Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Degobah 12-29-04, 07:08 PM	I was recently looking at Whirlwind Attack and thought what it would be like if, just for entertainment's sake, every character got it as a bonus feat instead of gaining extra attacks from BAB. That is instead of a character getting a 2nd, 3rd and 4th attack for free as they went up level, they would gain whirlwind attack instead at +6 BAB, and if they wanted iterative attacks they would instead have to buy them with feats. I.e. 2nd attack would be a feat requiring +6 BAB, 3rd attack would be a feat requiring +11 BAB, and 4th attack would require a +16 BAB as a prerequisite. What would happen to game balance? Since a Whirlwind character is better at multiple opponents and a Full Attack fighter is better at a single opponent, they might even be balanced against each other- so a character could just choose what sort of multiple attacks they wanted at 1st level.
siege72 12-30-04, 10:58 AM	I was recently looking at Whirlwind Attack and thought what it would be like if, just for entertainment's sake, every character got it as a bonus feat instead of gaining extra attacks from BAB. That is instead of a character getting a 2nd, 3rd and 4th attack for free as they went up level, they would gain whirlwind attack instead at +6 BAB, and if they wanted iterative attacks they would instead have to buy them with feats. I.e. 2nd attack would be a feat requiring +6 BAB, 3rd attack would be a feat requiring +11 BAB, and 4th attack would require a +16 BAB as a prerequisite. What would happen to game balance? Since a Whirlwind character is better at multiple opponents and a Full Attack fighter is better at a single opponent, they might even be balanced against each other- so a character could just choose what sort of multiple attacks they wanted at 1st level. Flanking would lose a lot of value, since anyone with a second attack can hit both attackers with the full BAB. If you're going to use that variant, is there any reason to keep the flanking rules? Power attack becomes a lot more potent too, because characters still have a much better chance of hitting on the second and third attack. A weapon with special magical properties (keen and wounding) would be much more effective than a simple "plus". In fact, you might want to raise the cost of magical energy or bane properties ("+1d6 or +2d6 damage"), since characters are more likely to hit now.
Degobah 12-31-04, 04:09 AM	Hmm. I hadn't considered the flanking aspect. Flanking is actually a bad idea on anyone with Whirlwind Attack (unless you're a rogue), since the more people who crowd around someone, the more attacks an opponent can make. I think I like that, actually: I find it annoying the way my players always use "Space Marine Tactics" and try to focus the entire party's firepower on one enemy until they drop. This way the melee would likely end up as several one-on-one fights. Adjust it to combine it with Facing and interesting stuff happens, too: it actually starts to look like the regular attack system since attacks on attacks on foes adjacent to the main enemy take about a -4 penalty.
Fiendish Banana Golem 01-01-05, 03:08 AM	Hmm. I hadn't considered the flanking aspect. Flanking is actually a bad idea on anyone with Whirlwind Attack (unless you're a rogue), since the more people who crowd around someone, the more attacks an opponent can make. I think I like that, actually: I find it annoying the way my players always use "Space Marine Tactics" and try to focus the entire party's firepower on one enemy until they drop. This way the melee would likely end up as several one-on-one fights. Adjust it to combine it with Facing and interesting stuff happens, too: it actually starts to look like the regular attack system since attacks on attacks on foes adjacent to the main enemy take about a -4 penalty. Are you kidding me? You hate that you've got smart players that actually use good, effective tactics, instead of a group of gloryhounds who want to look impressive so don't even bother focusing fire?