Whirlwind-

[Corwin]

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.

True, I don't know you. But I know what you said...

I have a 4th level fighter who I am working up to WWA and Great Cleave by 6th level (that is ALL he will do).

It is clear you have a vested interest in the rule being interpreted the way you want it to. So please don't act like this is purely academic.

As to your argument that you DM it as well as play it, so that makes it fair: I agree with you. Consistancy breeds fairness. But that has no bearing on the fact that this is a discussion of the rules in the book, as written, not about houserules.

I will let my evidence stand as is. Anyone who chooses to read it can make up their own minds.

 

[Legildur]

I agree with IceBear. The description says:

...give up all regular attacks and instead make one melee attack...

It seems to me that it is one attack. Therefore no move during - only before or after.

But, back to main question, is it worth it, I don't know. But what I do know is that you should also look at the prerequisite feats:

- Expertise is pretty cool (4 out 6 characters in my campaign have it, and use it regularly)
- Dodge is obviously useful
- Mobility can be useful
- Spring Attack has got 'avoid full attack' and 'how to beat reach' written all over it - and when you are talking trolls, grey renders, ogres, and the like, that has gotta be a good thing.

 

[kreynolds]

But, back to main question, is it worth it, I don't know.

Check out Ywain's post here. In short, I think its worth it, and Ywain really illustrates how handy WWA can be.

It really depends. Most of the time, at higher levels, a fighter is better off using his iterative attacks to focus on one enemy at a time.

But against:

1) Low HP Opponents, who you can take out in fewer hits (not rounds) than there are enemies (2 hits each on 3 enemies) WWA will end a fight faster than focusing on one at a time.

2) Really high AC opponents: If your 3rd and subesquent iterative attacks are not likely to hit anyway, you might as well Whirlwind. Because all WWA are at your highest BAB, your second WWA is effectively at +5 to hit, your 3rd at +10, your 4th (if you have a 4th iterative attack, even) +15. When faced with two opponents where your first attack hits on a 5, your second on a 10 and third on a 15, it usually isn't a bad Idea to WWA and hit each of them once on a 5 -- instead of hittin one of them once or maybe twice.

3) Really low AC opponents in conjunction with power attack. If you only miss on a 1 with your highest BAB and can pump +5 or more into damage with Power Attack you might want to hit as often as possible. Heck if you have a +20 attack bonus against 2 opponents with an AC of 16, I would forego the 3rd iterative attack and even risk +7 to Power Attack and only hit on a 3 or better. Statistically it might not be perfect, but your dealing with large numbers by this point so you've got a bit of a margin for error.

4) You have allies who are focusing on individual enemies. Your WWA will wear down all of the enemies (especially in situations #2 and #3 above) more than would be possible without WWA. Your comrades will probably get the killing blows, but you'll be shortening the fight by a couple rounds if you use this tactic.

5) There is some magic involved that gives you a bonus to damage for only one or two rounds. You want to get the most out of it so you use WWA (at your highest BAB) to ensure that you hit as many opponents as possible..

 

[Psifon]

As to your argument that you DM it as well as play it, so that makes it fair: I agree with you. Consistancy breeds fairness. But that has no bearing on the fact that this is a discussion of the rules in the book, as written, not about houserules.

I will let my evidence stand as is. Anyone who chooses to read it can make up their own minds.

I would contend that I have only quoted the rules as written. House rules do not enter into this discussion (parish the thought ).

It looks like we agree to disagree on this one. I would just like to make clear that I agree completely with your interpretation, except for the part where you disagree with mine! .

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I don`t think that will really help much (it doesn`t help me ), but in the 5 ft step issue:
One of the Prerequisites for Whirlwind Attack is Spring Attack - Spring Attack allows moving and attacking without provoking Attack of Oppertunities - what does this ability has to do with a Whirlwind Attack (Expect "Yet another feat chain?)?
Perhaps this might indicate, that you can take the 5 foot step between your attacks. Perhaps not.
(I am on the side of the "no 5ft steps between the attacks, but I am unsure...)

