A Whirlwind Question

[Treebore]

Someone,

I don't understand what you are saying the averages are about. The 19 was the average for the PC I was basing everything on without a power attack. The 29 is his average if he takes a -5 PA. Since it is a two handed weapon PA adds +10 to his damage in 3.5 rules.

Coredump,

I am not clear on what you are saying about the attacks at an 11. What I was referring to with the 30% of attacks missed was that his attack bonus dropped from an +18 versus a 19 AC to a +13 because of the -5 from his PA, if he were to get that feat. Otherwise, without taking a -5 for PA, he would only miss on a 1, not only because you always miss on a 1, but because his attack was +18 versus creatures with AC 19. I hope my restating this helps you better clarify what you are meaning about the 11 point.

You are also right that it is the only one in the "core" books that allow atttacks at the 5 and 10 foot intervals, but other WOTC books and alternate d20 publishers have also given versions of other weapons with the same abilities. They are all essentially chain weapons, just based on different cultural inpirations, etc...

Now I would like to house rule it along the lines beepeear suggests, but the spiked chain is based on real life weapons that I have seen demonstrated by martial artists. However the technical difficulties of the maneuvers they pull off I think would justify the need for feats for each "advantage" or power that the chain weapon gives. This is because the martial artists trained for years to be able to use it the ways they did. And hurt themselves often learning them.

I do agree that anything but the chain weapon would be considerably less powerful with Whirlwind. However, like I mentioned earlier, I feel that it is best to judge a feat by how powerful it is under the most optimum conditions for using that feat. So either I pre-emptively weaken the feat, or I say any reach weapon that can strike at both 5 and 10 feet ranges are not allowed.

Now to bring up something about the pole arms with 10 foot reach. In the same film footage I watched of the awesome chain weapon maneuvers, the martial artists also used several different pole weapons. They were very effective at defending and attacking close in or at reach in the blink of any eye. So if we were to judge pole weapons as realistically as the chain weapon apparently was, it looked to me that they should also be allowed to strike at both range increments.

You know, I could just rule that Whirlwind can never hit more than 6 targets per round, one for each second of the combat round. Yeah, that would work. Put the same limitation on cleaving too. For consistancy as well as power balance. Then I wouldn't have to worry about the bonus' so much either. I still don't like PA allowing the bonus to be doubled for wielding weapons two handed, maybe x1.5 like STR is handled. I'll have to think about this some more.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well hell. I have *always* thought it was a double weapon. I have never been in a campaign that used one, but still..... man, ya learn new stuff all the time...

The Master of Chains prestige class in Sword and Fist could use a Spiked Chain as a double weapon, I believe. But otherwise, no.

-Hyp.

 

[Daermon]

The Master of Chains prestige class in Sword and Fist could use a Spiked Chain as a double weapon, I believe. But otherwise, no.

-Hyp.

There's also a trick in the Exotic Weapon Master PrC (Complete Warrior) which allows a Spike Chain to be used like a double weapon.

Well, actually, it's used like a Monk's Flurry of Blows.

 

[Someone]

Someone,

I don't understand what you are saying the averages are about. The 19 was the average for the PC I was basing everything on without a power attack. The 29 is his average if he takes a -5 PA. Since it is a two handed weapon PA adds +10 to his damage in 3.5 rules.

I see, I should have explained myself better.

If you want to calculate the actual damage you´re doing per attack (not per hit!) you multiply the average damage and the probability of said attack hitting. It´s a better way to compare what attack is more efficient, since the average damage alone ignores the chances to hit (using only average damage, we get that the best strategy is "all power attack, all the time") Thus, the numbers I ran;

In the first case (-5 to hit, ), you said that the probability of a fail was 30%, or the same thing, an attack has a 70% chance of hitting. Therefore, the average damage per attack is 29*(70/100)=20.3

Same procedure for the second, we get an average per attack of 18,05

Obviously, nobody deals 20.3 points of damage. That, or more exactly, a number close to that, would be what you get if you attack a target many, many times and divide the total damage by the number of attacks. But making a single whirlwind, you don´t get 20.3 damage: you either do more or less 29 (if you hit) or you do zero (if you fail).

What the numbers tell us is two things: on average, playing the same character many times, power attack is good, but makes not a difference so big as a glancing look at the numbers ("wow, a +10 to damage!") may say. In our example, the difference is only of two points. Often, when your average damage is 19 or better, it´s rare to find a situation where power attack is useful, unless your to hit bonus is very high and the opponents AC is very low or it can´t defend itself at all.

Another matter is when you´re actually attacking a large number of goblyns. You have to options: using power attack, with a 70% chance of hitting, will likely end with some goblyns very hurt and others unhurt. Not power attacking will end in, most likey, all of them moderately hurt. The second situation can be actually better than the first, if you or your friend have Great Cleave and can deal enough damage to finish those moderately wounded.

 

[Coredump]

I am not clear on what you are saying about the attacks at an 11. What I was referring to with the 30% of attacks missed was that his attack bonus dropped from an +18 versus a 19 AC to a +13 because of the -5 from his PA, if he were to get that feat. Otherwise, without taking a -5 for PA, he would only miss on a 1, not only because you always miss on a 1, but because his attack was +18 versus creatures with AC 19. I hope my restating this helps you better clarify what you are meaning about the 11 point.

I understood you, but was unclear, so I will try again. It is the same idea that Someone wrote about, but with different numbers.

I was using a different example. In my example, the fighter needed an 11 to hit. That means he will hit exactly half of the time. Each *hit* does 19 points of damage, but since he misses half of the time, each *attack* will be do 9.5 points of damage.

