Reach Weapons, Monks, Whirlwind Attack

[FrankTrollman]

3rd edition had some complicated rules involving handedness that were not fairly enforced or coherently written down. The FAQ's answer regarding handedness, for example, probably goes in with the FAQ's answer regarding Expert Tactician - because it is not supported by the written rules.

In 3.5, the ambidexterity feat no longer exists - and the whole "handedness" question is out the window.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

3rd edition had some complicated rules involving handedness that were not fairly enforced or coherently written down.

Ambidexterity [General]
Prerequisite: Dex 15+.
Benefit: The character ignores all penalties for using an off hand. The character is neither left-handed nor right-handed.
Normal: Without this feat, a character who uses his or her off hand suffers a -4 penalty to attack rolls, ability checks, and skill checks. For example, a right-handed character wielding a weapon with her left hand suffers a -4 penalty to attack rolls with that weapon.
Special: This feat helps offset the penalty for fighting with two weapons.

-----

What's complicated or incoherent about "If you're right-handed, you get a -4 penalty when you use your left hand"?

-Hyp.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

You get to "make one melee attack ... against each opponent"

I'm not saying you get to attack the same guy twice. I attack the orc who is ten feet away with a single melee attack from my guisarme. I attack the goblin who is 5 feet away with a single melee attack from my unarmed strike. Thus, I am making one melee attack against each opponent I can reach. Where's the problem with that?

-The Souljourner

Ah. Ok. Re-read the feat. Although I don't think that was the "spirit" of the feat, I agree that the way it is formulated, it can lead to your intrepretation.

AR

 

[The Souljourner]

I don't think it's terribly unbalanced, I don't think it's outside the scope of the feat as written. Whether that was the intention or not, I have no idea, but I kind of like the idea of someone being able to lash out with all the weapons available to him. It makes it less of a "I swing my sword around in a big arc" and more of a "I go into a whirlwind of motion, throwing attacks at everyone near me".

But as some people have stated, it's pretty crappy with no cleave or improved trip attacks getting triggered. I probably won't bother... still, it made for an interesting conversation

Here's the list of feats I intend on taking by level 20, including bonus feats (like the monk's unarmed strike):

Improved Unarmed Strike
Improved Grapple
Combat Reflexes
Scribe Scroll
Quicken Spell
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Power Attack
Dodge
Mobility
Spring Attack
Weapon Focus: Guisarme
Cleave
Great Cleave
Blind Fighting
Close Quarters Fighting

Quite the list huh? Gotta say, I love the number of feats this character gets. Trading 4 BAB, some hitpoints, and two feats from the fighter for 15 levels of wizard spells? Seems fair

-The Souljourner

P.S. anyone seen .Hack//Sign? I'm basing this character loosely off of Crim. Just saw my first episode with him in it, and thought he'd make for a cool looking Eldritch Knight.

 

[Snipehunt]

That's a really cool character. You get all the fun unusual attack feats - disarms, grabs, trips, etc. Plus you have all the must-have feats, like close-quarters fighting, blindfighting, etc. Plus 15 caster levels. About the only thing you miss is specialization, and I don't think you'll miss that much.

 

[Darklone]

I don't think it's terribly unbalanced, I don't think it's outside the scope of the feat as written. Whether that was the intention or not, I have no idea, but I kind of like the idea of someone being able to lash out with all the weapons available to him.

Well, many people like that idea... we just mentioned that the rules hint at the TWF feat being necessary

As for your feats: What about dropping Great Cleave and taking something nice like Expert Tactician instead? At the level where you could take it, you'll probably won't use it anymore.

 

[The Souljourner]

Thanks, Snipehunt. I think it'll be a fun character. Not an uber powerful one, but one that'll be useful in many many situations, and one that will never be boring.

Darklone - I think it's even less than a hint, maybe more of an inkling. Anyway... I think we're agreed that it's not clear.

As for the feats, I consciously chose great cleave with the knowledge that it's a subpar feat. I chose it not for the power but for the for the concept. Also, with both 5' and 10' reach, I'm more likely to use it, and I like the idea of wading through small enemies. *shrug*

Expert tactician is really best for rogues... I don't get much benefit from the enemy being flatfooted... I guess it's one more chance to get extra attacks... I don't know what I'd drop. Great Cleave is the best choice by far, but I'm just not that interested in dropping it.

-The Souljourner

 

[FrankTrollman]

I think Greatcleave really depends upon your play style. If you play in a "dungeon" environment, where all enemies are magically within 2 CRs of your level, it sucks. If you play in a more "realistic" environment, where enemies come in a variety of power levels Greatcleave is one of the best feats ever.

In many games there will be times when you encounter like four 3rd level enemies - even if you are 9th level yourself. While the wizard could fireball them out of existence - it's more economical for the Fighter with Greatcleave to simply kill them all with a charge.

-Frank

 

[The Souljourner]

The thing about great cleave is that anything that can go down in one hit isn't a threat, so it doesn't matter if it takes more than one round to take them all down. The fighter tells the mage to go drink a cup of coffee and starts mowing down three per turn. Being able to reach more than three guys in a turn is unlikely anyway.

But, like I said, it's a cool image, and I'm taking it for that reason. With 15 other feats and 15 caster levels, I don't think it's a huge damper on my effectiveness to blow a feat or two on coolness

-The Souljourner

 

[billd91]

Ah. Ok. Re-read the feat. Although I don't think that was the "spirit" of the feat, I agree that the way it is formulated, it can lead to your intrepretation.

AR

By not being in line with the 'spirit' of the feat, what do you mean? Using a close-in as well as a reach weapon? Or using two weapons to do whirlwind attack?
I can't say whether either would be against the spirit of the feat, myself. If it were because of the reach/close-in combination, then is a large monster with natural reach using WWA also against the spirit of the feat?
If it's using more than one weapon that's against the feat's spirit, does this mean you envision a completely unarmed monk as using only one fist or foot to make all of his attacks with WWA? Or a character with two short swords only using one of them?
Once you start to accept that it doesn't look too bizarre to use both, then it's not all that much of a stretch to see a monk whirling around with kicks and a polearm laying waste to everything around him.

I also don't see a problem with using either weapon (or both) for AoO as long as the character gets > 1 AoO. There are no preclusions from using more than one weapon for AoO if you happen to be armed with > 1, at least none that I can find. I can't find anything that says you have to only use the weapon in your primary hand, for example.