriibly ill-concieved, underpowered, excuses for ~1/7 of my character's feat expenditure.

That said, I have always loved this feat.  It works nice from the limited use I've seen of it (many of the games I've played as a rogue in stopped either before or soon after I could pick it up), and never really got broken.  In my current game, we're gestault, and I convinced the Fighter/Rogue to pick it up for truly obscene save DCs, and the benefit of full attacking at full BAB whilst reducing the enemy to only one attack in return.  Unfortunately, it's only been one session since then and nothing we fought survived the onslaught of his full attack long enough to even make the feat come into play.  Poor guy.


----------



## Darklone (May 3, 2007)

This feat is also pretty useless against most PCs who aren't subject to sneak attacks anyhow. If they are clever. Or attached to their lives.


----------



## moritheil (May 4, 2007)

Psimancer said:
			
		

> Its good against mooks, but against a BBEG???




I'll echo this.  I was thinking of it for my daggerspell shaper, but I decided against it in favor of a metamagic feat, reasoning that mooks wouldn't live all that long anyhow.


----------



## Nail (May 4, 2007)

FWIW, the feat looks broken to me.  Big time.


----------



## moritheil (May 4, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> FWIW, the feat looks broken to me.  Big time.




At what levels?  At high levels, pretty much all PCs and significant NPCs are going to be immune to sneak attacks.  Before then . . . I suppose I could entertain an argument that a mid-level fighter/rogue would get a lot of mileage out of it, but a first level spell seems to defeat it (lesser vigor.)

Come to think of it, doesn't it require +4d6 SA, not just SA?  That might be an important factor in judging feat balance.


----------



## Nail (May 4, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> At what levels?  At high levels, pretty much all PCs and significant NPCs are going to be immune to sneak attacks. .



Have you checked over the MM 3.5e lately?  That's not even close to the case.


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2007)

Very few PCs and NPCs are immune to sneak attacks in my (epic) game. I see this feat as quite strong.


----------



## IanB (May 4, 2007)

I'm leaning towards Nail's viewpoint as well. Nowhere NEAR all PCs/high level NPCs in my games are sneak attack immune.


----------



## moritheil (May 5, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Have you checked over the MM 3.5e lately?  That's not even close to the case.




What's the cost of a +1 mithral buckler of heavy fortification?  Somewhere around 37k gp, last I checked.  Every class save for monks and ninjas can use one with basically no penalty (for armor wearers, they can have heavy fortification built into their shield or armor.)  This means at 20th level, for a fraction of your net wealth, you can be immune to crits and sneak attacks.  (It might cost you some AC if you're a heavy armor wearer, but that's a choice you'll have to make.)

I'm in Darimaus's 20th-level campaign, where maybe 30% of the players are competitive builders, and most of them have at least some degree of fortification.  All the prominent front-liners save for one have outright immunity, and that one keeps his AC above 70.  Several casters are or were going to be undead, which obviously provides immunity.


----------



## ronin (May 5, 2007)

In my experience this feat is very strong. We actually changed it because of my last PC. The character ended up with 8d6 sneak attack die, combined with craven, and one level of swordsage (for island of blades stance). Once I reached level 10-12 or so I was doing damage somewhere in the 40 to 50 range per strike. IIRC I had 5d6 sneak attack with holy daggers combined with craven and a feat from ToB that gave me DEX to damage (my primary stat). Making a few fort saves a round in the 40 range is fairly hard for most monsters.

Now my character was suited for this campaign (though I didn't realize how well when I made the character) since we didn't fight alot of undead or creatures immune to sneak attacks. I think we changed the save to 10 + character level + number of sneak attack die which in the end put me somewhere around a 30 for the save. I think my average damage per strike ended up around 65 points or so at level 19-20 and I was 2 BAB down to a straight class fighter.

All in all it was a fun character to play. I had always wanted to have a fighter/ rogue type PC that fought with daggers. The best part though was the RP elements that came about during the campaign and the way everything developed over the course of the campaign. Gotta love this game.


----------



## James McMurray (May 5, 2007)

In my epic game I had to introduce a weapon wnhancement that helped bypass fortification just so the assassin's guild and Glooms could be scary again. Everyone had heavy fortification.


----------



## IanB (May 5, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> What's the cost of a +1 mithral buckler of heavy fortification?  Somewhere around 37k gp, last I checked.  Every class save for monks and ninjas can use one with basically no penalty (for armor wearers, they can have heavy fortification built into their shield or armor.)  This means at 20th level, for a fraction of your net wealth, you can be immune to crits and sneak attacks.  (It might cost you some AC if you're a heavy armor wearer, but that's a choice you'll have to make.)
> 
> I'm in Darimaus's 20th-level campaign, where maybe 30% of the players are competitive builders, and most of them have at least some degree of fortification.  All the prominent front-liners save for one have outright immunity, and that one keeps his AC above 70.  Several casters are or were going to be undead, which obviously provides immunity.




