Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="roguerouge" data-source="post: 4990273" data-attributes="member: 13855">One of the things that I've always disliked about mob templated creatures is that they are unfair to players who invest in feats like Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack. The player invested in a feat chain, only to have the feat chain invalidated precisely when it's going to be most useful and dramatically interesting. Still, mobs are an elegant solution to a common high-level game problem. Typically, the house rule solution seems to be one of the following:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Cleave adds +1d6 damage, Great Cleave +3d6, and Whirlwind Attack +5d6</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Cleave gives double damage, Great Cleave x3, Whirlwind Attack x4</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">For every individual creature you would hit with your attack, you impose two negative levels. (i.e. it's not just for spells anymore).</li>
</ul>I think that these are fine solutions. But what if we take advantage of the fact that a Whirlwind attacker has spring attack in designing a house rule for this situation? Proposed house rule: For every square you can reach with Whirlwind Attack, you get an attack against the creature. If you whirlwind on the outer edge of the creature, you get three attacks:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&nbsp;oIf you whirlwind within the creature, you get eight attacks:xxxxxoxxxxxxxxxxIf you spring attack, you get one attack, as normal.If you great cleave from the outer rank into the creature, you get up to seven attacks:Start:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Cleaving:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; xxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; xxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; xxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; xxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; xxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; xxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; xxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; x&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; o&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; oSteps in:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Finishes:xxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; xxxxxxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; xxxxxxxx&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; xox&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; oThis is, admittedly, a mook system rather than a fearsome mob. Would this work to model such an event?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="roguerouge, post: 4990273, member: 13855"] One of the things that I've always disliked about mob templated creatures is that they are unfair to players who invest in feats like Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack. The player invested in a feat chain, only to have the feat chain invalidated precisely when it's going to be most useful and dramatically interesting. Still, mobs are an elegant solution to a common high-level game problem. Typically, the house rule solution seems to be one of the following: [LIST] [*]Cleave adds +1d6 damage, Great Cleave +3d6, and Whirlwind Attack +5d6 [*]Cleave gives double damage, Great Cleave x3, Whirlwind Attack x4 [*]For every individual creature you would hit with your attack, you impose two negative levels. (i.e. it's not just for spells anymore). [/LIST] I think that these are fine solutions. But what if we take advantage of the fact that a Whirlwind attacker has spring attack in designing a house rule for this situation? Proposed house rule: For every square you can reach with Whirlwind Attack, you get an attack against the creature. If you whirlwind on the outer edge of the creature, you get three attacks: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx o If you whirlwind within the creature, you get eight attacks: xxxx xoxx xxxx xxxx If you spring attack, you get one attack, as normal. If you great cleave from the outer rank into the creature, you get up to seven attacks: Start: Cleaving: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx x o o Steps in: Finishes: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx x ox o This is, admittedly, a mook system rather than a fearsome mob. Would this work to model such an event? [/QUOTE]

Verification