Rapid Assault ToB question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Rapid Assault ToB question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
leif008
09-13-07, 03:20 AM Am I wrong in thinking that you get the +1d6 damage to melee attacks made in round #1 of combat and ALSO the surprise round?

Example: An elf wizard rounds a corner, fails his spot check to notice a human rogue about to strike. The rogue gets a surprise round (attack) + 1d6 (rapid assault), then initiative is rolled and the rogue attacks again for another +1d6 rapid (assault).

Or in this case is the surprise round "the first round of combat"? Meaning round #1 is actually #2 and therefore carries no bonus damage.
Majick
09-13-07, 03:31 AM The surprise round as far as i am concerned is not technically the first round of combat. Because you don't HAVE to kill or maim anyone just because you surprised them. When combat starts (by my standards) is when initiative is rolled. I would allow surprise round and 1st round of combat
Crispy_Spellthief
09-13-07, 06:41 PM I cant help that think the extra damage only results in the first round of combatk post initiative roll. But thats mainly cause the way I see it, the extra damage requires a bit of extra positioning of that initial attack, and a "suprise round" means such a quick attack that they cant monitor in that extra damage. But thats just me.
Thespianus
05-10-08, 03:00 AM Sorry for raising a dead thread, but the phrasing of the Feat is odd.

If the "first round of combat" always start with the monsters and the PCs separated by (say) 70 feet of space, the feat would be almost useless.

If it can be houseruled to mean "The first round of melee combat for the character with the feat", then it would be quite a different ballgame, I believe.

I'll check with my DM about this. It does seem like a nice feat if I can get a friendly ruling ;)
mplindustries
05-10-08, 03:23 AM It is indeed "first round." So, no, if you're 70' away and can't get there in time, the feat sucks. Actually, the feat kind of does suck all around. Its one of the worst from the Tome of Battle.

As far as the original question goes, you can interpret it RAW in one of two ways:

1) The surprise round is the first round, because it doesn't specify "first full round," so an attack in the surprise round gets the +1d6. However, that means the first full round is not actually the "first round," so it does not get any damage bonus.

2) The surprise round is not the "first round" because it is a separate entity entirely. Thus, you get no bonus damage. Instead, you get the +1d6 to the turn after the surprise round, because it is the "first round."

There is no way by RAW that you can get the bonus damage to both the surprise round and another, but you could get it to either one, as long as you're consistant.

Of course, the feat is so weak anyway, its perfectly reasonable to houserule that the surprise round and the first round both count.

Changing it to "the first round of melee combat," however, would be awkward at best, and more likely unworkable.
Thespianus
05-10-08, 05:57 AM Changing it to "the first round of melee combat," however, would be awkward at best, and more likely unworkable.
I'm sorry for sounding ignorant, but.. how would that be awkward?

I don't have a lot of 3.5 D&D experience when it comes to actual PnP gaming (More AD&D and other PnP systems), so I might be missing something obvious...
EjoThims
05-10-08, 07:42 AM Well, firstly, you have to track the first round of melee combat for everyone involved.

And if you have never before attacked a creature that is involved elsewhere in the combat, when you attack it for the first time, is it the first round of that melee? And when does combat end and begin again?

If you and your opponent stop and are circling/staring for 5 rounds? 30 rounds? 200 rounds? Are you still in combat? And then, if that changes things, what if you spend 5 rounds, 30 rounds, 200 rounds without engaging in melee, but still fighting elsewhere?

What if a new enemy enters? Or a new ally? Does it count as the first round of combat for them? The first round of combat against them?

The original feat is both underpowered and poorly written enough... Adding another set of complications onto it is just burdensome.
Thespianus
05-10-08, 07:51 AM You're right, I didn't think of the practical game aspects. My bad. :embarrass

I tend to focus on the effect the feat would have on the characters, not how it will play in practicality. Stoopid me. ;) I'll soon get the hang of this, though :)
EjoThims
05-10-08, 08:09 AM All good. :D

'Combat' being such a generic term is really the source of the problem, here and in other circumstances.

Per encounter stuff is a little simpler, since it's easier to define an encounter as just continuing until it's over. Still eyeing your opponent? Still talking with the duke? Still throwing insults around the corner? Still creeping around in case it sees you again? Probably still the same encounter.

