Whirlwind attack
- Thread starter Wippit Guud
- Start date
drnuncheon
Explorer
Tabarnak Smokeblower said:
Just out of curiosity, how would you word it to make it come out the other way? Without prior knowledge of this discussion, I would have worded it the same way it was in the book - one attack at the highest bonus against each person in reach. Just something to consider.
I think the default assumption in 3.5 is one attack roll per target - in fact, I can't think of any other time in the core rules where you would make a single attack roll and apply it to multiple targets.
Also, if you are disarmed in the middle of your whirlwind attack, you could continue with it even if you don't have IUS...it just might not be wise.
J
Particle_Man
Explorer
I think I am reading the SRD differently.
The whirlwind attack allows you to make a meelee attack vs. each opponent. However, Trip, Sunder and Disarm all count as possible meelee attacks.
As the feat is written, you would not benefit from Improved Trip while using Whirlwind Attack, since you would not get that extra attack from Improved Trip, since Whirlwind attack does not allow extra attacks from other feats.
But you could still, if surrounded by 8 yahoos, Whirlwind and attack two for damage, trip the next two, disarm the fifth, try and fail to disarm the sixth (and lose your tripping weapon), and finish up with unarmed strikes on numbers 7 and 8.
THe feat says "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." To me that means one attack per opponent, and each attack can be different (disarm, trip, sunder or good old-fashioned damage). So you roll the d20 8 times if you are surrounded by 8 people.
That said, I have played with people that interpret that "one meelee attack against each opponent" to mean you roll the d20 once, applying its result to each opponent. If that were the case, a stronger claim could be made for that one attack being the same thing (trip everyone, disarm everyone, sunder the weapons of everyone, or damage everyone). But a) I think that the "roll once" interpretation is incorrect, and b) The "roll many times" interpretation allows for a cool option (a whirlwind of activity, guided by one's intelligence and dexterity) that is worthy of a feat at the end of a 5 feat tree, and not something similar in style to Great Cleave.
The whirlwind attack allows you to make a meelee attack vs. each opponent. However, Trip, Sunder and Disarm all count as possible meelee attacks.
As the feat is written, you would not benefit from Improved Trip while using Whirlwind Attack, since you would not get that extra attack from Improved Trip, since Whirlwind attack does not allow extra attacks from other feats.
But you could still, if surrounded by 8 yahoos, Whirlwind and attack two for damage, trip the next two, disarm the fifth, try and fail to disarm the sixth (and lose your tripping weapon), and finish up with unarmed strikes on numbers 7 and 8.
THe feat says "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." To me that means one attack per opponent, and each attack can be different (disarm, trip, sunder or good old-fashioned damage). So you roll the d20 8 times if you are surrounded by 8 people.
That said, I have played with people that interpret that "one meelee attack against each opponent" to mean you roll the d20 once, applying its result to each opponent. If that were the case, a stronger claim could be made for that one attack being the same thing (trip everyone, disarm everyone, sunder the weapons of everyone, or damage everyone). But a) I think that the "roll once" interpretation is incorrect, and b) The "roll many times" interpretation allows for a cool option (a whirlwind of activity, guided by one's intelligence and dexterity) that is worthy of a feat at the end of a 5 feat tree, and not something similar in style to Great Cleave.
Tabarnak Smokeblower
First Post
drnuncheon said:
I guess the difference comes from how you read it, ie, on what word you put the emphasis on:
a) 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.
1 roll, check against the AC of every reachable target. One could word it thus, so to be sure that there is no confusion: When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make a single melee attack, at your full base attack bonus. You deal damage to every opponent within reach against whom your attack beat their AC.
b) 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.
as many rolls as there are targets, at your full BAB. To be sure, it could have been written as such: When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead, for every opponent within reach, make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus.
Also, I must point out that english is my second language, that I have "mastered" with countless hours of watching american TV
TS
Camarath
Pale Master Tarrasque
Warning: Post Deals with Grammar
"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 that targets every opponent within reach."
Or they would have replaced the word “each” with the word “all”.
“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 all opponents within reach.”
The sentence as written can be read either way but I think the most likely meaning is B). This is because of the word “each” crates an implied distinction between the targets. I think the usually usage of the word “each” in a construction like this is to apply the action being preformed to each possible target separately rather than as a group.
For example if I said that "my heart burns with hatred against each of those who slighted me" it is clear that I mean that I hate each person who sighted me as an individuals rather than all people who have slighted me as a group. If I said "my heart burns with hatred against all of those who slighted me” then I would be grouping everyone who slighted me together as a single target for my hatred.
The rules seem to consistently use the word each to refer to separate individuals or occurrence rather than groups.
I think that you can read the sentence either way. But IMO if they meant A) they would have probably phrased it this way.Tabarnak Smokeblower said:
"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 that targets every opponent within reach."
Or they would have replaced the word “each” with the word “all”.
“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 all opponents within reach.”
The sentence as written can be read either way but I think the most likely meaning is B). This is because of the word “each” crates an implied distinction between the targets. I think the usually usage of the word “each” in a construction like this is to apply the action being preformed to each possible target separately rather than as a group.
For example if I said that "my heart burns with hatred against each of those who slighted me" it is clear that I mean that I hate each person who sighted me as an individuals rather than all people who have slighted me as a group. If I said "my heart burns with hatred against all of those who slighted me” then I would be grouping everyone who slighted me together as a single target for my hatred.
The rules seem to consistently use the word each to refer to separate individuals or occurrence rather than groups.
Last edited:
Break the sentance down.
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.
You have two parts to this.
When you use the full attack action,
and
you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
The second part is what we are looking at.
I cant remember what its called in English but you rewrite the sentance to get what it means.
Who are you attacking?
each opponent within reach
What can I do t each one?
make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus
What do I need to do to perform this attack?
you give up your regular attacks
So its one attack against each foe in reach.
Not one roll for all.
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.
You have two parts to this.
When you use the full attack action,
and
you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
The second part is what we are looking at.
I cant remember what its called in English but you rewrite the sentance to get what it means.
Who are you attacking?
each opponent within reach
What can I do t each one?
make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus
What do I need to do to perform this attack?
you give up your regular attacks
So its one attack against each foe in reach.
Not one roll for all.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Does the rule for striking the cover instead of a missed target still exist?
If so, then a Manyshot with a normal arrow and a +2 arrow against an target standing behind another target could conceivably hit the cover with the normal arrow, and the original target with the magic arrow... which would be applying a single attack roll to multiple targets.
... but I couldn't find the "Striking cover" rule in a quick peruse of the SRD, so I'm not sure if it's still there...
-Hyp.
