Talk:Acrobatic Attack (3.5e Feat)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Modified feat[edit]

This feat is inspired by Acrobatic Strike, although better balanced IMHO. I'm not sure whether that makes it OGL or GNU. Please add any appropriate citations. Constructive comments are also welcome. --Cúthalion 22:00, 5 February 2007 (MST)

GNU FDL (Gnu Free Documentation license) vs OGL (Open Game License). OGL can be used on this site however if you do such a thing it cannot be changed henceforth, even though you are the author. The OGL is restrictive and not that good compared to the GNU FDL (everything that is not OGL on this site is licensed under the GNU FDL). The GNU FDL simply says "Do what you want just make sure to keep it under the GNU FDL" which can lead to people stealing material and posting it as their own, however it grants more freedom to edit which I think it important. If you really want you can have this to be under the OGL, however you will never be able to change it again. Would you like me to change the license on this to the OGL? --Green Dragon 12:11, 7 February 2007 (MST)
Certainly not! I just wasn't sure what the legal requirements are for basing stuff on OGL stuff. I want to give credit where credit is due. --Cúthalion 12:17, 7 February 2007 (MST)
Oh... I see. --Green Dragon 12:39, 7 February 2007 (MST)

Repeated redundancy[edit]

That header line is redundant, isn't it? Oh, well. --Cúthalion 12:52, 7 February 2007 (MST)

It is, but thats how it is on every feat, and it has grown on me... --Green Dragon 13:10, 7 February 2007 (MST)

Feat Mechanics[edit]

I like the concept of this feat, however, on first read, the mechanics seem a bit muddled. Perhaps it is just a matter of verbiage.

I think the requirements (more ranks of Tumble and the Acrobatic feat) are good. It moves the earliest you can take this feat up to 5th level (8 ranks).

Now if I understand it correctly, the intent is that the character using this feat must move to "activate" it. That's okay, but what if you don't want to move from your current location? Or maybe you can't really move from there and still reach the intended target? What if you are currently standing in an area of hampered movement and can't tumble? I get the impression that the intent is that the attacker flips, twists, and spins (or whatever) to essentially distract/confuse the target, then strikes. Does the attack really have to move from their current location to do that? If the intent was to require the attack to be mobile, that's fine, I think that it should be more explicitly stated. If not, that's fine as well. Either way, some clarification on the wording could help.

I'm not sure why it is an opposed Tumble Check. Or perhaps I'm just thinking about all of the character with no ranks in Tumble (it is a trained only check). If you have no ranks in Tumble do you make a Dexterity check? Perhaps it should be worded that the attacker makes a Tumble check and the defender makes a Dexterity check and adds their BAB and any ranks or bonuses they have to Tumble. Or maybe it should read the defender makes a Tumble check and adds their BAB and if they have no ranks in Tumble, they make a Dexterity check and add their BAB. I have no problem with the rolls being made, I'm just thinking of making the wording flow more clearly.

From that point out, the feat reads well. I think it is a really cool feat! --Skwyd 12:20, 21 September 2007 (MDT)

Skwyd -- thanks for the suggestions. Is this better? Feel free to edit as you deem appropriate. –Cúthalion (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2007 (MDT)
I like it!--Skwyd 10:25, 24 September 2007 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!