Mobility

[Eldren]

I can´t found mobility in the feat chapter. I have read that whirlwind attack has it as a prerequisite. Has mobility been lost from the feat chapter???
I know that barbarians, pirates & nomads gain mobility as a class ability at 5 level. Their are the only ones that can gain whirwind attack and do devastating Sweep if there is not a mobility feat then.

 

[Murte]

I can´t found mobility in the feat chapter. I have read that whirlwind attack has it as a prerequisite. Has mobility been lost from the feat chapter???
I know that barbarians, pirates & nomads gain mobility as a class ability at 5 level. Their are the only ones that can gain whirwind attack and do devastating Sweep if there is not a mobility feat then.

You are correct only Barbs, Pirates and Nomads of at least 5th level get Mobility. Which I know you are thinking is odd because Whirlwind Attack appears on the Soldiers bonus feat list. It is in the spirit of multi-classing I guess.

 

[Bombaatu]

This is probably a typo of some sort, caused by cutting and pasting from the OGL.

There are a couple of ways to handle this:
1. Put the Mobility feat back in, and add it to the Soldier's bonus feat list.
2. Remove Whrilwind Attack from the Soldier's bonus feat list.

Of the two, I favor the first. If you do that, the class ability for Nobles, Barbarians and Pirates becomes "Gain the Mobility Feat for free". I would *not* allow the various Improved Mobilities as feats, tho - those should remain class features (IMHO - YMMV)

 

[Yuan-Ti]

This is probably a typo of some sort, caused by cutting and pasting from the OGL.

There are a couple of ways to handle this:
1. Put the Mobility feat back in, and add it to the Soldier's bonus feat list.
2. Remove Whrilwind Attack from the Soldier's bonus feat list.

Of the two, I favor the first. If you do that, the class ability for Nobles, Barbarians and Pirates becomes "Gain the Mobility Feat for free". I would *not* allow the various Improved Mobilities as feats, tho - those should remain class features (IMHO - YMMV)

I tend to agree, although I might argue that the Soldier can only get this feat after a character level of 5 or 6, so that a soldier cannot get Mobility before Barbarians can get it for free.

 

[argo]

I am perfectly happy with mobility as a class feature of Barbarians, pirates, and nomads. It emphasizes an important difference in their fighting styles compared to soldiers or nobles. Also, since everybody can Fight on the Run, I think that mobility should be more restricted less it become the feat that everybody just has to have.

So my soution is not to re-open mobility but to change the preprqs for Whirlwind
Whirlwind Attack
Preq: Int 13, Dex 13, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, BAB +4

Honestly; I never agreed with whirlwind being a fifth tier feat to begin with, its good but not that good. And I never understood what the ability to run past someone while dodging their blows had to do with the ability to stand still for a full round and swing your weapon in a big circle either. :roll: I think making it a third tier feat is more representitive of its power: once you hit itterative attacks it should still pale in comparison to ITWF or a power-attacker with Great Cleave. Just my two silver.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Whirlwind Attack
Preq: Int 13, Dex 13, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, BAB +4

Honestly; I never agreed with whirlwind being a fifth tier feat to begin with, its good but not that good. And I never understood what the ability to run past someone while dodging their blows had to do with the ability to stand still for a full round and swing your weapon in a big circle either. :roll: I think making it a third tier feat is more representitive of its power: once you hit itterative attacks it should still pale in comparison to ITWF or a power-attacker with Great Cleave. Just my two silver.

I think this is a good call - Whirlwind has such steep prereqs for such little benefit compared with ITWF and great cleave. The only time when it really shines is if you are surrounded by mooks (and the strong 2H weapon fighter will be cleaving through all those anyway). This gives an alternative for the intelligent dextrous fighters.

(I can't help wondering if in early 3e development whirlwind attack (then called "heroic fray") was more devastating, and it got scaled down in playtesting but without reducing the prereqs. I'll never know )

 

[Yokiboy]

So my soution is not to re-open mobility but to change the preprqs for Whirlwind
Whirlwind Attack
Preq: Int 13, Dex 13, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, BAB +4

I am also of the opinion that Mobility should be kept as a Class Ability rather than become a Feat, and I really like your slimmed down list of prerequisites for the Whirlwind Attack, this has just been added to my list of house rules.

