Cool idea, but for flavor reasons I think this should have an alignment requirement of non-chaotic.
Group Mind [General]
Sun, 2005-02-13 12:49
#1
Group Mind [General]
Sun, 2005-02-13 16:32
#3
Group Mind [General]
Do members of the group get the benefits of this feat if they don't have the feat? I.e. would you have to find 1000 level 1 commoners who have this and Combat Reflexes as their two feats (let's say they're human) and have all of them make a DC 30? The odds of that happening are effectively impossible.
Once you have a combat unit of such a huge size, is there really any way that they can be so cooperative as to give each other bonuses?
There is no such thing as a "morale check". And even if there were, would opponents be penalized because they're so awed by the group's cooperation?
Since we're talking about groups up to small armies, couldn't "combat"--and therefore the benefits of this feat--last for days until a battle ends? And the other way that this feat turns off--"magical intervention"--is odd. What magical intervention would prohibit the use of a feat?
Narfi Ref had a good point: a group that is this extremely cohesive and unified would have a difficult time being chaoitic. Do you know anything about combat, Xan?
Sun, 2005-02-13 18:09
#4
Group Mind [General]
Do members of the group get the benefits of this feat if they don't have the feat? I.e. would you have to find 1000 level 1 commoners who have this and Combat Reflexes as their two feats (let's say they're human) and have all of them make a DC 30? The odds of that happening are effectively impossible.
As stated in the feat, no, they do not gain any benefits unless they possess the feat and are not counted as a member towards the size and benefits gained. Also listed in the text is that the benefits of this feat are not as valuable in larger numbers. Thus, you're likely to encounter squads in this style of combat rather than a company being directed en masse.
Once you have a combat unit of such a huge size, is there really any way that they can be so cooperative as to give each other bonuses?
You must have missed the line that begins "This feat works best in small groups," otherwise you wouldn't have asked.
There is no such thing as a "morale check". And even if there were, would opponents be penalized because they're so awed by the group's cooperation?
There was in 3.0 and in 3.5 it's still used, albeit as a Will save. As to your question, Desert Storm was a coordinated event. The Iraqis surrendered wholesale, you don't see that as awe?
Since we're talking about groups up to small armies, couldn't "combat"--and therefore the benefits of this feat--last for days until a battle ends?
Do you feel it's physically possible to fight for more than 20 hours before dropping from exhaustion?
And the other way that this feat turns off--"magical intervention"--is odd. What magical intervention would prohibit the use of a feat?
Gee, not sure, perhaps...oh, I don't know...a Fireball or even a Sleep spell would be pretty distruptive.
Narfi Ref had a good point: a group that is this extremely cohesive and unified would have a difficult time being chaoitic. Do you know anything about combat, Xan?
You're joking asking me that quesiton, right? Last I checked, it was pretty well known what I used to do for a living.
Sun, 2005-02-13 21:23
#5
Group Mind [General]
Xan, unless your former occupation was that of a midieval knight, I doubt it's as impressive as that.
My point in bringing up a battle as an example of the time that this feat could grant its benefits was that you didn't specify very concretely how long it lasts. "the end of combat" is not defined in the rules. Is it one encounter? A number of rounds? My point was that you could interpret "combat" to last for the duration of a multi-day battle, since we're talking about small armies here.
"Each character must make a DC based on the size of the group (listed below) modified by the character’s Wisdom modifier."
Does this mean make a Wisdom check? No one short of a high-level cleric who rolls extremely lucky could make a DC 25 Wisdom check. No one short of an epic cleric could make a DC 30. For most characters, a DC 20 is pushing luck.
The Iraqis surrendered wholesale, you don't see that as awe?
Right, the Iraqis surrendered wholesale after Desert Storm. That's why there was never any trouble there ever again. But no, there was no such thing as a "morale check" in 3.0. There was morale in 2nd edition, and it represented the chance that a monster would surrender or run. It doesn't exist in 3rd edition.
You must have missed the line that begins "This feat works best in small groups," otherwise you wouldn't have asked.
While it's true that it is "easier to keep track of a few members rather than many members" as stated in the feat, that is not what I was saying. I was questioning whether a group as large as most of these unit sizes could possibly be coordinated enough to get these benefits. Even a "platoon" of 32 people would be hard-pressed to be so coordinated that they can all act faster (thereby getting a bonus to initiative). Additionally, I question the likelihood or even possibility that this many people could ever have access to this feat.
What would you call a unit of 10 people? Or 18 people? There are numbers missing.
Gee, not sure, perhaps...oh, I don't know...a Fireball or even a Sleep spell would be pretty distruptive.
Despite the sarcasm, the rules still don't add up. There is no such thing as "magical intervention" that "prohibits the character to use this feat [sic]". Not even fireball or sleep. Unless you destroy or knock out the entire unit with these spells, they still act normally, and if you want these spells to deactivate this feat you have to explicitly define what qualifies as "magical intervention" because this is not a game term.
