A Whirlwind Question

[Histel]

Lot of pre-reqs indeed

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...

I was just about to write the same. I totally agree, the Whirwind Attack has a LOT of prereqs!! And I also believe that it's only the extra attacks from other feats that are nullified.

 

[FireLance]

I believe the general interpretation is that any bonus that is not an extra attack, e.g. attack bonus, damage bonus, improved threat range, etc. would continue to apply in a Whirlwind Attack. The feat is supposed to be the great mook eliminator, the fighter's answer to fireball. And like any mass-effect ability (such as fireball), the more enemies that are packed together, the more damage it does.

Does that mean it is unbalanced, though? Perhaps if the PCs only face large numbers of comparatively low-level opponents who pack closely together. Unlike fireball, which can be used only a limited number of times per day, a fighter can Whirlwind Attack any number of times.

Mass-effect abilities can make encounters with large numbers of weak opponents easy. The game acknowledges this, in a way. Page 49 of the DMG does not recommend encounters with more than 12 opponents. So, an encounter with 24 opponents, while theoretically possible, is not really well supported by the rules. Either mass-effect abilities like fireball and Whirlwind Attack make it easy, or it boils down to a long dice-rolling session.

So, Whirlwind Attack, fireball, and other mass-effect abilities are balanced by not swarming the PCs with more than 12 low-level opponents all the time.

 

[Dracomeander]

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.

...

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

'Or' is also used to indicate the possibility of choice from within a set. In this case a set of two - bonus OR extra. This is also grammatically correct, and Hypersmurf's example is a very good explanation of it.

That is the problem with the English language. Very few things have only one correct usage.

Think of it as a mathematical formula.
bonus or extra attacks is the grammatical way of saying:
(bonus or extra) attacks = bonus attacks or extra attacks

 

[HellHound]

Sorry, Treebore, but I have to agree with the consensus here... After all, the situation you described is about as improbably as your left arm floating off into the sunset, and even then it is still comparable to the bonus damage available to an area effect spell through metamagics.

I cannot wear pink or red boots.

It doesn't mean I cannot wear red boots or anything pink. It means I cannot wear pink boots and I cannot wear red boots.

 

[Darthjaye]

"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.

Good point though. By this line of thought he would lose all these bonuses. Wow, the more I think about it, if this was the way for this feat to have been designed, I for one would never ever go near it. It would be a complete waste of time for any class whatsoever. It requires a ton of prereqs, and then eliminates the usage of everyone of those feats in order to use it. Making it a surefire candidate for the most useless high level feat you'll ever acquire for your fighter. Technically, by this interpretation, you would lose any bonus (dodge, magic armor, etc...). As I mentioned to the GM when this was explained, I then felt that Great Cleave was the far more useful of the two. He disagreed with me on this though too.

Now don't get me wrong here, I do enjoy his GMing, I just reserve the right to fully disagree with this and other similar points. And as I pointed out, this information is for me mainly. I want to see and know what the feat was meant to read as and what the opinion was on it.

 

[Treebore]

It may be improbable, but it came close to happening several times during our game this past weekend. With Tumble and jump available it can happen a lot if the player wants it too.

Besides, I ruled it only applied to bonus' given by feats, not spells.

Tell you what, if you think it isn't over powered and useful, ask your respective DM's to hit your group with NPC's wielding range weapons, inside of a keep, where movement/space is limited. Give them the feats leading up to whirlwind, boost them up with prayer, bull strength, etc..., throw in the feats with bonus' for good measure.

If your PC's are still alive and you still think the feat isn't overpowered, keep allowing it.

As for the useage of "or" in a sentence, I looked it up in the "Holt Handbook on English Composition" and the "Harbrace College Handbook" before I posted my response. I'm satisfied my interpretation is legitimate, but I agree it could be looked at as Darthjaye wants too. The wonders of the english language, indeed.

Saviomagy,

Apparently, I have different experiences than you. Whirlwind deals out a lot more damage than Great Cleave, or Cleave. Plus, since the DM's I play under usually have us fighting balanced encounters, I only see Cleave used with any regularity.

