Judge this feat: Rolling whirlwind attack

[hong]

Figured I should comment on the actual thread topic.

8 attacks at lvl7 at full attack bonus???? That's utterly crazy.

That's 8 attacks on _8 different targets_. That's a lot, lot weaker than 8 attacks all on the same guy, and is a primary reason why Whirlwind Attack is rarely worth using. Note that even a 4th level fighter could get 8 attacks, if they had Great Cleave.

 

[Darklone]

I just imagined two guys swirling and slashing through a group of enemies, then the archers putting down the rest... Well, perhaps it's not a bad idea...
But now you pushed my SLAUGHTER button, I'm not giving balanced answers anymore...

As for Dodge: I could live with +1 to AC (not vs one enemy) and +2 vs several enemies for the Imp Dodge.

TWF: Yeah, I see what you mean about 2nd E... gladly I still like it

Rapid Strike: What about some Cleave prerequs then? Ubercleave only for charges perhaps ?

 

[Farland]

So it's not a bad idea, is what I'm sensing here. Is that right?

 

[mmu1]

Dodge was always pretty underpowered, so Improved Dodge looks fine, although I'm not sure about having a BAB requirement for a feat that works well for many non-fighter archetypes.

Arrow Defense could be criticised as bland, but given the abomination that is the 3.5 Deflect Arrows feat... I think this kind of mechanic works much better.

Rapid Strike and Improved Rapid Strike... You need both feats to achieve the same effect as with Rapid Shot, which reduces the power level quite a bit, but the consequences of using them with a large two-handed weapon are still too severe. The comparison to Rapid Shot also isn't really consistent, because you can presumably use the feats while using a shield. And doesn't manyshot only use one attack roll for all the shots, which means that Improved RS isn't really equivalent to Manyshot, either?

 

[mmu1]

So it's not a bad idea, is what I'm sensing here. Is that right?

I'm getting this image of a guy with this feat and a few dice of sneak attack tumbling behind the group of enemies the rest of the party's fighitng, flanking as he goes, and it's ugly. Pretty much the only way I can think of to badly exploit it, but any character that could pull it off would be just evil...

 

[LokiDR]

So it's not a bad idea, is what I'm sensing here. Is that right?

My two cents: list all the prereqs of WWA in your feat, and all the pre-reqs of those prereqs as well, as others have said.

For balance, it is better than WWA. I would add a tumble requirement or BAB requirement. Tumble 11 would force you to multiclass out of fighter unless you take it at level 19th level (or are in forgotten realms and/or use Cosmopolitan). Do samuri from OA get tumble as a class skill?

It seems balanced for a 11+ level character.

 

[Farland]

In my opinion, adding any ranks of tumble as a prequisite is repetitive. If they don't have a high tumble skill, they won't be able to use the feat.

Plus I want this to be a fighter feat.

 

[LokiDR]

In my opinion, adding any ranks of tumble as a prequisite is repetitive. If they don't have a high tumble skill, they won't be able to use the feat.

Plus I want this to be a fighter feat.

AC 31 fighter with lots of HP won't worry about AoOs. And someone might create an item to boost tumble skill. The fighter still gets all of his attacks whether he makes the check or not. If you use the 3.5 WWA rules, the fighter could just use a reach weapon and skip the AoOs entirely.

I think you should limit this to characters above 10th level in some way. 8 attacks at full bonus at 6th level (earliest you can get this feat?) just seems to much. Maybe BAB requirement 9?

 

[Deset Gled]

If you make a tumble check DC 20, you can move by tumbling up to 20 feet without provoking attacks of opportunity. If the check is a DC 25, you may pass through occupied squares.

This should probably be reworded a bit. As it stands, it would allow a dwarf in full plate to move faster than normal.

 

[Darklone]

I would go with half your normal movement