I don't really see how PCs becoming undead can be presented as anything like the norm.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 5, 2007)

What level rogue are you talking about? 4th-6th?

On a 14th level rogue, that's more like:

Primary attack: make a Fort 37 or be staggered! (And 2 points of strength)
Off Hand attack: make a Fort 36 or be staggered! (And 2 points of strength)
Iterative attack: make a Fort 44 or be staggered! (And 2 points of strength)
Imp TWF attack: make a Fort 35 or be staggered! (And 2 points of strength)

DM: OK, he's staggered already so shut up about the fort saves.

As to why the feat is not too good? It is too good. FAR too good. If it functioned once per round and the DC was based on something like half character level plus dex modifier (or int modifier or strength modifier), it would be more in line with the rest of the mechanics of the game. As it is, anything vulnerable to sneak attacks is going to be staggered if they start the round next to an appropriately leveled rogue with the Staggering Strike feat. Either that or they are so absurdly advanced (usually by hit dice using a monster with 4 hd/cr increase or something similar) that they have exactly a 5% chance of failing any save no matter what. (A situation which hoses spellcasters even more).

Of course, all of that is talking about a standard rogue with the feat. There's also the multiclass rogue--a shadowbane inquisitor for instance:

I cast Rhino's Rush as a swift action, Power Attack for 12, smite evil, use my shadowbane inquisitor smite, and charge into the flank.... I hit. That's 109 points of damage and a DC 109 fortitude save or be staggered.

DCs for ordinary combat mechanics should NEVER be based on damage dealt (or a skill check result). That's why.

And as for the mage who was just going to five foot step and cast a spell anyway... at mid to high levels, the mage may well have wanted to suck up the AoO to get out of full attack range before casting the spell.



			
				Ki Ryn said:
			
		

> But that's not how it will work in practice. In reality it would be:
> 
> Primary attack: make a Fort 17 or be staggered!
> Off Hand attack: make a Fort 16 or be staggered!
> ...


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 5, 2007)

a normal 14 level rogue only does about 29 damage an attack. (7*3.5)+(2.5+3)  They could do more they could do less. If your rogue character is doing 100 points of damage an attack, you have more problems then just this feat. 

A fighter or any con based class is going to have a around a 16+d20 to thier fort save. they have about a 50% chance to make the save. I don't think the rogue is going to hit with every attack. I say the fighter has a 66%-77& chance he fails.


----------



## hong (May 5, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> a normal 14 level rogue only does about 29 damage an attack. (7*3.5)+(2.5+3)




Try (7x3.5) + 3.5+3+3+7 (weapon, enhancement bonus, Strength, holy).

This looks like a super-annoying feat in actual play. Ban it.


----------



## Vysirez (May 5, 2007)

Not to mention that any melee character who can work in at least 1d6 sneak attack can take this feat. So your 14th lvl rogue doesnt hit that much. What bout your raging hugely strong power attacking Barb10/Rogue4? So he doesnt get a ton of hits, the DC for his one hit is gonna be nuts.


----------



## moritheil (May 5, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> I don't really see how PCs becoming undead can be presented as anything like the norm.




I don't see what's so unbelievable about it in high-level play.  Most games I've been in have allowed it if the player is willing to suck up the (usually horrific) LA.


----------



## hong (May 5, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I don't see what's so unbelievable about it in high-level play. Most games I've been in have allowed it if the player is willing to suck up the (usually horrific) LA.




In which case, the games you've been in have been nowhere near the norm.


----------



## Nail (May 5, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I don't see what's so unbelievable about it in high-level play.



"In my high level game, everyone used _______.  So that means most high level games use _____."


----------



## moritheil (May 5, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> In which case, the games you've been in have been nowhere near the norm.




According to whose experience?  Each of us, if honest, reports the norm that he or she is familiar with.


----------



## moritheil (May 5, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> "In my high level game, everyone used _______.  So that means most high level games use _____."




Not necessarily.  I've also been in low-level games where players were allowed the option of being undead, but most cool undead forms have so much LA that it isn't feasible to play one until higher levels.

Of course, you could always argue that the people I tend to associate with have broader minds in terms of allowing these things.


----------



## Darklone (May 5, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Not necessarily.  I've also been in low-level games where players were allowed the option of being undead, but most cool undead forms have so much LA that it isn't feasible to play one until higher levels.



Undead without LA?

"Braiiiinnns."


----------



## Patlin (May 5, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Very few PCs and NPCs are immune to sneak attacks in my (epic) game. I see this feat as quite strong.




How many of those PCs and NPCs can afford, for example, a potion of blur? Sneak attack can be negated in so many ways, it's a bit sad.

Still a highly questionable feat, though.


----------



## hong (May 6, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> According to whose experience?




According to the experience of me, Nail, IanB, and everyone else playing D&D in a manner to which you seem rather unaccustomed.



> Each of us, if honest, reports the norm that he or she is familiar with.




Your norm is very ab.