See, when your playing 9th level characters you are fighting NPC's with 30+ HP's. No one normally does that kind of damage with any one hit, unless they crit multiple times in a row.
So I see a frequent amount of Cleave, but rarely Great Cleave.

Now look at Whirlwind, which granted has many very useful prerequisite feats. Your in the middle of your parties front line. You have a Spiked Chain weapon (using the character from my game this past weekend) which is enchanted as +1 Goblin Bane (they are fighting Eldritch Goblyns of Erde, and I am allowing them to be affected by the bane, despite the fact they are dwarven blooded in my game). So this character is getting +3 to hit and damage + 2d6 damage, he has an 18 STR for an additional +4 to hit and damage, he is boosted by Bull's Strength, taking his strength to 23 (+6).

So he is doing +9/+9 +2d6 +2d4 (chain damage) without feats or BAB. With BAB he is +18 to hit.

He has several Goblyns charge in, centered on him/his line. By using Whirlwind he can deal out an average of 19 points to every one of the Goblyns that come within his reach, not to mention the AoO's they provoke for passing through his threatened areas just to attack his companions. He is +18 to hit against an AC of 19 in this case. Darn good chances to pull off a hit on every one of the Goblyns, plus a couple of AoO's since the PC has combat reflexes.

Now throw in bonuses from prayer (average 20 Damage), how about bard song (average 22 Damage)? Now throw in bonus' from feats (average of 25+ with Specialization/power attack damage).

So for giving up his iterative attack he gets to do anywhere (on average) of 19 to 25+ points of damage, at least once, to every NPC that is within 10' of his character when he attacks. In comparison he would get to do 38 damage to only one creature by not doing his Whirlwind.

Then his fellow party members get to lay into the Goblyns, one of whom has great Cleave. Because the mighty Chain of Winds has done significant damage to each of the goblyns, the Great Cleaver actually gets to great cleave because she also has a Goblyn Bane weapon and has a high strength and is power attacking with +5.

So yes, I do know what I am talking about. I think most DM's would quickly tire of a game where the PC's easily mow down CR 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 (depending on actual HP's of the NPC/monsters) creatures because of whirlwind making Great Cleave happen even more often. I know I would, and will.

So if you think it isn't too powerful to deal out that much damage, and make cleave's and great cleave's that much more common for the other PC's, well, its your game. You can have the power level be whatever you want it to be.

So I'll keep my opinion that Whirlwind is very powerful, and gets worse with every bonus added. Not to mention how sweet the feat prerequisite's of Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack are on their own.

 

[sfedi]

Yeah, a Feat is overpowered because NPCs act like idiots.

 

[FireLance]

Let's see now - you've got 9th level PCs, you're pitting them against CR 4-7 creatures, you've armed them with bane weapons that affect their opponents, who apparently have no missile capability and are forced to fight in relatively cramped conditions so they're bunched up together, and you expect the PCs to have a hard time?

You do recognize the following, right?
(1) The PCs are fighting inferior opponents.
(2) You've stacked the deck against the opponents by giving the PCs bane weapons.
(3) You're playing to the PCs' strengths by forcing the opponents to bunch up together and fight them in melee.

It's like sending a horde of 4HD undead with no turn resistance against a 9th-level cleric. How challenging is that? But does that mean Turn Undead is broken?

It's like sending a horde of creatures with fire vulnerability against a 9th-level wizard with empowered fireball. That's 73 points of damage on average, or 36 even if they make their save. Does that mean that Empower Spell or fireball is broken?

Whirlwind Attack is pretty much a situational feat. It's hardly ever used when fighting a small number of opponents. Of course it works great against a large number of opponents. That's the whole point.

 

[Ravellion]

Indeed, you keep all bonusses, but give up all your extra (bonus) attacks. Whirwind attack is a feat which allows you to kill lots of creatures that would individually pose hardly any threat to you.

I am surprised your player wasn't peeved by your unique ruling (haven't seen this interpretation in all the years 3e has been out). It makes his feat all but useless.

Rav

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I am surprised your player wasn't peeved by your unique ruling (haven't seen this interpretation in all the years 3e has been out). It makes his feat all but useless.

Exactly.