Quick question on a five foot step

[Artoomis]

No, it doesn't.

Okay, but you replace your normal attacks. "When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach."

That's getting kind of picky. The real issue is what does "one melee attack against..." really mean. If it is, in effect, one attack that affects everyone within reach, then obviously no 5' step - even if you roll the d20 seperately for the attack upon each opponent. If it is one seperate melee attack at each opponent, then maybe a 5' step is allowed.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's getting kind of picky. The real issue is what does "one melee attack against..." really mean. If it is, in effect, one attack that affects everyone within reach, then obviously no 5' step - even if you roll the d20 seperately for the attack upon each opponent.

I thought you were a big fan of reading things in context? I seem to recall such arguments in the INA thread. If so, you can't possibly be consistent in your reasoning and just totally ignore the second half of that sentence. It clearly means you make multiple attacks, similar to the analogy of standing in a group of 5 other people and handing a 1gp coin to each of them. Do you hand out just 1gp or 5gp total?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Okay, but you replace your normal attacks.

Which has absolutely no effect on the availability of 5' steps.

That's getting kind of picky. The real issue is what does "one melee attack against..." really mean.

Even that's not an issue. If I said, "Give one pie to each person in your office," do you give out one pie, or multiple pies?

Note that it's a melee attack, as well - meaning that you can trip or disarm just as easily as you can strike for damage.

 

[Slobber Monster]

Yes, I'll take a pie please.

 

[Artoomis]

I thought you were a big fan of reading things in context? I seem to recall such arguments in the INA thread. If so, you can't possibly be consistent in your reasoning and just totally ignore the second half of that sentence. It clearly means you make multiple attacks, similar to the analogy of standing in a group of 5 other people and handing a 1gp coin to each of them. Do you hand out just 1gp or 5gp total?

I think that, in context, this can be veiwed as one incredible attack that you make against everyone you can reach. Perfectly consistent.

"I'd like to give one pie to everyone in the office."

That can mean one pie split up so everyone gets a piece. Or it can mean everyone gets one whole pie.

Here, the question is, conceptually, does "one attack" mean you use one attack to hit everyone or everyone gets their own attack? That's really only important for deciding on a 5'-step - you could decide either way and still use the mechanic of a seperate attack roll for each person.

Either way works with the language and context.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ahah - important grammatical difference in your example.

"Everyone" is a collective [pro]noun - it refers to a bunch of people as a group.

"Each one" is not - it refers to a bunch of individuals, taken separately.

You can give one pie to a team - in which case, the team gets one pie.

Or, you can give one pie to each member of a team - in which case, the team gets a number of pies equal to the number of memebers.

EDIT:

"Each" is the important word in this phrase.

 

[Artoomis]

Ahah - important grammatical difference in your example.

"Everyone" is a collective [pro]noun - it refers to a bunch of people as a group.

"Each one" is not - it refers to a bunch of individuals, taken separately.

You can give one pie to a team - in which case, the team gets one pie.

Or, you can give one pie to each member of a team - in which case, the team gets a number of pies equal to the number of memebers.

EDIT:

"Each" is the important word in this phrase.

Okay, I agree, "each person" would give a pie to each person, not a slice.

Hmmm... I am still not sure whether conceptually this is intended to allow a 5' step or not. It does seem to really be extending your reach if can do so, but normally you can only attack (with a melee weapon) only those within your reach and you can take a 5' step between attacks in a full attack action.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Edit: Artoomis conceded above.

The additional question of whether the whirlwind attack is too powerful even given its significant prerequisites is another story. I think that in the right build, it is incredibly powerful, almost overwhelmingly. So, use it with caution.

 

[atom crash]

The additional question of whether the whirlwind attack is too powerful even given its significant prerequisites is another story. I think that in the right build, it is incredibly powerful, almost overwhelmingly. So, use it with caution.

It can be quite powerful when facing a lot of enemies spaced closely together. But like Greater Cleave, it's not very useful when you face enemies that are not spaced closely together. So like many tactical feats, it really depends on your group's style of play how often it can be used.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hmmm... I am still not sure whether conceptually this is intended to allow a 5' step or not.

Well, we have two pieces of information to help us decide this:

1) It's still a full-attack action, and you can explicitly take a 5' step in between any two attacks in a full-attack action.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

2) We have designer intent, from the Epic feat Improved Whirlwind Attack, which explicitly mentions the availability of 5' steps in between attacks (quoted upthread).

It does seem to really be extending your reach if can do so, but normally you can only attack (with a melee weapon) only those within your reach and you can take a 5' step between attacks in a full attack action.

I think it helps if you visualize WWA appropriately; it makes the conceptual issues go away and the 5' step makes more sense. Many people get in their heads that WWA is basically the character spinning in place with their sword held out at arm's length. Thus, they spin, get a single attack, stop spinning, and then can take their 5' step.

While that's fine, I think it really misses the spirit of WWA, as indicated by the prereqs: dodge, mobility, spring attack.

For cinematic examples, I recommend just about any Jackie Chan or Three Musketeers movie. More recently, though, I think that the "Crazy 88s" scene from Kill Bill, Vol. 1 seems to capture what WWA is really about the best.

It's not a "spin like a top" move; it's a quick slash, a pivot, a block, a backstep-lunge combo, another pivot 180* around in the opposite direction, and a final thrust through the heart of foe #6.