Whirlwind-

[trentonjoe]

Wait a minute! How does a fighter get WWA at 5th level.

Level 1 - Dodge, Mobility, Expertise
Level 2 - Spring... oh, wait, BAB +4 requirement... something else.
Level 3 - Something Else
Level 4 - Spring Attack
Level 5 - no feat
Level 6 - Whirlwind Attack

You aren't doing something cheesy like banking feats, are you?

oops!

Well they were monsters, they died, it was a great battle. Sometimes I fudge a thing or two to use cool abilities.

 

[Ristamar]

Personally, I think taking a 5' during a whirlwind attack is a bit ridiculous. I certainly see how one may reach that conclusion through the text, but as far as designer intent goes, I think the interpretation falls flat.

And if we're going to argue semantics, what does 'against' really mean? Is it one melee attack that hits multiple opponents? Or is it one melee attack per opponent?

One melee attack could really be interpreted as one melee attack. In other words, you're taking one big spinning swipe (like a whirlwind) that has a decent chance at hitting everyone nearby (read within 5'). Since it's essentially one big attack, there is no "in between" attacks. That, IMO, seems to adhere more to the spirit of the Whirlwind Attack feat.

 

[kreynolds]

One melee attack could really be interpreted as one melee attack. In other words, you're taking one big spinning swipe (like a whirlwind) that has a decent chance at hitting everyone nearby (read within 5'). Since it's essentially one big attack, there is no "in between" attacks. That, IMO, seems to adhere more to the spirit of the Whirlwind Attack feat.

I think you hit this topic right on the nose. I always envisioned whirlwind as one long and powerful spinning swipe, not a plethora of teeny tiny wittle bitty attacks. Just my opinion, but I also think that one attack was the designers' intent.

 

[Psifon]

kreynolds and Ristamar, the feat does specify that you make one attack against EACH opponent, not one attack against ALL opponents. I don't think you can support the idea that one die roll resolves all the attacks at once.

<<dusting off his soap box>>

I don't consider myself as trying to abuse the rules at all. Nor am I sure what the "spirit" of the rules are or the designer's intent. I am simply going by what the rules SAY. As I propose this argument, a lot of people are objecting because they have a preconseption (the same one I did) about how WWA works. I just put 2 & 2 together and came up with 4.

I am reminded of how posters responded when people first realized you could combine great cleave with whirlwind attack. People had a veriety of responses:

Is that LEGAL!?!
I object! You can't DO that!
That's just a muchkin raping of the rules!
That's just broken!
How does that work?
Hey that's pretty cool!
Has anyone actually tried the combo? Was it worth taking?
Etc. Etc.

Now this combination of feats is considered standard fare.

Well, I added 2 + 2 and I can assure you it equals 4. Even if the sage contradicts me, the rules don't. I am correct on this one.

right there in black and white.


<<placing soap box back in the closet>>

 

[Corwin]

You are ignoring one thing. the feat states: "When the character performs the full attack action,"

Not only did I not forget that, but I showed that it is not relevant to the question of a 5-foot step. Yes, when using the full attack action, you can choose to WWA. Yep. And yes you can take a 5-foot step before, during or after a full attack action. But nowhere does it say that you can take the 5-foot step during the WWA.

You can, however, still take the 5-foot step before during or after your full attack action. That would be before, during or after your WWA and something else (like the off-hand attacks). Tha', BTW, is why I mentioned it in the first place. You seemed to be saying that the WWA is all someone can do for the whole round and so the 5-foot step must be available within it. But since your full attack action can include the WWA and other attacks, that is when you need to understand how the feat works.

The entirety of the WWA action is one thing. It is a single attack "action" that can be used on multiple targets. It goes off all at once. This is in addition to your off-hand swing(s). Before, between or after the two portions of your full attack action, you can take your 5-foot step.

Giving up your attacks is not an action (as you seem to be implying by listing it above), more is determining who you are attacking.

I don't know if you are trying to be rediculous or not here. I never said that my example consisted of 5 actions. Please refrain from taking things out of context in an attempt to discredit. I never even came close to implying that the steps I gave were "actions". Is ending the WWA an action as well? Obviously, the break-down I made was just a step-by-step of how to apply the WWA.

The WWA as a whole is a fullattack action, and you apply the same rules to it as you would any other full attack action. This is clear because the rules do not specify otherwise, therefore you use the same rules for ALL full attack actions.

I just explained how that works above. The 5-foot spet is still viable when WWA is used. It just has to go before or after the actual WWA portion of your full attack action.

I have come to the conclusion that you can take a 5' step in the middle of a WWA, becasue this is what the rules SAY.

And I conclude that you are reading it that way because it gets you what you want. It doesn't matter what it really says, you want to be able to abuse the rule.

Having taken care of THAT, yes I did know about using an off hand weapon, thanks for asking.

Then everything I have just stated should be clear.

 

[kreynolds]

Please refrain from taking things out of context in an attempt to discredit.

Yep. That happens a lot around here.

 

[Ristamar]

kreynolds and Ristamar, the fead does specify that you make one attack against EACH opponent, not one attack against ALL opponents. I don't think you can support the idea that one die roll resolves all the attacks at once..

