Poster Bard
First Post
Last edited:
Lexus - Group Combat!
- Thread starter Poster Bard
- Start date
Upper_Krust
Legend
Hi there! 
I'm reading through this now. Looks like another solid peice of work Mark; supported by your usual excellent writing talent!
Keep up the good work!
By the way, thanks for the mention.
I'm reading through this now. Looks like another solid peice of work Mark; supported by your usual excellent writing talent!
Keep up the good work!
By the way, thanks for the mention.
A little confusion
Mark, since you're here...
I'm a bit unclear on what your intent was with Group Cleave and Group Great Cleave. The description of Group Great Cleave lays out clearly who can do it, but never quite says what 'it' is
As I'm reading it, Group Cleave appears to give the members of the unit to, when they disable an opponent and are elligible to Cleave, to take a 5 foot step instead of an extra attack. I'm not sure if that's right, though, as you describe them 'clearing a path for others to occupy'.
I like the feel of the group combat feats as a whole; those two just seemed like they might need rewording for clarity. At least for me
Additionally, you might consider combining Defensive Advance and Solid Retreat into a single feat that doesn't depend upon the direction the group is moving. I suggest this mainly because even an elite regiment probably has, at best, 4th level fighters or so as its private troopers. (At least, the way the demographics seem to be written in the DMG). With every member of the unit being required to have the feat, and with the modal level of the members being low, there's a sharp limit on the number of these feats that will probably be present in any one unit.
Nice work! I'm looking forward to seeing where you go with it.
--N
Mark, since you're here...
I'm a bit unclear on what your intent was with Group Cleave and Group Great Cleave. The description of Group Great Cleave lays out clearly who can do it, but never quite says what 'it' is
As I'm reading it, Group Cleave appears to give the members of the unit to, when they disable an opponent and are elligible to Cleave, to take a 5 foot step instead of an extra attack. I'm not sure if that's right, though, as you describe them 'clearing a path for others to occupy'.
I like the feel of the group combat feats as a whole; those two just seemed like they might need rewording for clarity. At least for me
Additionally, you might consider combining Defensive Advance and Solid Retreat into a single feat that doesn't depend upon the direction the group is moving. I suggest this mainly because even an elite regiment probably has, at best, 4th level fighters or so as its private troopers. (At least, the way the demographics seem to be written in the DMG). With every member of the unit being required to have the feat, and with the modal level of the members being low, there's a sharp limit on the number of these feats that will probably be present in any one unit.
Nice work! I'm looking forward to seeing where you go with it.
--N
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
Howdy Krusty! I aoppreciate the support you've given me in my efforts!
Nim- Welcome to the boards and thanks for the questions. I'll try to elaborate on my thought process but let me know if I'm not being clear and I'll try again.
The main strength of Group Cleave and Great Group Cleave, IMO, is not the ability to have single unit members fell multiple foes or that they can exploit holes in the enemy lines. They can do those things, and they are important to the concept of the feats. But the primary advantage to both is the ability to utilize all of those five-foot steps after all attacks have been resolved in an effort to either shore up the defense of the unit or exploit those holes in such a way as to still allow the unit to maintain the formation as much as possible.
Defensive Advance and Solid Retreat differ primarily in that it takes an extra round to set the Shield Wall prior to retreating. It truly is more difficult to retreat and stay well guarded than it is to advance under carried cover. I kept them separate to reinforce this difference. I also felt that while some troops or groups might be trained primarily for assault others would highlight defense and the two concepts, IMO, should not be overlapped. Of course, using this set of feats in any single campaign might entail some adjustments. If it works better in your game to combine them, certainly go right ahead.
I realize that any feats that can be attached to low level individuals/units reduces the number of regular combat feats they can take but I feel it balances out. My background in RPGing has always been as a "by-the-book/core-rules" DM. I tend to try and create things with that in mind leaving the modifications for home games open, of course. In this way it is easier for a DM to say "I think we can forego this one restriction" rather than "This needs something to balance it, but what do I add?" I think it is less difficult to strip away a small part than build something new (and no two DMs will necessarily come up with the same "build").
Thank you very much for the interest and I'll keep pluggin away at additions to this structure.
Nim- Welcome to the boards and thanks for the questions. I'll try to elaborate on my thought process but let me know if I'm not being clear and I'll try again.
The main strength of Group Cleave and Great Group Cleave, IMO, is not the ability to have single unit members fell multiple foes or that they can exploit holes in the enemy lines. They can do those things, and they are important to the concept of the feats. But the primary advantage to both is the ability to utilize all of those five-foot steps after all attacks have been resolved in an effort to either shore up the defense of the unit or exploit those holes in such a way as to still allow the unit to maintain the formation as much as possible.
Defensive Advance and Solid Retreat differ primarily in that it takes an extra round to set the Shield Wall prior to retreating. It truly is more difficult to retreat and stay well guarded than it is to advance under carried cover. I kept them separate to reinforce this difference. I also felt that while some troops or groups might be trained primarily for assault others would highlight defense and the two concepts, IMO, should not be overlapped. Of course, using this set of feats in any single campaign might entail some adjustments. If it works better in your game to combine them, certainly go right ahead.
I realize that any feats that can be attached to low level individuals/units reduces the number of regular combat feats they can take but I feel it balances out. My background in RPGing has always been as a "by-the-book/core-rules" DM. I tend to try and create things with that in mind leaving the modifications for home games open, of course. In this way it is easier for a DM to say "I think we can forego this one restriction" rather than "This needs something to balance it, but what do I add?" I think it is less difficult to strip away a small part than build something new (and no two DMs will necessarily come up with the same "build").
Thank you very much for the interest and I'll keep pluggin away at additions to this structure.
Similar Threads
