| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something I have wondered about for a long time. Why are the feats dodge, mobility, and spring attack the prerequisites for Whirlwind Attack? They seem counter intuitive. The feat chain is about moving around and attacking but the capstone is a feat that's all about planting your feet and not moving at all.
It just seems to me to be a feat tax for the hell of it. To just slow you down from getting it and gimping the concept a little. It seems to me that Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave should be the prerequisites. They fit the theme and provide better use overall. To be honest though I don't think it needs all that many prerequisites to begin with.
It feels like it's a hold over from 3.5 that didn't get fixed.
I'm guessing it's originally intended to be used by rogues with access to greater invisivility or just crazy good iniative. AI: "I stab this guy on a surprise round and if I win iniative, I'll use whirlwind to sneak attack all the other enemies next to me." But then again a polearm master can use it to get a lot more out of it. By changin reach in the middle of a full-round attack.
Let's file it under 'rogues aren't that effective' and house rule it? :)
I'm guessing it's originally intended to be used by rogues with access to greater invisivility or just crazy good iniative. AI: "I stab this guy on a surprise round and if I win iniative, I'll use whirlwind to sneak attack all the other enemies next to me." But then again a polearm master can use it to get a lot more out of it. By changin reach in the middle of a full-round attack.
Let's file it under 'rogues aren't that effective' and house rule it? :)
I'm not talking about who it's good for. I'm talking about the logic behind the feat prerequisites. They just don't seem to make any sense.
That's some heavy prerequisites there. Four feats and 13 Int... but only +4 BAB?
I'd say you don't need to be THAT smart to figure it out, but more skilled to pull it of. And I fully agree that the prerequisite feats don't make sense. With those prerequisites it sounds more like it should have the effect of Dervish Dancer's Dance of Fury.More fitting prerequisites would be (as you said) Cleave and Greater Cleave and like a +10 BAB. And probably 13/15 (if not more) Str and not 13 Int.
+10 BAB is far too much. By that time you'd probably be better off just single targeting and trying to remove individual threats quickly especially considering you don't often find yourself surrounded by a lot of lesser threats.
It is heavily feat taxed because the feat give martial a diferent option, and 3.x like to tax martial options that are not standard full attacks. There is not much more to say about it really.
A lot of feats, especially combat feats, have pointless feat taxes that don't actually apply to the feat. I made a thread on another one a long time ago. I think those feat taxes have been on whirlwind attack since 3.0 haven't they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I second houseruling Whirlwind to be built off great cleave instead of spring attack
I always figured it was because those feats stacked together to build a barbarian from Diablo 2...
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is how the logic works:
1. Fighters don't get many class features, but they get a LOT of feats.
2. I want to make stuff for the Fighter specifically, but I don't want to label a feat as "Fighter only," then I'll feel silly when people ask "why didn't you just make it a class feature?"
3. How can I effectively make this Fighter-only, without explicitly saying so?
4. I know! By giving it a crap ton of horrible prerequisite feats so no one else wants to take it or even *can* for a long, long time. The Fighter harnesses his one real class feature to get the feat no one else can! Victory! *Final Fantasy victory fanfare starts playing*
5. Of course, that now means I've effectively taken away the fighter's one true class feature by making him throw most of it in the garbage, but hey...my brain shut off as soon as the fanfare hit, so not my problem any more.
Seriously. That's the logic.
I second houseruling Whirlwind to be built off great cleave instead of spring attack
How about just setting it at the BAB you think is appropriate and taking out all the other requirements, instead of lathering on your own crop of worthless pre-req feats. Hell, I'd *rather* have Dodge and Spring Attack and need Expertise for Imp. Trip anyway. While as I want nothing to do w/ the entire cleave line aside from Power Attack. So your idea's actually impressively worse.
I second houseruling Whirlwind to be built off great cleave instead of spring attackHow about just setting it at the BAB you think is appropriate and taking out all the other requirements, instead of lathering on your own crop of worthless pre-req feats. Hell, I'd *rather* have Dodge and Spring Attack and need Expertise for Imp. Trip anyway. While as I want nothing to do w/ the entire cleave line aside from Power Attack. So your idea's actually impressively worse.
Really, how is it worse? Sure you may like having all those feats anyway. But others have already pointed how a number of mobility based feats makes no sense as requirements for a stationary attack.
On the other hand, hitting harder -> hitting 2 targets in one swing -> attacking everything in your reach doesn't sound like a better progression?
On the other hand, hitting harder -> hitting 2 targets in one swing -> attacking everything in your reach doesn't sound like a better progression?
Makes sense when you put it that way, but look at the action economy and all the extra wording in the whirlwind feat. Besides, its probably best when you don't have any of those unrelated feat prerequisites.
How about just setting it at the BAB you think is appropriate and taking out all the other requirements, instead of lathering on your own crop of worthless pre-req feats. Hell, I'd *rather* have Dodge and Spring Attack and need Expertise for Imp. Trip anyway. While as I want nothing to do w/ the entire cleave line aside from Power Attack. So your idea's actually impressively worse.