Sun, 2005-02-13 23:03
#6
Group Mind [General]
Xan, unless your former occupation was that of a midieval knight, I doubt it's as impressive as that.
Try something more along the lines of the modern day equivalent.
My point in bringing up a battle as an example of the time that this feat could grant its benefits was that you didn't specify very concretely how long it lasts. "the end of combat" is not defined in the rules. Is it one encounter? A number of rounds? My point was that you could interpret "combat" to last for the duration of a multi-day battle, since we're talking about small armies here.
So long as a unit stays together and is fighting continuously, that constitutes combat. A war is not combat. A skirmish is not combat. Combat is a fight regardless of outside influence.
"Each character must make a DC based on the size of the group (listed below) modified by the character’s Wisdom modifier."
Does this mean make a Wisdom check? No one short of a high-level cleric who rolls extremely lucky could make a DC 25 Wisdom check. No one short of an epic cleric could make a DC 30. For most characters, a DC 20 is pushing luck.
Other than that the line should state that the Wisdom modifier lowers the DC, it is as it reads for a reason.
The Iraqis surrendered wholesale, you don't see that as awe?
Right, the Iraqis surrendered wholesale after Desert Storm. That's why there was never any trouble there ever again.That's beyond the context of the conflict that took place in '91.
But no, there was no such thing as a "morale check" in 3.0. There was morale in 2nd edition, and it represented the chance that a monster would surrender or run. It doesn't exist in 3rd edition.
You're right, that's why it's not listed on p. 177 of the 3.0 DMG.
While it's true that it is "easier to keep track of a few members rather than many members" as stated in the feat, that is not what I was saying. I was questioning whether a group as large as most of these unit sizes could possibly be coordinated enough to get these benefits. Even a "platoon" of 32 people would be hard-pressed to be so coordinated that they can all act faster (thereby getting a bonus to initiative). Additionally, I question the likelihood or even possibility that this many people could ever have access to this feat.
I'm sorry, where did you receive military training again?
What would you call a unit of 10 people? Or 18 people? There are numbers missing.
Please see above question.
Despite the sarcasm, the rules still don't add up. There is no such thing as "magical intervention" that "prohibits the character to use this feat [sic]". Not even fireball or sleep. Unless you destroy or knock out the entire unit with these spells, they still act normally, and if you want these spells to deactivate this feat you have to explicitly define what qualifies as "magical intervention" because this is not a game term.
Hmm...yeah, again, I must ask you where you received military training. Perhaps you understand LOS, strategy & tactics better than I.
Mon, 2005-02-14 00:26
#7
Group Mind [General]
You're right, that's why it's not listed on p. 177 of the 3.0 DMG.
It isn't. What's listed there is a Moral Bonus that is a bonus based on the idea that you are feeling that you are going to win. It isn't a check it is a type of bonus.
Mon, 2005-02-14 00:27
#8
Group Mind [General]
Hmm...yeah, again, I must ask you where you received military training. Perhaps you understand LOS, strategy & tactics better than I.
So Xan. What is your training? Rank? &ect.
Mon, 2005-02-14 00:59
#9
Group Mind [General]
Hmm...yeah, again, I must ask you where you received military training. Perhaps you understand LOS, strategy & tactics better than I.
So Xan. What is your training? Rank? &ect.
19K10. Final Rank: SPC. Highest slotted position while in service: SFC. Part of Battalion Tactical Operations Center for two different units. Training included confidential and secret elements. Submitted reports to Brigade that were classified as secret or top secret. Received "OJT" instruction by Intel officers in both TOCs. Received instruction in Combat Engineer and Field Artillery TOC operation/coordination. Should I continue?
Mon, 2005-02-14 06:51
#10
Group Mind [General]
19K10. Final Rank: SPC. Highest slotted position while in service: SFC. Part of Battalion Tactical Operations Center for two different units. Training included confidential and secret elements. Submitted reports to Brigade that were classified as secret or top secret. Received "OJT" instruction by Intel officers in both TOCs. Received instruction in Combat Engineer and Field Artillery TOC operation/coordination. Should I continue?
No need to continue, but could you translate that to what rank that you would be called? Like in front of your name? That all that translates into? I'm just a poor civvy and don't know a thing about that military jargon. Sure I could ask someone else to translate but that is beside the point.
I really am sorry. I shouldn't have questioned that, but I was curios you understand.
Mon, 2005-02-14 07:51
#11
Group Mind [General]
As you're so curious, go research the acronyms.
Mon, 2005-02-14 11:06
#12
Group Mind [General]
Actually, yes, I do know some things about medieval combat; I've been in a few simulated battles. The fact that you have modern military experience does not disprove my alignment comment. At times I've considered joining the military, but have thought better of it because of my general attitude of authority and forced conformity. In other words, the military is just too damn LAWFUL for me.
Mon, 2005-02-14 17:20
#13
Group Mind [General]
"Each character must make a DC based on the size of the group (listed below) modified by the character’s Wisdom modifier."