----------



## hong (May 6, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Not necessarily.  I've also been in low-level games where players were allowed the option of being undead, but most cool undead forms have so much LA that it isn't feasible to play one until higher levels.




... IOW, no undead.



> Of course, you could always argue that the people I tend to associate with have broader minds in terms of allowing these things.




Or maybe they'd just rather be playing Counterstrike.


----------



## moritheil (May 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> According to the experience of me, Nail, IanB, and everyone else playing D&D in a manner to which you seem rather unaccustomed.




But not according to me, James, Patlin, and everyone playing DnD in a manner to which I seem accustomed.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 6, 2007)

I think your math is a bit off. As hong points out, damage is more likely to be something like:
3.5*7 (sneak attack) + 3.5 (weapon) + 3.5 x2 (holy) +3 enhancement +2 strength. for an average of 40 damage on primary attacks, 38 on off-hand weapon. (Or maybe 34.5 if the character only has a single energy enhancement on his off-hand weapon instead of holy). Of course, +3 from bardsong or righteous wrath of the faithful isn't uncommon in a lot of games so we can make that 43-44 and 37-42. If you assume a three hits (a bit low in most circumstances if my experience is any indication since the character is getting 7 attacks including haste), the two weapon fighting rogue is going to trigger three fort saves.

Using your assumption of a +16 fort save, the character needs to roll a 14 to save on the primary attack and a 12 on the off-hand weapon. (with the initial 2 holy weapons, no morale, etc bonuses to damage). Since we're being generous to the fighter by assuming that he only gets hit three times, let's assume two primary hand hits (1st attack and haste) and one off-hand hit. His odds are 35%, 35%, and 45%. That adds up to a 5.5125% chance of making all three saves. Even if we are exceptionally generous and assume the lower damage numbers you posit which gives the fighter a 50% chance of a successful save his odds of making all three saves are only 12.5%.

That's why it's almost always a bad idea to scale a save DC on damage and allow it multiple times per round. The odds of making multiple successful saves go down exponentially.

As for the 100+ point attacker, that was a nod to what Hong refers to in the multiclass rogue section--as well as a demonstration of how just a few damage boosting abilities can stack to produce massive damage on a single hit. The character in question is a Shadowbane Inquisitor (Rog 2/Pal 5/Shadowbane Inquisitor 7) but could almost as easily have been the Rogue 4/Barbarian 10 from Hong's example. A lot of the massive damage comes from Rhino's Rush (a rather broken paladin spell that grants double damage on a charge attack), but even a mid sixty damage swing produces a situation where almost every creature is going to need a 20 to save.

That's why it's an especially bad idea to scale DCs with damage. Melee damage scales much faster than saving throws and there are lots of tricks that can be used to increase it.



			
				Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> a normal 14 level rogue only does about 29 damage an attack. (7*3.5)+(2.5+3)  They could do more they could do less. If your rogue character is doing 100 points of damage an attack, you have more problems then just this feat.
> 
> A fighter or any con based class is going to have a around a 16+d20 to thier fort save. they have about a 50% chance to make the save. I don't think the rogue is going to hit with every attack. I say the fighter has a 66%-77& chance he fails.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 6, 2007)

The better question is probably how many of them could afford to use an action in combat to drink a potion of blur. Being immune to the rogue doesn't help much if the fighter/wizard kills you before you can do anything to them.



			
				Patlin said:
			
		

> How many of those PCs and NPCs can afford, for example, a potion of blur? Sneak attack can be negated in so many ways, it's a bit sad.
> 
> Still a highly questionable feat, though.


----------



## Raspen (May 6, 2007)

this would be a good thing to have with my ninja.. would he be able to get it?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 6, 2007)

I do not like it.

A Feat like this should be comparable to Stunning Fist at best, and probably notably weaker than that as Stunning Fist is a major class ability for the Monk.

On the minus side, Staggering Strike only Staggers and you must get the Sneak in the first place.

On the plus side, there are no uses per day limit, no uses per round limit, and it is trivial to boost the DC to the stratosphere.

As for the vulnerability of the target to SA, Stunning Fist suffers very similar limiations.

I would change the DC to 10 + <# of Sneak Dice> + <Int or Dex bonus>.


----------



## Erdric Dragin (Apr 10, 2017)

Sorry to do a super Threadomancy on this, but I have been having problems with this feat in my games as well. The Fortitude DC of 40+ by a Rogue player of mine is way too out of hand. It's easy for him to get a SA, and every hit on a foe renders them Staggered for a round which severely hampers enemies. 

I am starting to wonder if the "wording" of the feat meant the DC equals the "Sneak Attack Damage Dealt?" Has anyone ever considered that? 

This would mean if it only counts SA damage, then a 10th-level Rogue would average a Fortitude DC of 17, and a 20th-level one would average a DC of 35. And those numbers look much more fair than ALL damage dealt, which the feat doesn't really make clear to begin with.

Thoughts?


----------

