Whirlwind Attack Questions

[Dandu]

But hey, if you blew so many feats to get WWA that soon, you deserve some sort of perk...

Or a +1 equivalent weapon enchantment...

 

[radmod]

As for Whirlwind not working with pounce, I'm pretty sure it works together. Pounce grants a full attack when charging (not extra attacks), and a whirlwind attack requires a "full attack action." If whirlwind said it needed a special full-round action, I'd think differently.

I'm going to have to disagree.
1) As already pointed out, a charge gives you one attack. Pounce gives you multiple attacks therefore it cannot be used in conjunction with WA.
2) Also sort of pointed out, a charge is a "special full-round action." While WA Pounce gives you a full attack, your action for the round is a "special full round action" not a full attack action. Therefore, you do not meet the requirements for a WA. As a counter-example, the Travel Devotion Feat allows you to make a move as a free action. You can then follow up with a WA since you still have a full attack action available.

However, if you're doing it (just) for a NPC, screw it! NPC's can do things players can't! Besides it sounds fun (and just might piss off the players).

 

[Vegepygmy]

1) As already pointed out, a charge gives you one attack. Pounce gives you multiple attacks therefore it cannot be used in conjunction with WA.

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to your speed and attack during the action. (PHB page 154) When a creature with [Pounce] makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack. (MM page 313) A character with Whirlwind Attack can, when using the full attack action, give up his regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at his full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. (PHB page 102)

Thus, it is clear that Pounce and Whirlwind Attack can be used together. Using Whirlwind Attack requires a full attack action, and Pounce allows you to use a full attack action following your charge. It's just that simple.

2) Also sort of pointed out, a charge is a "special full-round action."

Yep, it's a special full-round action that lets you move up to your speed and attack. And Pounce is a special ability that lets you move up to your speed and full attack. And Whirlwind Attack is a feat that lets you full attack in a unique way. And all of these special rules synergize quite well together.

While WA gives you a full attack, your action for the round is a "special full round action" not a full attack action.

Whirlwind Attack doesn't give you a full attack; you use a full attack to Whirlwind Attack. And your action for the round is a special full-round action that (thanks to Pounce) lets you move up to your speed and full attack.

Therefore, you do not meet the requirements for a WA.

Of course you do. The requirement is that you make a full attack...which is exactly what Pounce lets you do at the end of your charge.

 

[radmod]

Thus, it is clear that Pounce and Whirlwind Attack can be used together. Using Whirlwind Attack requires a full attack action, and Pounce allows you to use a full attack action following your charge. It's just that simple.

No, it's not clear, which is why some of us say differently.

But, before I get into that, there's this:

Whirlwind Attack doesn't give you a full attack; you use a full attack to Whirlwind Attack. And your action for the round is a special full-round action that (thanks to Pounce) lets you move up to your speed and full attack.

Hmm, it should've been clear that I accidentally said 'WA' when I meant 'charge.' After all, I was talking about 'charge' at the time.

Now, once again. I'll spell it out for you and you can tell me what's wrong.

1) Pounce requires a charge.
2) A charge is a special full-round action.
3) Whirlwind Attack requires a full attack action.
4) By definition, a full attack action is a full round action.
5) A Pounce allows you to make a full attack as part of a special full round action.
If one were to allow the WA with a Pounce, then you would be allowing a full round action AND a special full round action.

I'm 99% sure that this is also RAI.

The requirement is that you make a full attack...which is exactly what Pounce lets you do at the end of your charge.

No, the requirement (for WA) is that you use a full attack action (a full round action) not a full attack (which is part of another action).
It's just that simple.

Oh, and, of course, for the hardcore rules lawyers, there's still #1 (from the previous post).

 

[HoboGod]

Let's do this mathematically, shall we!

If Full Attack <=> Full Attack Action AND Whirlwind Attack is a member of Full Attack Action, then Whirlwind Attack is also a member of Full Attack. If Pounce grants a Full Attack, it would logically grant and member of Full Attack, including Whirlwind Attack.

Now, maybe you're trying to say that Full Attack and Full Attack Action refer to different things (it really seems that way.) However, I know of no such place where Full Attack Action is defined differently than Full Attack. In the PHB glossary, they define Full-Round Attack, which you might confuse for Full Attack Action, as something other than what's defined on page 143 of the PHB, but Full Attack Action and Full-Round Attack are not interchangeable terms.

EDIT: Yeah, I know, this is rule-lawyering at it's most mumbo-jumbo, but it's a circular argument if I don't try to get technical.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Now, once again. I'll spell it out for you and you can tell me what's wrong.