Does this mean make a Wisdom check? No one short of a high-level cleric who rolls extremely lucky could make a DC 25 Wisdom check. No one short of an epic cleric could make a DC 30. For most characters, a DC 20 is pushing luck.
Other than that the line should state that the Wisdom modifier lowers the DC, it is as it reads for a reason.But no, there was no such thing as a "morale check" in 3.0. There was morale in 2nd edition, and it represented the chance that a monster would surrender or run. It doesn't exist in 3rd edition.
You're right, that's why it's not listed on p. 177 of the 3.0 DMG.
Totally wrong. There is a such thing as a "morale bonus," but not a morale check. You really are confusing this with 2nd edition. There hasn't been any morale check for years. Please get your terms straight before you start getting sarcastic with me.
What would you call a unit of 10 people? Or 18 people? There are numbers missing.
Please see above question.
Oh right. I get it. I've not gone through the Army, so I'm not qualified to point out that you're missing 8-16 and 32-40.
Despite the sarcasm, the rules still don't add up. There is no such thing as "magical intervention" that "prohibits the character to use this feat [sic]". Not even fireball or sleep. Unless you destroy or knock out the entire unit with these spells, they still act normally, and if you want these spells to deactivate this feat you have to explicitly define what qualifies as "magical intervention" because this is not a game term.
Hmm...yeah, again, I must ask you where you received military training. Perhaps you understand LOS, strategy & tactics better than I.
Right. Once again, I've forgotten to defer to your superior tactical knowledge. In the Army boot camp, they must have taught you how to maintain strict coordination while being hit with fireballs and sleep spells. This is, once again, not the point. There is no such game term as "magical intervention" and therefore "magical intervention" cannot be a method of deactivating a feat.
Mon, 2005-02-14 20:40
#14
Group Mind [General]
What do you mean by 'morale checks'? You've cited page 177 in the 3.0 DMG, which talks about morale bonuses from magic items. Did you mean a morale penalty on checks? And if so, which kind? Saves? Attack? AC? Or do you use some kind of morale system? If so, could we get a link?
Don't you think that there should be some kind of way for the opposition to negate these bonuses, other than the nebulous "magical intervention"? A fireball was your example, but a fireball is instantaneous. Do all these effects end for the rest of combat, or does it only effect them for a few moments?
What happens if, in a battalion, 30 people make the check and 371 fail? Do those thirty get the benefits of a platoon, or none at all?
Oh, not to sound anal, but...
Try something more along the lines of the modern day equivalent.
There is no modern day equivalent, unless you were a mercenary or a member of the landed nobility (which would prohibit you from achieving rank in the US Army, I believe, since you can't be both a US citizen and a noble). Modern soldier do very little that is anything like medieval soldiers. You aren't untrained conscripts. You aren't mercenaries. You aren't a noblemen, who despite what Machiavelli said, were seldom experts at combat- they paid other people for that.
Mon, 2005-02-14 21:07
#15
Group Mind [General]
In Niccolo Machiavelli's defence he probably didn't really belive what he wrote in The Prince. It was a relatively small pamphlet written by him to gain favor with the Medici. It was a PR move.
His pollitical philosophy is really written in his "Discourses on Livy" and other works. While he is associaated for a cruel and totalitarian style what he really belived was far more humanitarian. If Niccolo could have unwritten The Prince he probably would have.
Mon, 2005-02-14 22:00
#16
Group Mind [General]
Oh for goodness *sake*. A thread this long started over an arguement of wither or not the feat should have a non-chaotic prereq?
Frankly we're in the context of DnD and it's not a bad suggestion, as it's likely something the Baatazu and Rilmani almost certainly would use and the Tanarri would almost certainly not.
Keep in mind the *context* of the feat - which is to say: DnD. A game. Not life. Not real combat. And not required to obey the rules of real combat. So can we stick to the topic at hand - which is to say feedback on the feat as presented?
Tue, 2005-02-15 19:30
#17
Group Mind [General]
There is no modern day equivalent, unless you were a mercenary or a member of the landed nobility (which would prohibit you from achieving rank in the US Army, I believe, since you can't be both a US citizen and a noble).
Horses are ill-equipped to carry 67 tons of armor on their backs.
Wed, 2005-02-16 18:58
#18
Group Mind [General]
Horses are ill-equipped to carry 67 tons of armor on their backs.
What the Hel does this have to do with the discussion?!!
Fri, 2005-03-04 13:39
#19
Group Mind [General]
Horses are ill-equipped to carry 67 tons of armor on their backs.
What the Hel does this have to do with the discussion?!!
The modern-day equivalent of an armored knight charging into battle would be a tank with it's full crew.
Fri, 2005-03-04 16:09
#20
Group Mind [General]
Modern warfare is not anything like Medieval warfare! There is no modern equivalent to a knight on horseback! The mechanization of war forever perverted battle into something that bares little resemblance to what it once was.
Know anything about combat?