 

[wolfpunk]

My interpretation of WWA goes like this. Player declares they are using WWA, we look at the battlemap, and look at all enemies in a five foot radius, that is a maximum of 8 medium size creatures. WWA is then executed. This is one attack against each enemy in a five foot radius. I would allow a character to take a five foot step during the whilrlwind attack if they drop an enemy and can thereby move into that square, they would lose the whirlwind attack on any enemy that was now outside of the five foot range of them however. In addition, by moving five feet, they may come within a five foot radius of one or more new enemies, however, since they were not within a five foot radius of the player when he declared the WWA, they were not included in the list of enemies attacked, and would not now become part of the list since it is a full attack option, once declared is set.

 

[Psifon]

There is no special condition that one must "declare" a WWA. One is chosing this action, and any creatures that meet the chriteria for being attacked (are 5' from you) can be attacked. So just like you can take a 5' step and split your attacks with any other full attack action, you can do so with a WWA.

Legildur, the quote that you used to support your opinion was not even the complete sentance. What you did was you took a sentence fragment out of context and describe this as the rule. The rest of that sentence states ...against each opponent within 5'. That's pretty clear that you make an attack roll against EACH opponent in 5'.

I see some posters wanting to define WWA as one attack, and some even going so far as to say that the WWA is resolved in a single attack roll (if I am understanding them correctly). I don't think that this is stated in the feat description at all. One attack against each creature means one attack against each creature. Not one attack against every creature or all creatures, but EACH creature. So each attack is distinctive, and resloved with a seperate attack roll (and a seperate damage roll as well of course).

I also see some posters wanting to state that you can only attack those creatures who are within 5' when you first start rolling the dice.

I also agree with Icebear. Whirlwind IS only one action. But the rules state it is a full attack action. As such it follows the same rules as any full attack action. WWA is an action not an attack. It is an action that consists of several attacks. Like any full round action, you can take a 5' step between your attacks. If you take a 5' step in the middle of your WWA, you can continue to strike all opponents that meet the criteria of being within 5' of your current position.

Again, I hold to the arguement that if the rules do not specify an exception to the general rule that you can do this, then you can indeed do this.

There is nothing that states that WWA is a special action, or a single attack or anything other than a full attack action. It acts like any other full attack action.

The point I was making on my soap box was that people have inertia toward new ideas. I didn't make up this rule, I just noticed it. It is not a "house rule" or even an interpretation. I am not taking liberties or trying to "rape" the rules. I just wanted to point out what I discovered. If the WotC staff disagree with me then they can issue eratta, but as far as I can tell, this is what the rules SAY.

 

[Ristamar]

I see some posters wanting to define WWA as one attack, and some even going so far as to say that the WWA is resolved in a single attack roll (if I am understanding them correctly). I don't think that this is stated in the feat description at all. One attack against each creature means one attack against each creature. Not one attack against every creature or all creatures, but EACH creature. So each attack is distinctive, and resloved with a seperate attack roll (and a seperate damage roll as well of course).

Just to be clear, I never said that it was resolved with a single attack roll. I certainly use multiple attack rolls, but they're all a part of, in essence, one large attack.

 

[Psifon]

Just to be clear, I never said that it was resolved with a single attack roll. I certainly use multiple attack rolls, but they're all a part of, in essence, one large attack.

I edited my post since you wrote this. You might want to go back and re-read that post.

 

[kreynolds]

Again, I hold to the arguement that if the rules do not specify an exception to the general rule that you can do this, then you can indeed do this.

You know...I've noticed that nowhere do the rules say that a character cannot take all but 1 of their current hit points and make a ranged touch attack against any foe and use those hit points against them, inflicting that many negative levels. Well, since the rules don't say I can't do this, I guess I can! That...is...so...cool!

DISCLAIMER: I'm just playing! I'm just playing! I'm just playing! I'm just playing! I'm just playing! I'm just playing! I'm just playing! I'm just playing! I'm just playing! I'm just playing!