|
I got two dwarf bodyguards (Dragon Mag issue 310)who took the phalanx fightign feat. To me, it seems that feat would only work from foes that are within 5' of each fighter, but it does not say that in the feat. Does that sound fair? You couldn't possibly give a shield bonus against a guy on the other side of your fighting bud...in fact, I think it would only work vs foes directly in front of the two teammates...
I got two dwarf bodyguards (Dragon Mag issue 310)who took the phalanx fightign feat. To me, it seems that feat would only work from foes that are within 5' of each fighter, but it does not say that in the feat. Does that sound fair? You couldn't possibly give a shield bonus against a guy on the other side of your fighting bud...in fact, I think it would only work vs foes directly in front of the two teammates...
First of all, there is no facing in 3e, so the phrase "foes directly in front of the two teammates" is gibberish. Which direction is their "front"?
Second, the Phalanx Fighting feat does not grant a shield bonus to AC; the bonus to AC is unnamed.
Third, even if the bonus to AC were a shield bonus, there is nothing that would prevent one from giving it "against a guy on the other side of your fighting bud."
Lastly, no, the feat does not work only "from foes that are within 5' of each fighter." As you note, the feat doesn't say that, and there is no reason to think that it should work that way. Also, given that Phalanx Fighting is a moderately sucky feat, it would not be "fair" to rule that it does.
Phalanxes (not sure if that's the correct way to make the word plural) and shield walls and such are a classic staple of military strategy and maneuvers, and I don't think it makes since to put it as a feat. Wasnt that in the Complete Warrior, too? I don't have a subscription to Dragon, nor do I own the CW, so I don't remember what (if any) prerequisites the feats have, but I just don't like the thought. I guess I just like giving soldiers weapon focus and such, and the thought that if I give them that, most aren't high enough level to also know how to form a phalanx or shield wall bothers me.
This is why I propose a new skill: Knowledge (tactics). Various combat maneuvers are given various DCs, and someone acts as a group leader. The leader would have had to train with the group for a minimum amount of time, or may have to have a certain number of ranks in the new skill, or something like that. Anyway, the leader makes the roll, and if he succeeds, everyone in his group sucessfully pulls off the formation and gets the benefits. This is also a great way to resolve mass battles. The modifier represents army leadership, and the roll represents all the random aspects such as terrain, weather, etc.
Phalax walls were a staple of Greek and Roman fighting (well the Romans copied it from the Greeks along with most of their other culture at the time), but is not much use in fighting today. But I do have to agreen with Saern and say that I don't think that someone should have to waste a feat slot for this. Tactics should not be feats but I don't think that you should have to spend skill points on it either. I feel that if a characte has a high enough intelligence then he/she can come up with good tactics that can help keep the characters alive. However, that being said, if a player wanted to spend points to raise this a Knowledge: Tactics or perhaps Military would help out. As a DM, I have had to think about whether or not a low intelligence creature could come up with anything greater than a mass charge (like most goblins would do). So I believe that it's all about the intelligence of the character, not about feats or skills.
A bit from my Hoarde
Phalax walls were a staple of Greek and Roman fighting (well the Romans copied it from the Greeks along with most of their other culture at the time), but is not much use in fighting today.
No? Ever seen riot police in action? Or received any training on crowd control? Anyway, I don't think that the feat is designed to simulate basic knowledge of forming a shield wall. Any PC with shield proficiency should be able to do that. Rather, like the Weapon Focus feat, it simulates advanced training in defensive warfare. If your PCs (or their enemies) wish to simulate real-world tactics on the field of battle, you're well within the rules if you give them a +1 or +2 circumstance bonus for the combat resolution.
|
Phalanxes (not sure if that's the correct way to make the word plural)
The proper plural of Phalanx is Phalanxes or Phalanges. Either is correct, although Phalanxes is usually used to describe the military aspect.
For what it's worth, I also think the the feat is "moderately sucky" and think that using Knowledge: Tactics (or Military) would be a better way to implement it.