1) Pounce requires a charge.
2) A charge is a special full-round action.
3) Whirlwind Attack requires a full attack action.
4) By definition, a full attack action is a full round action.
5) A Pounce allows you to make a full attack as part of a special full round action.

#4 is incorrect (or at least, badly stated). It should be: "A full attack action (normally) requires a full-round action."

If one were to allow the WA with a Pounce, then you would be allowing a full round action AND a special full round action.

No...you'd be allowing a full attack action AS PART OF a special full-round action, which is what Pounce expressly allows you to do.

No, the requirement (for WA) is that you use a full attack action (a full round action) not a full attack (which is part of another action).
It's just that simple.

There is no difference between "making a full attack" and "using the full attack action," as you seem to believe. When you use Pounce to make a full attack as part of your special full-round charge action, you are using the full attack action.

Oh, and, of course, for the hardcore rules lawyers, there's still #1.

What #1? Your "Charge gives you one attack, Pounce gives you multiple attacks, therefore it cannot be used in conjunction with Whirlwind Attack" argument? I already showed why that fails.

 

[radmod]

#4 is incorrect (or at least, badly stated). It should be: "A full attack action (normally) requires a full-round action."

Hey, don't blame me, blame WOTC. From the PH (via SRD):
"If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks"
Yes, Pounce goes beyond that, but it doesn't change the fact that multiple attacks require a full-round action.

What #1? Your "Charge gives you one attack, Pounce gives you multiple attacks, therefore it cannot be used in conjunction with Whirlwind Attack" argument? I already showed why that fails.

In an earlier thread, I was discussing why verbosity is best. This is a prime example. Too often, people focus on the last words of a person rather than the whole conversation.
If I had added "[#1] from the previous post" there would be no confusion (I'm going to correct that). If I had read the thread as it is I would've been confused just like veg was. However, since it didn't make sense I would have hoped the reader would have realized I was referring to an earlier #1. If I had been more verbose, it would've been clear.
Just to clarify, I meant #1 from the previous post:
"1) As already pointed out, a charge gives you one attack. Pounce gives you multiple attacks therefore it cannot be used in conjunction with WA."
Hence, the rules-lawyering comment.

There is no difference between "making a full attack" and "using the full attack action," as you seem to believe. When you use Pounce to make a full attack as part of your special full-round charge action, you are using the full attack action.

Let's do this mathematically, shall we!
If Full Attack <=> Full Attack Action AND Whirlwind Attack is a member of Full Attack Action, then Whirlwind Attack is also a member of Full Attack. If Pounce grants a Full Attack, it would logically grant and member of Full Attack, including Whirlwind Attack.

Now, maybe you're trying to say that Full Attack and Full Attack Action refer to different things (it really seems that way.) However, I know of no such place where Full Attack Action is defined differently than Full Attack. In the PHB glossary, they define Full-Round Attack, which you might confuse for Full Attack Action, as something other than what's defined on page 143 of the PHB, but Full Attack Action and Full-Round Attack are not interchangeable terms.

First off, is there another glossary I'm not aware of? I see Full-Round Action defined but not Full-Round Attack. I just want to be sure I'm not missing a resource.

This is where we are going to disagree (I guarantee it!).
As we all know, WOTC attempted, but did not always succeed in being precise in terminology, hence evil (the alignment) vs. Evil (the descriptor).
I do not consider "full attack" to be equivalent to "full attack action". A full attack action is not a full attack but an action that allows one to make a full attack. By the above-mentioned definition it is a full-round action. So WA requires a full-round action.
Now, Pounce, OTH, is a special attack that allows a special full-round action (Charge) followed by a full attack. Thus, it is a special full-round action that allows a full attack.
So pouncing allows a full attack, but it does not allow a full attack action since it is already a full-round action.

Now let's look at intent. Pounce is usually a dog/cat monster ability. I have no doubt in my mind that the idea was that said monster runs over and (like a lion) essentially jumps on a person and does multiple attacks. Yet the way it is written allows you to attack more than one creature. I, personally, only allow my monsters to attack either one or two adjacent creatures because that is what I believe the intent was.

 

[HoboGod]

First off, is there another glossary I'm not aware of? I see Full-Round Action defined but not Full-Round Attack. I just want to be sure I'm not missing a resource.

Yeah, there's a strange printing in the player's handbook glossary that refers to Full-Round Action as Full-Round Attack. It's irrelevant, really, I just assumed that was the cause of some confusion as to why full attack action and full attack would be different in your mind.

This is where we are going to disagree (I guarantee it!).
As we all know, WOTC attempted, but did not always succeed in being precise in terminology, hence evil (the alignment) vs. Evil (the descriptor).
I do not consider "full attack" to be equivalent to "full attack action". A full attack action is not a full attack but an action that allows one to make a full attack.

