[Feat]Whirlwind Attack

[Tarven]

And this is where dodge, mobility, and spring attack were leading to.

This feat has some hefty requirements. 13 dex, 13 int, dodge, mobility, spring attack, and combat expertise. 5 feats, including the Whirlwind Attack feat itself.

This is pretty self explanatory. It would basically be hitall. From what I understand from comments in previous posts, hitall was taken out for a couple reasons. For example, it could be spammed endlessly, and do massive damage to a room full of targets, in very little time.

With the new round based system, that would now be restricted. The user would only get a single usage, and would supersede the normal full round of attacks. Perhaps a limitation of 'dex modifier' # of targets, or even 'int modifier' # of targets, selected randomly, or the first 3 mobiles in the room, etc. Perhaps double modifier. Not sure.

The reason for the limitation is that in tabletop, you're quite unlikely to have 10 mobiles surrounding you, given that there are only 8 possible squares surrounding any given PC. 8, even, seems kind of high, and as though it would make the feat overpowering. Int modifier would make int less of a dump stat for some classes, and possibly allow for a different sort of 'build'. Also, I feel that if melee classes were able to hit any number of targets in a room, it would be taking away from the uniqueness of casters.

It is also my belief that if such a feat were implemented, that its usage should have a high stamina cost. Something in the realm of 10% (if it even works that way?), or at least 10% of a fighter (meaning probably higher for other classes, if fighters get more stamina, and I can't imagine them getting less).

Also of note, in a previous thread, it was suggested that cleave or great cleave would work in tandem with hitall. Which perhaps it would have. However, in SRD, Whirlwind specifically states "When you use the whirlwind attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus attacks granted by other spells, feats, or abilities". This would include cleave, great cleave (if implemented), and off hand attacks.

I think with 2 stat requirements, 4 feat requirements, +4 BAB requirement, and a sizable stamina cost, this feat could be both useful, and yet costly, with a greatly lessened potential for abuse. It would also give melee classes an alternative to merely 'fire and forget' methods, and a strategic alternative to direct attacks.

[Tarven]

Also, I would think that whirlwind attack in the first round (IE from hide, sneak, or any kind of obfuscation) would not be prone to sneak attacks, but would allow for the 'flat footed' penalty to AC.

[Casamir]

With the simple shifting of five attacks to a single target into a single attack dealt against up to five targets within the current round based system, is there a net gain? Is it not trading half dozen of one for six of another? Unless this is guaranteeing a hit on each of those differing targets, does this even really need to be balanced that much? I am all in favour of the idea of it, but I am wondering where it is broken or even especially advantageous in a straight trade off?

[Tarven]

Well, curious where you're getting 5 attacks. Theoretically, as a feat, this would not be fighter specific.

Second, all attacks made against multiple targets would, indeed, be at max BAB, so instead of getting, say, 20/15/10/5, a fighter would be getting 20/20/20/20 against different targets.

Other advantages could be things like fighting along side a wizard, who is casting fireball, or other AOE casters, benefiting from great cleave (You hammer down the foes until they're low enough for one final fell swoop) or other things.

In tabletop, the skill is usable against all nearby targets. IE within 5' (with a normal weapon, or 10' with a reach weapon), which typically maxes out at 8, and that would be unlikely. Here on FK, there are ways to stack up large numbers of foes into a single room, which would make this skill subject to abuse, thus, to my mind anyway, necessitating a limit on the number of targets it can be used on.