Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="IceBear" data-source="post: 151275" data-attributes="member: 1118">Re: Thought...1)&nbsp; I once thought of that, but that seemed too restrictive to cleave, making it next to useless (although it is sorta hinted at in the text of the feat).2) I get that back everytime.&nbsp; The thing is, if the mooks are interfering with the big bad boss' fighting style that bad that he suffers 7 additional attacks, shouldn't he also suffer some sort of penalty even if the fighter doesn't have WWA and GC?&nbsp; If the big bad boss stood directly in front of the fighter and was totally defensive and there were three mooks behind the fighter I can hardly see how these three mooks interfer with the big bad boss to the point that he suffers an additional three attacks.3 &amp; 4) Exactly the reason I have this rule - although I would never allow a player to metagame this way.Basically, as I think we all agree, the situation where a fighter with WWA +GC is surrounded by a horde of mooks and a big bad boss is a rare thing.&nbsp; So rare, that this whole debate is kinda pointless.&nbsp; If it came up in your game you would allow it while I would not.&nbsp; The other 99% of the time our fighters are identical, and the fighters in my campaign have not complained.I dunno, when I think of WWA I imagine those old Conan comics where he whirls around with his battleaxe chopping everyone in half.&nbsp; I just don't see enough control and time to get full BAB attacking a mook, then turning and wacking the BBB, turning back and hitting another mook, then reversing and hitting the BBB again, etc.Yes, I know that you could WWA with a piercing weapon like a rapier, but even then I see it as more of a thrust in one direction and then following through.&nbsp; But that's just me and my group.We don't like the cheesiness of this tactic despite all the feats the fighter spent.&nbsp; That fighter is still getting lots of benefits from those feats whenever he is fighting mutliple foes - he's not being shafted.IceBear</blockquote>

[QUOTE="IceBear, post: 151275, member: 1118"] [b]Re: Thought...[/b] 1) I once thought of that, but that seemed too restrictive to cleave, making it next to useless (although it is sorta hinted at in the text of the feat). 2) I get that back everytime. The thing is, if the mooks are interfering with the big bad boss' fighting style that bad that he suffers 7 additional attacks, shouldn't he also suffer some sort of penalty even if the fighter doesn't have WWA and GC? If the big bad boss stood directly in front of the fighter and was totally defensive and there were three mooks behind the fighter I can hardly see how these three mooks interfer with the big bad boss to the point that he suffers an additional three attacks. 3 & 4) Exactly the reason I have this rule - although I would never allow a player to metagame this way. Basically, as I think we all agree, the situation where a fighter with WWA +GC is surrounded by a horde of mooks and a big bad boss is a rare thing. So rare, that this whole debate is kinda pointless. If it came up in your game you would allow it while I would not. The other 99% of the time our fighters are identical, and the fighters in my campaign have not complained. I dunno, when I think of WWA I imagine those old Conan comics where he whirls around with his battleaxe chopping everyone in half. I just don't see enough control and time to get full BAB attacking a mook, then turning and wacking the BBB, turning back and hitting another mook, then reversing and hitting the BBB again, etc. Yes, I know that you could WWA with a piercing weapon like a rapier, but even then I see it as more of a thrust in one direction and then following through. But that's just me and my group. We don't like the cheesiness of this tactic despite all the feats the fighter spent. That fighter is still getting lots of benefits from those feats whenever he is fighting mutliple foes - he's not being shafted. IceBear [/QUOTE]

Verification