You're damn straight we disagree. Full Attack is listed in a list of Full Round Actions. As far as I'm concerned, that makes Full Attack an action. Just because it's called Full Attack in some places and Full Attack Action in others doesn't make them different terms for different things. It's like saying Withdrawing from Combat and a Withdraw Action would be different things.

 

[Persiflage]

This really ought not to be as hard as it's proving to be, but I suppose that's rules-lawyering at the sharp end

I'm gonna start from scratch with this one...

Can the Whirlwind Attack and Pounce abilities be used together? I guess the answer rests with the hierarchy of precedence of rules, or "what order stuff happens in".

For reference, my reasoning is on the basis that the rule closest to the "foundations" of the game is unilaterally in effect until it's explicitly contradicted. If it is explicitly contradicted, only those elements of the rule that are affected by the contradiction are invalid in that specific case.

I know others have quoted these rules but I like to keep things in one place where I can see 'em. I've nested the rules where relevant for illustration

When a creature with this special attack makes a CHARGE,

Charging is a special FULL-ROUND ACTION...

A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions (see below).

...that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Attacking on a Charge:After moving, you may make a single melee attack.

[snippage]

Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.

...it can follow with a FULL-ATTACK...

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a FULL-ROUND ACTION...

A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions (see below).

...to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.


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.

...-including rake attacks- if the creature also has the rake ability.

I've tried to make it easy to follow by colour-coding the "exception" rules, and I've highlighted in red the text of the "called" rules that is invalidated by the exception that's doing the calling.

OK, so what's happening up 'til now? You invoke your Pounce special ability, which explicitly allows you to CHARGE, and then follow with a FULL-ATTACK. The CHARGE rules call the "FULL-ROUND ACTION" definition, which states that a full-round action consumes all of your actions for the round and that your only movement allowed is a 5-foot step. Both of these conditions are violated by the exception (CHARGE) that calls them.

Next you take a FULL-ATTACK. The FULL-ATTACK rules also call the "FULL-ROUND ACTION" definition, but the FULL-ATTACK definition doesn't violate the basic requirements of a full-round action. The Pounce ability overall does, but the full-attack action you get after your charge does not.

No matter: the Pounce ability has let you - explicitly - perform a full-round action (charge) followed by another full-round action (full attack). It doesn't say "you get to make a full round of attacks as part of a charge", it says "you get to make a charge, and then take a full attack".

You see, as written it actually doesn't matter that charging is "a special full-round action" and "a full attack is a full-round action": the ability lets you do both, one after the other. It's an exception that overrides the rules it calls out.

Strictly speaking, what Pounce does - and I'm not arguing it's necessarily intended this way - is let you charge (move up to double your speed, followed by a single attack) and then take a full attack (your full normal number of attacks, including a five-foot step if you want to). Yes, that's right, if you interpret Pounce strictly as written you actually get more attacks than if you take the full-attack action, because you get an attack as part of the charge action, followed by the full-attack action.

This leaves us with...

Benefit: 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.

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

...which doesn't even pose us a problem at this point. The full-attack we get to take is NOT happening as part of a charge, it's happening after a charge. As such, we can do anything we could normally do when taking a full attack, including Whirlwind Attack, trips, bull-rushing, disarms, whatever.

Pounce doesn't grant "extra attacks", it grants an extra full-round action; it's just that the only type of full-round action it gives you is "a full attack". You might call that semantic hair-splitting but it's really not: hell, Whirlwind Attack isn't even invoked until after you reach the last thing that the Pounce ability does, which is "grant you the full attack action you need". You don't even have to decide whether or not you want to use Whirlwind Attack until you come to take the full attack action that Pounce has given you after your charge.

Anything which grants extra attacks that comes into play after you've invoked Whirlwind Attack (haste, Cleave, flurry of blows, or Snap Kick for instance) is invalidated by the use of Whirlwind Attack, but it doesn't retrospectively invalidate you "already having used Pounce to grant you the full attack action after a charge".

I don't believe it - I've just agreed with both HoboGod and Vegepygmy in the same post!



EDIT: If you're still finding it hard to swallow, compare the Time Stands Still manoeuver. It grants two successive full-attack actions and would therefore allow two consecutive Whirlwind Attacks.

 

[Gwarthkam]

If one were to allow the WA with a Pounce, then you would be allowing a full round action AND a special full round action.

Your argument against using WA combined with a special full round action would be equally valid against using a normal full attack action combined with a special full round action (charge -> full attack) - but that is the entire purpose of the feat. it would seem, that pounce makes a special full attack action even more special