Hey Big Brains Check this thread out! AKA Whirlwind with a 5' step?

[Virago]

The way I interpret it, it's not ridiculous at all. Ruling that a 5' step is impossible in the middle of a whirlwind attack seems like a meaningless (and artificial) restriction -- it's taking the restrictions specific to Cleave and applying them where they don't belong and aren't needed.

If a player of mine wound up in a situation where they could abuse Whirlwind Attack in a way that didn't involve Cleave, they'd probably feel like they were finally getting some use out of this lame feat.

 

[Nish]

With Haste you could use the partial action to get yourself into position in the middle of the foe and then Whirlwind them all ... we have never had a SINGLE character with this feat ! Any ever seen a whirlwind attack done ?

We had a 6th level fighter in our party that died a game session ago with Whirlwind Attack. Against large groups of enemies its really nifty. It almost makes spells like Fireball seem pointless sometimes.

 

[Psifon]

Virago has my point exactly.

How this feat relates to cleave is irrelivant. Cleave is not a full round action, it is a free action, and so it doesn't apply.

I am reading a lot of oppinions about how abusive this ruling is and what the game designers intended, but I am not reading anything about what the rule says, that contradicts my interpretation.

When the combination of great cleave and whirlwind attack first came out on the boards, it was similarly po-poed as "munchkin" and "abusive." Now it is just considered a part of the game.

There are lots of opinions about how things should work. Like the notion that a failed Knockdown doesn't provoke a trip attack. These opinions are all well and good, but they are not what the rule SAYS. If you just go by the letter of the rule, Knockdown DOES provoke a trip attack when it fails, and Whrilwind DOES allow a 5' step in the middle of the action.

 

[Uller]

Well...like some of us have said. The rules SAY you can take a 5' step during a full attack...WWA is a full attack. So you can take a 5' step during a WWA...

However, whether or not you can use that 5' step to give you some more targets is not clear in the rules and I don't think you can support an arguement one way or the other without using assumptions to fill in the blanks.

I'm guessing that they just hadn't considered the 5' step/WWA combo when they wrote the rule(heck...this is the first time I've seen the issue raised). Since the designers didn't cover EVERY eventuality in the rules(because that would be inane), DMs _must not_ rely entirely on the letter of the rules. To not occasionally apply a modicum of personal judgement is utter folly for a DM.

There are three possible conclusions to this question and EACH requires an assumption to fully back it up.

1) No 5' step: Assumption: All the attacks are actually one and there is no "in between" during which a 5' step could be taken.

2) 5' step but no more targets. Assumption: All targets must be within 5' when you start the attack.

3) 5' step and more targets: Assumption: Targets must be within 5' at some point during the attack, but may not start out(or end up) that way.

Since no where in the rules does it expressly spell out any of these assumptions, all three options are equally valid. 1 is right out, IMO. 3 is over the top as far as I'm concerned and 2 seems fair and reasonable.

 

[Psifon]

Uller

This is a good analysis, except for one thing. According to page 124 of the PHB, Option 3 is the DEFAULT way that full attack actions work. WWA is a full attack action. Therefore, you MUST accept this ruling if you are not going to make any assumptions.

 

[Uller]

Uller

This is a good analysis, except for one thing. According to page 124 of the PHB, Option 3 is the DEFAULT way that full attack actions work. WWA is a full attack action.

Not quite true. A WWA is a full attack action with a specific limitation: All targets must be within 5'.

At what point they must be within 5' it does not say so
anything beyond that about the location of the targets is an assumption, IMO.

Therefore, you MUST accept this ruling if you are not going to make any assumptions.

Ah...but I said you MUST make assumptions to be an effective DM. Otherwise you get a lot of crazy stuff. That doesn't make one person's opinion a house rule and another's "official". The rules are sufficiently(and often purposefully) vague that DMs are required to make assumptions all the time. Otherwise the rules would be written in "legalese" and no one wants that.

When I am deciding something like this, I ask myself "Does this sound silly?"...if it does, I rule something that makes more sense. In this case, it seems silly to me that you could move and continue a WWA against targets you previously couldn't reach.

Edit: And actually...We're even assuming that a WWA = full attack. The rule actually says "When a character performs a full attack..." not "As a full attack..."

So what carries over from the FA rules into the WWA rules is purely up for conjecture, IMO.

 

[Christian]

Hey-I just realized that if you use Uller's third alternative, you can whirlwind with a reach weapon!

NNNX
NFXX
NXXX

N=enemy NPC
F=PC fighter with whirlwind attack and, say, a glaive.
X-empty space

1. PC declares a whirlwind attack.
2. PC steps back and right 5' (to the third space from the left on the bottom row).
3. PC whacks all five enemies with a whirlwind attack. (They were all within 5' when he declared the whirlwind, now they are all at 10' and within the threatened zone of his glaive.)

Cool. So, does anyone still think that this is how it's supposed to work?

 

[Virago]

Christian said:

So, does anyone still think that this is how it's supposed to work?

No, the upper-left N is out of his reach at the time he took the attack. That aside, what's making your eyes roll?

I think the way it is supposed to work is that the WWA character gets one attack against every opponent who is threatened at the time the action is taken. But that's not what's written...

 

[Ywain]

You know, as much as I am wary of the balance implications, I think that Virago might be right.

Intentions aside, the rules are pretty clear. The designers had the option to make WWA a Full *Round* action instead of a full-attack action, but they didn't exercise this option.

Did the designers intend this? Is it a bug or a feature? Who really knows until we see if the Sage twists himself in a knot trying to disallow it.

 

[Psifon]

Hey-I just realized that if you use Uller's third alternative, you can whirlwind with a reach weapon!

PC whacks all five enemies with a whirlwind attack. (They were all within 5' when he declared the whirlwind, now they are all at 10' and within the threatened zone of his glaive.)

No, because the enemies are not within 5' at the time of the attack. What you are doing is taking a 5'step and attacking everything within 10' of you. This is not the same thing at all.

What I am suggesting is that you attack everything within 5' and take a 5'step and continue to attack everything within 5'. This is completely different.