TTFN,

Yokiboy

 

[Bombaatu]

I have to disagree with the premise that Whirlwind Attack is "not that good". It allows you to make an attack against every foe within reach at your full attack bonus - this can be up to eight attacks! Considering how devastating a group attack can be against a single character, this is almost a "must-have" feat, particularly in solo-play or with a low number of PCs.

In retrospect, I have to agree with leaving Mobility off the feat list, but something needs to replace it in the prereqs. My suggestion is Weapon Focus, and only allow the WWA with the focused weapon.

I would also raise the BAB requirement to at least 6+: someone should have to be able to make multiple attacks in a round to take this feat.

SO: my alternate...
Whirlwind Attack
Prereq: Int 13, Dex 13, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Weapon Focus, BAB +6
Benefit: The character may, as a full-round action, make a single attack against every foe within reach of his weapon. The weapon used must be one the character has Weapon Focus in.[/b]

 

[Yokiboy]

I would also raise the BAB requirement to at least 6+: someone should have to be able to make multiple attacks in a round to take this feat.

This is a fine point, but remember that you only get one attack roll, so if you roll low you're bound to miss all your targets. I think it's a nice feat, but certainly not a must have feat.

TTFN,

Yokiboy

 

[Bombaatu]

This is a fine point, but remember that you only get one attack roll, so if you roll low you're bound to miss all your targets. I think it's a nice feat, but certainly not a must have feat.

This is not how I or my gaming group have ever interpreted this. Our reading of this is "you may make an attack against each target in range. Each target may only be attacked once". SO - if surrounded by 6 targets, you have 6 separate attack rolls. But you cannot, for instance, choose to ignore one target and instead atttack another one twice.

If there's an official FAQ out there somewhere that states otherwise, I've never seen it.

 

[Yokiboy]

This is not how I or my gaming group have ever interpreted this. Our reading of this is "you may make an attack against each target in range. Each target may only be attacked once". SO - if surrounded by 6 targets, you have 6 separate attack rolls. But you cannot, for instance, choose to ignore one target and instead atttack another one twice.

Benefit: When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

Bombaatu, I've always interpreted that mention of "one" to mean one attack roll, which is compared to each opponent's DV. Otherwise I see why you think the feat is overpowered. The fun thing with just one roll is that you can get unlucky and roll low, blowing any chance to hurt your foes. Otherwise, if you roll separately, why would you ever use a Full Attack Action, when you can at most hit 4 opponents, and have a lesser chance to do so?!

TTFN,

Yokiboy

 

[Bombaatu]

The reason you would use a Full Attack action would be to concentrate multiple attacks on the most dangerous foe facing you, rather than just one attack per opponent.

Rolling once vs rolling multiple times is not, IMO, what makes this feat overpowered as written - what does that is the potential number of opponents you could damage, not the number of times a die is rolled. As far as I'm concerned, you should have to be able to take multiple attacks in order to damage more than one opponent in melee combat.

As for the "one-roll"/"many-roll" question, the language is unclear and can support either interpretation equally. In the absence of an official ruling (and possibly even in the presence of one.. ), I'll go with the "many-roll" interpretation.

In the "one-roll" scenario, you could get a spectacular roll and hit all opponents just as easily as you could get a bad one and miss them all. As a general rule-of-thumb, most GMs (at least the ones I know) use a single set of stats for the "mook hordes" for easy bookkeeping. So, using the "one-roll" method, if you've hit one, you've most likely hit them all.

With the "many-roll" method, the law of averages takes over and you get a more even result - you *could* hit them all or miss them all, but it's more likely you'll hit some and miss some.

For myself, I prefer the more even, "law-of-averages" approach, but I can see where the "all-or-nothing" may be appealing, especially in the hard-and-fast combat of Conan. YMMV...

(And now I'll get off my soapbox, as I'm sure other board readers are getting tired of my ranting on the subject... 8) )

 

[Johannixx]

At least Conan doesn't have that stupid spiked chain to hose WWA even further.

Also, I never really saw WWA as holding your sword out and spinning like the Tasmanian devil, but rather a blinding series of slashes, thrusts and chops at anything in reach. After all, how could you use WWA with a spear by simply spinning around? I also tend to think that Cleave/Great Cleave should be left as viable options with WWA, as they're just entirely too appropriate to the Conan 'feel'.

 

[AZZA]

Bombaatu, I've always interpreted that mention of "one" to mean one attack roll, which is compared to each opponent's DV. Otherwise I see why you think the feat is overpowered. The fun thing with just one roll is that you can get unlucky and roll low, blowing any chance to hurt your foes. Otherwise, if you roll separately, why would you ever use a Full Attack Action, when you can at most hit 4 opponents, and have a lesser chance to do so?!

Hmmm. One attack roll heh? And its just like a normal attack. So if I get lucky and get a critical do I then critical everyone in my whirlwind attack?
When you use your full attack you can take your 5 step move between attacks. You can also trip, sunder, disarm etc. Whirlwind attack does say you can make one mellee attack against each opponent and as attack(melee) is listed specifically in the chart of standard actions I wouldnt have though you could do anything else with a whirlwind attack.
In standard d20 I think whirlwind attack is great. Your right you probably wouldn't make a full attack. But after spending so many feats to get to Whirlwind attack why would you? The trade off in standard is the feats you have to take to get there. Dodge, +1 vs one opponent, who might not even attack you. Spring attack, only useful if you've got a reach weapon and as I'm sure I've seen an errata somewhere on hwirlwind attack saying it can only be used agasint adjacent opponents, you can't use them together!
Aaron

 

[Yokiboy]

Hmmm. One attack roll heh? And its just like a normal attack. So if I get lucky and get a critical do I then critical everyone in my whirlwind attack?

This has not come up in my game, but I'd might ask for individual Crit Confirmation rolls, or if they're mooks anyways I might not care.

In standard d20 I think whirlwind attack is great. Your right you probably wouldn't make a full attack. But after spending so many feats to get to Whirlwind attack why would you? The trade off in standard is the feats you have to take to get there.

This is a good point, but I don't know if I want to play out 8 individual attack rolls, but perhaps I have been doing it incorrectly.

But Aaron, don't you agree that with a slimmed down Whirlwind Attack feat with fewer prerequisites, such as the one suggested by Argo, only allowing one To Hit roll will actually work quite well? Especially in Conan the RPG. In Conan I'd go with just one Crit confirmation roll too.

TTFN,

Yokiboy

 

[AZZA]

But Aaron, don't you agree that with a slimmed down Whirlwind Attack feat with fewer prerequisites, such as the one suggested by Argo, only allowing one To Hit roll will actually work quite well? Especially in Conan the RPG. In Conan I'd go with just one Crit confirmation roll too.

As long as the players arent on the receiving end!!!! :shock:
DM: ok youve got the big badie surrounded. he looks desperate. he swing his bardeche in a mightly arc use 6 point of his base attack to power attack and rolls a .........20!!! Ok lets roll to confirm..19 now that is enought o hit everyone so you all take 6d10 +48( lets say he's got a ST of 16) and can all maek massive damage saves!!!
Players: kill him...no not the Npc, the dm...Kill him now!!!!

 

[Yokiboy]

As long as the players arent on the receiving end!!!! :shock:
DM: ok youve got the big badie surrounded. he looks desperate. he swing his bardeche in a mightly arc use 6 point of his base attack to power attack and rolls a .........20!!! Ok lets roll to confirm..19 now that is enought o hit everyone so you all take 6d10 +48( lets say he's got a ST of 16) and can all maek massive damage saves!!!
Players: kill him...no not the Npc, the dm...Kill him now!!!!

You better win that initiative! :lol:

TTFN,

Yokiboy