I wasn't talking about houseruling to cleave chain or anything like that. I was merely stating that it made more sense for them to be the prerequisites.
I do see the logic in your previous statement though. The feat tax is to slow fighters down which kind of goes against the whole point of the fighter class. They're supposed to be flexible and do a ton of stuff through feats but they have to kind of wade through the crap to get anything interesting.
I'm starting to wonder if the game would be so bad without all the feat tax.
|
I actually like having Spring Attack+Whirlwind Attack. The first is good for a squishy character v. a single-boss encounter. Such as a Rogue in a single attack encounter. The other is great when there are a bunch of mooks that need to be cleared, as it lets you take HP away from all of them. They are meant to give different options to a martial character [well, the same option in different ways anyway]. Unfortunately, if you are in fact a Martial PC without 6 levels of spellcasting, options are taxed heavily and often.
I actually like having Spring Attack+Whirlwind Attack. The first is good for a squishy character v. a single-boss encounter. Such as a Rogue in a single attack encounter. The other is great when there are a bunch of mooks that need to be cleared, as it lets you take HP away from all of them. They are meant to give different options to a martial character [well, the same option in different ways anyway]. Unfortunately, if you are in fact a Martial PC without 6 levels of spellcasting, options are taxed heavily and often.
Until this thread I hadn't even heard of rogues who took whirlwind attack much less seen one. Is it more common than I would have guessed? You're the second person to mention it.
Y'know, can't you use Whirlwind Attack with a whip?
I'm envisioning a whip fighter being surrounded by twenty-four attackers and tripping every single one. It's a bit awesome.
|
|
I actually like having Spring Attack+Whirlwind Attack. The first is good for a squishy character v. a single-boss encounter. Such as a Rogue in a single attack encounter. The other is great when there are a bunch of mooks that need to be cleared, as it lets you take HP away from all of them. They are meant to give different options to a martial character [well, the same option in different ways anyway]. Unfortunately, if you are in fact a Martial PC without 6 levels of spellcasting, options are taxed heavily and often.Until this thread I hadn't even heard of rogues who took whirlwind attack much less seen one. Is it more common than I would have guessed? You're the second person to mention it.
I've never played a Whirlwind Attack rogue. I've seen lots rogues with Spring Attack though, due to some stealth shenanigans.
Y'know, can't you use Whirlwind Attack with a whip?
I'm envisioning a whip fighter being surrounded by twenty-four attackers and tripping every single one. It's a bit awesome.
I... I....
OK, I have my new rogue character getting new feats now...
And...like many other things, Bard does it better. Doesn't need to blow a feat or Ancestral Arms racial feature to get whip proficiency.
I'd suggest Archaeologist for a true Indiana Jones build.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, can't you use Whirlwind Attack with a whip?
I'm envisioning a whip fighter being surrounded by twenty-four attackers and tripping every single one. It's a bit awesome.
I... I....
OK, I have my new rogue character getting new feats now...
And...like many other things, Bard does it better. Doesn't need to blow a feat or Ancestral Arms racial feature to get whip proficiency.
I'd suggest Archaeologist for a true Indiana Jones build.
Aw, hell... *Waves broom* Shoo! Go on, clear off! Git! Back to the rules threads wit' ye!
They be gettin' bold, straying so far from their home. Further every year. Lock the doors tonight, lads. The Off Topic Rogue Bashers may seem harmless now, but in numbers...
*Shudders, rubbing stump of severed leg*
Maybe even neatly merging some of the cleave and whirlwind feats.
Alternatively, make some sort of merge between whirlwind and Bladed Dash.
If Bladed Dash was a feat and not a spell it would be great as a replacement for whirlwind and it would make sense. Then of course you would have to get rid of Combat Expertise and the whole feat tax thing wouldn't be so bad. If this feat "Bladed Dash" was worded right to include arrows it would work perfectly with a friend's Archer who took the Skirmisher from 3.5. This "bladed dash" would be interesting to add to her character.
I'd say that at least Spring Attack should be replaced with Combat Reflexes, or maybe Skill Focus (acrobatics). The others aren't all that bad a feat tax, since Mobility and Dodge both come in real handy for someone aiming to get himself surrounded by enemies, but Spring Attack is just silly.
So, for prerequisites, how about Dodge, Mobility, Combat Reflexes and either Combat Expertise, Improved Initiative or Skill Focus (acrobatics)? These are all feats that should be plenty useful for the user, so I don't think that it's any sort of nerf. It's just, well, an expensive feat.
Lunge might make a handy feat to have with this, incidentally. Imagine having that with a Whip, eh?
Also: Seriously, what the flip is up with Combat Expertise? Is it really useful at all?
I'd say that at least Spring Attack should be replaced with Combat Reflexes, or maybe Skill Focus (acrobatics).
What does making AoO's and what do suicidal tendancies have to do with attacking everyone in reach as a full round action?
Also: Seriously, what the flip is up with Combat Expertise? Is it really useful at all?