I don't think trying to differentiate between 'each' and 'all' is exactly the crystal clear evidence you espouse it to be. Regardless, it was only an example of how easily one can formulate an opposing, and arguably valid, conclusion based on the same block of text.

I am reminded of how posters responded when people first realized you could combine great cleave with whirlwind attack. People had a veriety of responses:

Is that LEGAL!?!
I object! You can't DO that!
That's just a muchkin raping of the rules!
That's just broken!
How does that work?
Hey that's pretty cool!
Has anyone actually tried the combo? Was it worth taking?
Etc. Etc.

Now this combination of feats is considered standard fare..

Not that is really has anything to do with this discussion, I never thought the Cleave/Whirlwind combos were a big deal. *shrug*

Well, I added 2 + 2 and I can assure you it equals 4. Even if the sage contradicts me, the rules don't. I am correct on this one.

right there in black and white.

Yes, black & white. I guess that's why there's so much disagreement over the feat's use.

NOTE: I really don't think this is a balance issue as much as a mechanical one. In other words, I don't think the mid-whirlwind 5' step is overpowered, just sloppy. It doesn't mesh well with the wording of the feat, and leaves too many unanswered questions.

 

[IceBear]

I'm on the side that wouldn't allow a 5-ft step during the whirlwind. With a Full Round Attack action, you could take a 5ft step between attacks. A whirlwind replaces these attacks with a special maneuver. Thus, you could take a 5-ft step before or after but there isn't really a during, IMHO, as all the attacks are considered one action.

IceBear

 

[Psifon]

[

Not only did I not forget that, but I showed that it is not relevant to the question of a 5-foot step. Yes, when using the full attack action, you can choose to WWA. Yep. And yes you can take a 5-foot step before, during or after a full attack action. But nowhere does it say that you can take the 5-foot step during the WWA.

Yes it does, as I have made clear above.

You can, however, still take the 5-foot step before during or after your full attack action. That would be before, during or after your WWA and something else (like the off-hand attacks). Tha', BTW, is why I mentioned it in the first place. You seemed to be saying that the WWA is all someone can do for the whole round and so the 5-foot step must be available within it. But since your full attack action can include the WWA and other attacks, that is when you need to understand how the feat works. [/B]

This is a good point you are making about including off hand attacks as part of your full attack action. I had not considered that interpretation. However, the fact that you are correct about also being able to include off hand attacks does not counter my argument in any way.

The entirety of the WWA action is one thing. It is a single attack "action" that can be used on multiple targets. It goes off all at once. This is in addition to your off-hand swing(s). Before, between or after the two portions of your full attack action, you can take your 5-foot step. [/B]

This is your interpretation. This is not what the feat says.

I don't know if you are trying to be rediculous or not here. I never said that my example consisted of 5 actions. Please refrain from taking things out of context in an attempt to discredit. I never even came close to implying that the steps I gave were "actions". Is ending the WWA an action as well? Obviously, the break-down I made was just a step-by-step of how to apply the WWA. [/B]

Part of what you posted I have edited out of the origional text. You are correct however, I should not have interpreted your steps as "actions" That was presumptuous of me and I appologize.

I just explained how that works above. The 5-foot spet is still viable when WWA is used. It just has to go before or after the actual WWA portion of your full attack action. [/B]

True, AND it can be made DURING the WWA itself, as I have made clear above. The fact that your arguement is correct doesn't exclude that mine is also correct.

And I conclude that you are reading it that way because it gets you what you want. It doesn't matter what it really says, you want to be able to abuse the rule. [/B]

Here I take umbrage. You don't even know me. How do you know what I want? As I have stated on my soap-box, I don't think I am abusing the rule. I am drawing logical conclusions from the rules as written. I am DMing what I am preaching, I can assure you.

 

[kreynolds]

kreynolds and Ristamar, the feat does specify that you make one attack against EACH opponent, not one attack against ALL opponents. I don't think you can support the idea that one die roll resolves all the attacks at once.

<<dusting off his soap box>>

I don't consider myself as trying to abuse the rules at all. Nor am I sure what the "spirit" of the rules are or the designer's intent. I am simply going by what the rules SAY. As I propose this argument, a lot of people are objecting because they have a preconseption (the same one I did) about how WWA works. I just put 2 & 2 together and came up with 4.

I am reminded of how posters responded when people first realized you could combine great cleave with whirlwind attack. People had a veriety of responses:

Is that LEGAL!?!
I object! You can't DO that!
That's just a muchkin raping of the rules!
That's just broken!
How does that work?
Hey that's pretty cool!
Has anyone actually tried the combo? Was it worth taking?
Etc. Etc.

Now this combination of feats is considered standard fare.

Well, I added 2 + 2 and I can assure you it equals 4. Even if the sage contradicts me, the rules don't. I am correct on this one.

right there in black and white.


<<placing soap box back in the closet>>

Sorry. I wasn't even paying attention and didn't notice your post. I don't see this as a balance issue either. I see it as Ristamar does, "sloppy". That's all. Not a big deal.