Talk:Combat School (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

	Fluffykittens opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	The balance level of the granted abilities +0: Moderate +1: Moderate +6: Very high +11: Broken (as in, snaps game balance in half) +16: High

	Surgo is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	It's a reasonable replacement for all of those ridiculous weapon style feats from Complete Warrior (which is exactly what it was intended to replace -- a note for everyone else reading this page), it's just not a particularly interesting replacement.

Quey opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

I can see disliking weapon focus/specialization. I understand making scaling feats. But this is just no. One feat should not take the place of multiple feats and class features, but most of all, taking 10 on attack rolls is just bleh. Why would a combat school teach its experts to avoid critical hits? Also, the plethora of random terms ("signature fighting moves", "fighting style", "special techniques") is unnecessary at best, and confusing at the worst.

	DanielDraco opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	The +6 ability catapults what is otherwise a rather meh feat into the realm of the borked. Totally unusable.

Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.

It's fine that the +0 and +1 abilities aren't amazing, because Fighters and Barbarians were already useful in combat at level 1 anyways. Okay, I guess all of the abilities tend to make your character more boring rather than less, actually. Not necessarily as an opponent, but "when you get next to one or more people, you can beat them up until they fall unconscious" is not an exciting addition to a melee character's repertoire.

	Tarkisflux is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	It's a strong feat, sure, but it's not too strong for its balance. I don't particularly like it because it's trying to cram the benefits of lots of disparate styles into 1 feat progression, but it's not something I'd feel bad about letting into a game.

Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

I normally don't touch these feats due to personal bias about Tome and its philosophy. +0 and +1, I don't care other than it's soooo vague. But +6 gets me. Dazing is not something to hand out so easily. I wouldn't give it to fighters OR casters at whim. The few Daze spells I know, like Daze monster, only work because of the hard HD cap which relegates them to uselessness. I concur with LD here. (EDIT) Actually 11's a problem too. Taking 10... cool, in moderation. Like the cool ToB stance. Taking 10 forever? Not at 11th, no sir.

	Leziad dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	+0 and +1 are not worth it VH statue. +6 is powerful but made broken since the wording is vaguer than a puff of smoke. +11 is just bad, I should not have to tell why it bad. +16 is cool, but too little too late. This feat is bad.

Dazing

At worst, you could always take Mark of the Dauntless and become immune to the majority of what this feat does... Suddenly all the monsters you ever face have it!! lol --Ghostwheel 09:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

But they don't all have it when you get Dazing Strike for some reason?

Combat school has gotten a lot of well deserved hate over the years. The dazing ability in particular has been harped on at length, because being able to whack a guy in combat over and over again until his is dazed is not cool. When Frank finally clarified the intent of the feat to "1 chance to daze a target per round, no matter how many times you hit them" a lot of that went away. For good reason I think. The +6 line of this feat is only slightly stronger than Dazing Strike. The save DC is the same, but you get it a few levels earlier, can do it every round instead of less than that, and can do it to multiple people in a round if you happen to be close to enough of them. If you're in a one-on-one fight, you get a few extra chances to land the hit and deal some extra damage, but they still only have to make one save. Is that good? Yes, very, but it's also a higher balance than the strike so some of that should be expected.

And while I'm here, the referred to stance lets you take 11 on a single d20 attack roll, saving throw, or skill check in the round. It's granted at the same level as the +11 ability here. Reducing to take 10, restricting to attack rolls only, and letting you have all of them seems like a relatively minor change that is certainly justified by the higher balance.

So I don't think it's too strong for the balance level and worth a dislike or oppose for those reasosn, but that's a matter of opinion I guess. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)