Combat Expertise is there simply because it seems to be Pathfinders favorite feat tax.
Has anybody ever tried to make Combat Expertise...not terrible? It seems very hard to do without making it grossly OP, but right now it's...well, dumb.
Combat Reflexes indicates being able to attack really, really fast. In addition, it helps when your enemies start trying to run away and find they're all threatened by you.
Sure, it's tangential, but less tangential than many options. It wouldn't break anything if the feat tax was reduced to Dodge, Mobility, and Improved Initiative, though. Three simple, useful feats that relate to speed.
Alternatively, Weapon Focus, and require the attacker to use the specific weapon when doing their whirlwind.
Combat Expertise is actually really good. The only thing that makes it awkward is the INT requirement. I wouldn't mind seeing it removed.
Combat expertise is a boring but practical feat, though its value changes heavily with class/level because of the value of attack vs. AC. Sucks that its required for so much that has nothing to do with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Expertise was never good, and the Int requirement has always been annoying, but IMP it was PF's change to combat maneuvers where they're all attacks (and suffer attack penalties) is what made it officially terrible. In 3E, you could at least use Expertise and still trip or grapple people just fine (you had a touch attack, but seriously...touch AC is a joke).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a great fix for combat expertise: Remove it as prerequisite for every feat that have nothing to do with fighting defensively, done, the game get just improved by a lot.
There is a great fix for combat expertise: Remove it as prerequisite for every feat that have nothing to do with fighting defensively, done, the game get just improved by a lot.
Isn't that pretty much all of them? I don't think I can't think of a feat that requires you to be using combat expertise off the top of my head. I can actually think of ones that make fighting defensively better that don't require it though.
If you started to remove every feat prereq that didn't have to do with the actual feat you'd have a long list. I bet the book would have a much smaller word count...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This? This here? This is why game designers shouldn't do NaNoWriMo.
|
I think combat expertise should do something else. I feel having that prerequisite feat there helps keep the feat tax on ALL combat maneuvers the same (bull rush needs power attack, for example). If combat expertise did something else, like increase attack, a flat bonus to AC (without giving up attack), or even a flat +2 bonus to CMD.
It's a never used feat that is required for so many different things, and I think that's dumb O.o
Power Attack barely even counts as a prereq. Anyone who's taking Improved Bull Rush would be taking Power Attack.
Though a finesse-focused shoving master could be fun.
There is a great fix for combat expertise: Remove it as prerequisite for every feat that have nothing to do with fighting defensively, done, the game get just improved by a lot.Isn't that pretty much all of them? I don't think I can't think of a feat that requires you to be using combat expertise off the top of my head. I can actually think of ones that make fighting defensively better that don't require it though.
There are ones that trnasform the combat expertise bonus to DR.
I always wondered why combat expertise wasn't -1/+2 like power attack.
There are ones that trnasform the combat expertise bonus to DR.
Erm, stalwart what your thinking of? That one doesn't actually require combat expertise. Diehard and Endurance though! Because you know, the ability to sleep in armor is totally related... I guess.
There are ones that trnasform the combat expertise bonus to DR.Erm, stalwart what your thinking of? That one doesn't actually require combat expertise. Diehard and Endurance though! Because you know, the ability to sleep in armor is totally related... I guess.
Lol, you are right. Yeah, that totally make sense.
Power Attack barely even counts as a prereq. Anyone who's taking Improved Bull Rush would be taking Power Attack.
Indeed. I've never had a martial character without power attack. I've had quite a few with combat expertise (to pay the feat tax of course) but I don't think I've ever used it. I'm certain there are situations where it can be useful, but typically being more offensive is better than being more defensive. I also have no idea what being more defensive has to do with tripping someone.
You know, I can understand the idea of feat chains in some cases. Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack for instance. Each is giving something worthwhile and building up to something more. Others just don't make any sense than other to eat up feats. It feels like bad design.
I don't mean to say that I think the Pathfinder guys are bad at design, but I feel like maybe they're holding too tightly on to some of the old school design principles from 3rd edition. There's no need to hold back or handcuff martial characters. Why make someone take 3 feats to get something cool when 1 would do? 1 of the standard 10 feats that a character gets is already a hefty investment. Why make 3 separate feats, such as the Vital Strike line or Two Weapon Fighting line, when one feat that scaled would have sufficed?
Imagine a spell caster having to learn the same spell more than once to have it deal extra dice in damage or effect more targets.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me, I'm still annoyed a race noted for its singing talents has to keep the -2 Charisma. And gets to stay non-Chaotic and with average Wisdom despite its members constantly being described as "b~%&&@+ insane".
I blame James Jacobs. But kobolds blame that guy for everything, including Cosmo. We don't forgive not being included as a Core race easily.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've houseruled CE to give a +2 dodge rather than +1, per -1 penalty. In addition, the Int requirement is dropped.
All feats that previously required CE and Int 13 now require CE or Int 13. CE is sort of remedial training for dumb fighters.
Smart fighters save on a feat. I think the game should include more ways to reward smart fighters, rather than punish dumb ones.