Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 4431463" data-attributes="member: 4722">Seems to me they should've renamed it Lesser Whirlwind Attack, because that's basically what it is. I never did see how high Strength let you hit another opponent after the first was downI was thinking about reducing the number of iteratives to 1/10 BAB. At +10, you get a second attack at +5; at +15, you get a third at +10, and that's it - no more. The third/fourth attacks rarely, if ever, hit against a level-appropriate foe unless you're a fighter. This would be a simple solution - easy to convert, and fewer attacks to roll. I haven't actually tried it in play, though, so I don't know how it would work out.Allister's right. Whirlwind Attack is nigh useless except against hordes of low-level creatures (which you'd rarely be fighting by the time you could qualify for that feat). It's basically the same thing as the rule in 1E that fighters could make 1 attack/level against creatures under 1 HD.The new feats are useful, sure - you could hurt 2 opponents, giving the flanking rogue a better chance of downing one (especially if he's using that feat from PHB II, Opportunistic Attack or whatever it's called). I think it was developed to get away from the "full attack on one opponent till its down" syndrome - IOW, contribute more to cinematic combat. In that regard, they succeeded - instead of strictly concentrating on ONE opponent, you can hit two (or three, or more) during a single round. I think they need higher prereqs, though - maybe a minimum BAB - because being able to hit umpteen opponents in reach at your highest BAB is a huge advantage.I am so freaking tired of everyone crowing about "backwards compatibility". Read the above statement. Does the word "backwards" appear anywhere in there? No. 3E and 2E were compatible - you could convert your 2E material to 3E with a little work. Same with 3E/3.5. 4E is not compatible with 3E (this is not a bash on 4E, just a simple statement of fact). Jason's stated goal is to make PF compatible with 3E, so that you can convert stuff with a minimum of effort. Conversion will be necessary. Live with it. If you don't want to convert stuff, stick to 3.5.Who's this "we", kemosabe? *I'm* certainly not enjoying that new version of D&D, and I suspect a lot of the folks here who are playing Pathfinder aren't either.</blockquote>

Verification