A Whirlwind Question

[Darthjaye]

Had a little disagreement yesterday with how this feat works. I'm sure there's some FAQ somewhere about this, but I thought I'd ask anyways. Seems that the way one GM read it and the way I've read it don't gel so I thought I'd put it to you guys and maybe see how it sounds to you. The line in question reads "you also forfiet any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats or abilities (such as the Cleave feat or the haste spell)". Our GM at the time interpreted this to be that the character with this feat would lose all bonuses from any feats (power attack, weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc...) pertaining to any bonus for attack or damage as well as any thing that allows extra attacks. Now obviously any GM can say it works any way he wants in his camapign, but he persists to argue that this is the way it is meant to be in the rulebooks period. Not my take on it however and I would like yours.

 

[Goolpsy]

Dunno if you can used powerattack together with it... but.. It doesn't cancel other feat or effects.. (only the amount of extra Attacks)

 

[mvincent]

The line in question reads "you also forfiet any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats or abilities (such as the Cleave feat or the haste spell)". Our GM at the time interpreted this to be that the character with this feat would lose all bonuses from any feats

Heh. They are refering to bonus attacks in that sentence (i.e. "bonus" is being used as an adjective rather than a noun). Your DM completely mis-read it.

 

[Len]

And the reason you know that "bonus" is an adjective is that if it were a noun it would have to say "bonuses and extra attacks".

 

[Treebore]

We all know that WOTC are not the grammar masters of the universe, so if they were writing it to correctly mean both bonus and extra attacks they would have used "and" instead of "or". "Or" implies contrasts, not similarities. So grammatically it means "any bonus or any extra attacks", not any kind of bonus/extra attack. So if they meant it to mean only bonus/extra attacks they need it to say so. As written it does not.

In all likelyhood they do mean for it to mean only the extra attacks. But allowing all bonuses to hit and damage from other feats does greatly increase the likelyhood and amount of extra damage a PC/NPC is going to dole out. Especially if you have a reach of ten and you have 24 targets massed up around you for you to hit with your highest attack bonus. Just weapon specialization would had 48 HP to the total damage dealed out if every target were hit. If you can add 5 points of power attack you are adding 120 points of damage being dealt out to the 24 targets. 168 if both PA and Specializaton add on.

So allowing feat bonuses does greatly increase the power/balance of this feat. So realizing this they may have actually meant "any bonus or extra attack" given by feats. Because they saw how much more powerful this feat becomes when bonuses to attack and damage for feats are allowed to be added in.

So I will stand by the correct grammatical interpretation of "or" and keep this feat from becoming over powered.

BTW, I read the updated FAQ's and errata, so there is no clarification, unless it is worded differently in the SRD, which I have not checked. I have asked another player to e-mail Andy Collins for what the game designers meant for this feat.

I do think allowing "any bonus" to be added, especially when reach is involved, boosts the power of this feat greatly, too greatly. But that is my perspective of game balance. Since I am the DM of Darthjaye, that is all that really matters. But I also want to know exactly what WOTC means. Just in case.

 

[Sledge]

"any bonus or extra attacks" must be read as bonus attacks or extra attacks. To have both 'attacks' would be superfluous. Otherwise whirlwind can't use the magic of a weapon, masterwork quality, favoured enemy bonuses, or even the ability to get through damage reduction. This is an obvious situation. Only extra attacks are nullified.

 

[dcollins]

The line in question reads "you also forfiet any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats or abilities (such as the Cleave feat or the haste spell)".

"Bonus or extra attacks" is referring to additional attacks only.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I do think allowing "any bonus" to be added, especially when reach is involved, boosts the power of this feat greatly, too greatly. But that is my perspective of game balance. Since I am the DM of Darthjaye, that is all that really matters. But I also want to know exactly what WOTC means. Just in case.

Look at the prerequisites for the feat. 1 stat that is nonessential for a combatant. 2 feats that cannot be used in conjunction with it. 2 other feats that do not add to it's power. Base attack of 4.

That's a LOT of prerequisites.

Now, lets look at what the feat ACTUALLY does, as opposed to dreaming up fantasy scenarios which will never happen.

Your fighter 5' steps, takes a full attack, and hits every foe he threatens.

If he's lucky, he realistically might be able to reach 3 foes with this maneuver. Once (remember - he has to have them within reach after no more than a 5' step, so next round they'll just move...)

More than likely, this feat will see use only rarely (at best, once per mass-combat, and usually it'll only get 2 foes) As the fighter increases in level, the chance of this feat being superior to a full attack is going to decline.

Now - lets compare this with great cleave. 2 feats as prerequisites, only one of which is useless. One stat, which is the prime stat for a melee combatant. No action to use.

In general, this feat will see use a lot. My characters that had the lesser version got an extra attack almost every combat that involved multiple foes. As the character's attacks increase, the power of the feat increases.

Which do you think is more powerful?

Which do you think requires less investment?

Now consider that in your game, when you use whirlwind attack you lose all your bonuses to hit.

That, frankly, makes whirlwind attack a spectacular pile of craptastic mess.

In conclusion - you're wrong, and you've got no idea what a balanced feat looks like. And I seriously hope that you told the player about your terrible house rule BEFORE he got the feat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

We all know that WOTC are not the grammar masters of the universe, so if they were writing it to correctly mean both bonus and extra attacks they would have used "and" instead of "or". "Or" implies contrasts, not similarities. So grammatically it means "any bonus or any extra attacks", not any kind of bonus/extra attack. So if they meant it to mean only bonus/extra attacks they need it to say so. As written it does not.

Huh?

If I say I cannot eat any orange or yellow fruit, I mean I can eat neither any fruit which is orange, nor any fruit which is yellow. Not that I can't eat oranges, or fruit which is yellow.

What sort of fruit can't I eat? Orange or yellow.

What sort of attacks can't I use? Bonus or extra.

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Especially if you have a reach of ten and you have 24 targets massed up around you for you to hit with your highest attack bonus. Just weapon specialization would had 48 HP to the total damage dealed out if every target were hit. If you can add 5 points of power attack you are adding 120 points of damage being dealt out to the 24 targets. 168 if both PA and Specializaton add on.

Yeah, because I've just lost count of the amount of combats I'm in where there are 24 combatants. And in every single one, the first thing they did was mass around the fighter with the spiked chain.

Perhaps you'd like to ban empower and maximise spell too? After all, in your scenario, an empower on a 10th level fireball would add 420 damage! My goodness!