Now he decides to Power Attack. So now he is doing *29* points of damage. But now he needs a 16 to hit. That means he will hit 1/4 of the time. Each *hit* does 29 points of damage, but since he misses 3/4 of the time, each *attack* will do 7.25 points of damage.

So if the fighter was entering a room of creatures needing an 11 to hit, he will do MORE damage by NOT using PA.

Using Power attack, *looks* cool, but often isn't a help. And when it is a help, it isn't much of a help.

Lets look at your original example. As Someone shows (using the same process I just used.) even when the fighter only needed a 1, using power attack made his *average damage* increase by only 2 points. So in this case, power attack helps.... about as much as weapon specialization.

You are also right that it is the only one in the "core" books that allow atttacks at the 5 and 10 foot intervals, but other WOTC books and alternate d20 publishers

Personally, I am more likely to nerf the 'alternate publishers' than core. Plus, the changes I mentioned will work or all of them anyway. It just keeps WWA area of effect the the original size.

but the spiked chain is based on real life weapons that I have seen demonstrated by martial artists. However the technical difficulties of the maneuvers they pull off I think would justify the need for feats for each "advantage" or power that the chain weapon gives. This is because the martial artists trained for years to be able to use it the ways they did. And hurt themselves often learning them.

Exactly. This is a game, it is not a simlulation of real life. There have been lots of 'shortcuts' and such to make the game flow more smoothly.

I do agree that anything but the chain weapon would be considerably less powerful with Whirlwind. However, like I mentioned earlier, I feel that it is best to judge a feat by how powerful it is under the most optimum conditions for using that feat.

Okay, but you are looking at it in a vacuum. It is not 'one' feat, it is the culmination of *5* feats. But you don't really benefit from the ones before it much. Again, if a fighter has 6 feats to spend, getting WWA is *not* the most powerful thing he can do.
If my mage wanted to design a spell, and at its 'optimum' casting, it would do 48D6 damage per caster level, would you allow it? That spell is Lightning Bolt. Why keep LB and nerf WWA?

So either I pre-emptively weaken the feat, or I say any reach weapon that can strike at both 5 and 10 feet ranges are not allowed.

Or... keep WWA, and keep SChains, but say that WWA can only work within 5'. You can keep both, but the uber *combination* doesn't work. (I say keep them both and try it for awhile.)

So if we were to judge pole weapons as realistically as the chain weapon apparently was, it looked to me that they should also be allowed to strike at both range increments.

It is a game, and game balance is important. There are other things that are ignored also.... as long as it balances out....

I still don't like PA allowing the bonus to be doubled for wielding weapons two handed, maybe x1.5 like STR is handled. I'll have to think about this some more.

First, even doing 2X, the advantage isn't nearly as big as it 'looks'. Second, there is some evidence that PA was originally intended to follow the STR model. 0.5X/1X/1.5X for offhand/primaryhand/bothhand attacks.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Treebore,

First of all, I just want to mention that you've obviously got things under control for your game. You and your player are satisfied, and that's all that matters.

Personally, I tend to nerf things after they become a problem, rather than before. My players are mature enough to accept a retcon if necessary, and that way I don't find myself knee-jerk nerfing things that seem overpowered on paper, but in reality aren't so.

Also, I'm not sure your strategy of judging a feat by its most advantageous situation is particularly valid. Consider my game. I have a PC with an 18 dex and Combat Reflexes. He has 5 AoOs per round, if they come up. In the very first game, the party came up against some modified stirges. Since the stirges are Tiny, they drew an AoO every time they went to attack a PC. My Combat Reflexes PC was a monster. He killed swarms of stirges every round.

Does that make Combat Reflexes uber overpowered? No. It makes that particular encounter very well-suited to someone with Combat Reflexes. I let the PC have his fun. It's balanced by those sessions where Combat Reflexes won't see any use at all. Same with WWA I think.

Anyway, just a few more thoughts. As I said, you've clearly got your situation under control.

 

[Treebore]

Someone and Coredump,

Thanks for the clarifications, I get it now.

I understand that Whirlwind is a chain of feats (to Coredump now), I don't exactly think those feats don't do anything for you. But my real issue is just how much damage can be dealt out. If my players can agree to a house rule of 6 targets per combat round with melee weapons I think we will be fine. The only "sticking point" I can foresee right now is that a PC can be surrounded by 8 within 5'. So maybe going with the "only everything within 5' " is the "fairest" way to go. Not exactly makes me happiest, but will probably get me and my players the closest we can both get to being happy with it.

So I'll think about it some more and talk to the player it mainly concerns right now, and then present our "final draft" to the rest of the group to see what they think.

Lord Pendragon,

I totally get what your saying about the frequency with which feats actually get to "shine", but I often see others complain, as well as myself, when they get "surprised" by how powerful a feat, feat combination, or spell they allowed could actually be. So that is why I approach it the way I do, to try and not get surprised.

 

[Darthjaye]

If it makes you feel any better about the only 5' whirlwind with the SpC just say that in order to hit everyone of your targets the chain cannot have anything in it's way. The first group of bodies being the in the way. I.E. it cannot have an interrupted path and trying to get to the 10' line of guys has just that problem. Yeah, I know it's a realistic fix for a un-realistic game, but it makes sense and maybe the player (whom I too game with) would understand this theory when associated with this feat.

 

[Treebore]

Well the player is cool with it. He said it used to be limited this way in 3.0, so maybe 3.5 says the same thing. Like in the PrC. Hmmmm, I bet the rules on cover would have helped this all along.

 

[FireLance]

Personally, I've always hated the spike chain, simply the most broken weapon in the game. High damage, finessable, added utility for trips and disarm, and threatens it's entire reach.

Have a look at this thread. The spiked chain isn't as broken as you think.