Rules that rely on a vague idea of something, rather than other rules and definitions, are always hard to judge, especially when you're changing or adding new abilities in.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
leif008 09-13-07, 03:20 AM	Am I wrong in thinking that you get the +1d6 damage to melee attacks made in round #1 of combat and ALSO the surprise round? Example: An elf wizard rounds a corner, fails his spot check to notice a human rogue about to strike. The rogue gets a surprise round (attack) + 1d6 (rapid assault), then initiative is rolled and the rogue attacks again for another +1d6 rapid (assault). Or in this case is the surprise round "the first round of combat"? Meaning round #1 is actually #2 and therefore carries no bonus damage.
Majick 09-13-07, 03:31 AM	The surprise round as far as i am concerned is not technically the first round of combat. Because you don't HAVE to kill or maim anyone just because you surprised them. When combat starts (by my standards) is when initiative is rolled. I would allow surprise round and 1st round of combat
Crispy_Spellthief 09-13-07, 06:41 PM	I cant help that think the extra damage only results in the first round of combatk post initiative roll. But thats mainly cause the way I see it, the extra damage requires a bit of extra positioning of that initial attack, and a "suprise round" means such a quick attack that they cant monitor in that extra damage. But thats just me.
Thespianus 05-10-08, 03:00 AM	Sorry for raising a dead thread, but the phrasing of the Feat is odd. If the "first round of combat" always start with the monsters and the PCs separated by (say) 70 feet of space, the feat would be almost useless. If it can be houseruled to mean "The first round of melee combat for the character with the feat", then it would be quite a different ballgame, I believe. I'll check with my DM about this. It does seem like a nice feat if I can get a friendly ruling ;)
mplindustries 05-10-08, 03:23 AM	It is indeed "first round." So, no, if you're 70' away and can't get there in time, the feat sucks. Actually, the feat kind of does suck all around. Its one of the worst from the Tome of Battle. As far as the original question goes, you can interpret it RAW in one of two ways: 1) The surprise round is the first round, because it doesn't specify "first full round," so an attack in the surprise round gets the +1d6. However, that means the first full round is not actually the "first round," so it does not get any damage bonus. 2) The surprise round is not the "first round" because it is a separate entity entirely. Thus, you get no bonus damage. Instead, you get the +1d6 to the turn after the surprise round, because it is the "first round." There is no way by RAW that you can get the bonus damage to both the surprise round and another, but you could get it to either one, as long as you're consistant. Of course, the feat is so weak anyway, its perfectly reasonable to houserule that the surprise round and the first round both count. Changing it to "the first round of melee combat," however, would be awkward at best, and more likely unworkable.
Thespianus 05-10-08, 05:57 AM	Changing it to "the first round of melee combat," however, would be awkward at best, and more likely unworkable. I'm sorry for sounding ignorant, but.. how would that be awkward? I don't have a lot of 3.5 D&D experience when it comes to actual PnP gaming (More AD&D and other PnP systems), so I might be missing something obvious...
EjoThims 05-10-08, 07:42 AM	Well, firstly, you have to track the first round of melee combat for everyone involved. And if you have never before attacked a creature that is involved elsewhere in the combat, when you attack it for the first time, is it the first round of that melee? And when does combat end and begin again? If you and your opponent stop and are circling/staring for 5 rounds? 30 rounds? 200 rounds? Are you still in combat? And then, if that changes things, what if you spend 5 rounds, 30 rounds, 200 rounds without engaging in melee, but still fighting elsewhere? What if a new enemy enters? Or a new ally? Does it count as the first round of combat for them? The first round of combat against them? The original feat is both underpowered and poorly written enough... Adding another set of complications onto it is just burdensome.
Thespianus 05-10-08, 07:51 AM	You're right, I didn't think of the practical game aspects. My bad. :embarrass I tend to focus on the effect the feat would have on the characters, not how it will play in practicality. Stoopid me. ;) I'll soon get the hang of this, though :)
EjoThims 05-10-08, 08:09 AM	All good. :D 'Combat' being such a generic term is really the source of the problem, here and in other circumstances. Per encounter stuff is a little simpler, since it's easier to define an encounter as just continuing until it's over. Still eyeing your opponent? Still talking with the duke? Still throwing insults around the corner? Still creeping around in case it sees you again? Probably still the same encounter. Rules that rely on a vague idea of something, rather than other rules and definitions, are always hard to judge, especially when you're changing or adding new abilities in.