Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 268129" data-attributes="member: 5">Howdy Krusty!  I aoppreciate the support you've given me in my efforts! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification