Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Great Cleave or Whirlwind?


Advice


Is Great Cleave better than Whirlwind?

I have a monk that might take Unarmed Fighter and was originally going to take both of these feats but I read closer and noticed that they were very nearly the same.

Great Cleave seems to be better because it allows you to use feats while the other does not.

The thing is, Great cleave doesn't SAY you can't use feats with it like Whirlwind.

So if these two feats do the same, which would be best?


Great Cleave is a standard action; Whirlwind attack requires the full-attack action (a full-round action) - since you can't do both, you can't use them together.


ngc7293 wrote:

Is Great Cleave better than Whirlwind?

I have a monk that might take Unarmed Fighter and was originally going to take both of these feats but I read closer and noticed that they were very nearly the same.

Great Cleave seems to be better because it allows you to use feats while the other does not.

The thing is, Great cleave doesn't SAY you can't use feats with it like Whirlwind.

So if these two feats do the same, which would be best?

Great Cleave only allows you to make additional attack so long as you keep hitting on the previous attack. So as soon as you miss your attacks are finished - remember using Cleave is a standard action so you can't full attack with it or get additional attacks from Haste or fighting with two weapons. Whirlwind Attack straight up allows you to make a single attack against everyone within reach.

Whirlwind Attack is superior to Great Cleave, but it's very feat intensive (and requires an Int of 13, which is difficult to get as a monk). If you're a monk and intend to move around the battlefield a lot Great Cleave would be better as you'd have more opportunities to use it.


As to which is better? That's pretty situational.

If you have reach (maybe you'll always be enlarged?), whirlwind attack is the better choice, since foes merely need to be within reach (Great Cleave requires them to all be adjacent to each other, so either clustered or lined up).

Unless you're routinely surrounded by foes pressing in on all sides, I don't think you'll get much use from either as an unarmed fighter.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd take Cleaving Finish before either of them. But if you've already got Cleaving Finish then I would go with Great Cleave.

Whirlwind only let's you make one attack against adjacent opponents and you can't use any other feats or bonuses (such as Power Attack) in conjunction.

I could see Whirlwind being useful if you expected to be consistently surrounded by 6-8 enemies, but beyond that I'd stick with the Cleave chain.


+1 on Cleaving Finish; very handy.


Enlarged Whirlwind Whip-Wielder ftw! Both feat trees are traps, however. Cleaving Finish is almost useful, but not for Monks. For Great Cleave, think: how often do you see a group of 3 enemies lined up in a row where you can conveniently attack all three of them? That is how useful that feat is to a Monk.

For Whirlwind Attack, it might be worth a Quinggong Choice, but it's much too feat intensive otherwise. That said, a Monk is probably the last person it's useful to. How often are you surrounded by more than 4 enemies, which is how many the Monk could attack with a normal full attack?

Fighters get some use thanks to reach and having more feats then they know what to do with.


Great Cleave also requires monster to be adjacent to each other not you. if you are fully surround it works similar to whirlwind. always attack all around you. also cleave gives you a -2 to ac, realistic you will only get to cleave into 3 monsters. I bet a lot of people miss that part about the monsters being next to each other. Finishing cleave is different though. Cleave is weaker then whirlwind because of this. that why it take less feats to get.

example u = you numbers are monsters x= empty spaces

if you attack monster four with cleave you just wasted your action.
but if you attack monster 1 you can cleave in to monster 2 then 3, if you choose number 2 and then go in to 3 you can't go back to 1 because 1 is not adjacent to 3. you can never get 4. Whirlwind gets one swing at all

123
xu
4

example 2 you can basically pick any where and great cleave will simulate Whirlwind, provided you hit every monster.

123
4u5
678

Cleave and Whirlwind get trickier with lunge or natural 10ft reach added to it.
Whirlwind lunge you got them all no problem. Cleave if you cleave in to 1 as before you can go to 2 then 4 then 3 but never get 6-7.
x4x
123
xux
5x6
x7x

most common examples cleave should get them all and honestly i would rule not at all. on this you could not cleave into any, because all adjacent to you but not each other. they are diagonal to each other.

x2x
1u3
x4x

you can't cleave into any
1x2
xux
3x4

as you can see whirlwind gets all target in all these no matter what.


Son of the Veterinarian wrote:
Whirlwind only let's you make one attack against adjacent opponents and you can't use any other feats or bonuses (such as Power Attack) in conjunction.
Where are you getting that?
Whirlwind Attack wrote:
When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
Whirlwind attack is a full-attack, so you should be able to use any feats that apply to a full-attack, with the following exception:
Whirlwind Attack wrote:
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

So no extra attacks from feats (e.g. Cleave), spells (e.g. Haste), or abilities (e.g. natural attacks).


Son of the Veterinarian wrote:

I'd take Cleaving Finish before either of them. But if you've already got Cleaving Finish then I would go with Great Cleave.

Whirlwind only let's you make one attack against adjacent opponents and you can't use any other feats or bonuses (such as Power Attack) in conjunction.

I could see Whirlwind being useful if you expected to be consistently surrounded by 6-8 enemies, but beyond that I'd stick with the Cleave chain.

FYI, there's nothing that prevents you from using Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack. The word "bonus" in the description of Whirlwind Attack is referring to bonus attacks, not bonuses in general.


One thing about Whirlwind at the bottom of the description it states
"When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit
any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells,
or abilities."

This sounds like you can't use any combat related feats like Weapon Finesse or Weapon Focus and you are denied your stat bonus. The way it sounds, you are using your BASE BAB. Right?

If the above is correct, then Whirlwind is not the best thing for Monks which are popular for not being able to hit the broad side of a barn. I understand that Whirlwind is for any class that can afford it (and wants to be in THAT much combat)

Just FYI, my character has Marid style, so he's capable of hitting the adjacent targets with his reach attack. Again, if the above is correct though, he couldn't use it with the Whirlwind.

--edit--
I type sloooooooow


oh Cleave is Prerequisites for Cleaving Finish. You go Whirlwind some usefulness out of combat expertise mobility dodge and spring attack. Cleave is just way to situational it effect level 1 to maybe 6 loses it luster really quick after that. Finishing cleave is even worse because it only happen when you kill monster.

No it referring to any extra attack through extra methods. all combat feats apply. you can't flurry whirlwind, or haste whirlwind or cleave whirlwind or even take AOO caused by trip via greater trip. You can lunge , trip and whirlwind. they are not giving you bonus attacks.


ngc7293 wrote:

One thing about Whirlwind at the bottom of the description it states

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

This sounds like you can't use any combat related feats like Weapon Finesse or Weapon Focus and you are denied your stat bonus. The way it sounds, you are using your BASE BAB. Right?

Incorrect. Correct grammatical reading of the sentence in question means you should read it as, "you also forfeit any bonus attacks or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." If it meant the way you're indicating the sentence would be structured differently, such as "you also forteit any bonuses or attacks granted by other feats, spells or abilities."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Xexyz wrote:
Son of the Veterinarian wrote:

I'd take Cleaving Finish before either of them. But if you've already got Cleaving Finish then I would go with Great Cleave.

Whirlwind only let's you make one attack against adjacent opponents and you can't use any other feats or bonuses (such as Power Attack) in conjunction.

I could see Whirlwind being useful if you expected to be consistently surrounded by 6-8 enemies, but beyond that I'd stick with the Cleave chain.

FYI, there's nothing that prevents you from using Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack. The word "bonus" in the description of Whirlwind Attack is referring to bonus attacks, not bonuses in general.

Do you have an official ruling on this somewhere? Because that might be RAI, but by RAW it still looks to me like you're forfeiting Power Attack and all other bonuses.


Xexyz wrote:
ngc7293 wrote:

One thing about Whirlwind at the bottom of the description it states

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

This sounds like you can't use any combat related feats like Weapon Finesse or Weapon Focus and you are denied your stat bonus. The way it sounds, you are using your BASE BAB. Right?

Incorrect. Correct grammatical reading of the sentence in question means you should read it as, "you also forfeit any bonus attacks or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." If it meant the way you're indicating the sentence would be structured differently, such as "you also forteit any bonuses or attacks granted by other feats, spells or abilities."

So far there are two people reading the rules differently. Who's right?


Since assuming "bonus" is a noun produces a sentence that isn't the best English - "When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." - I'm going to assume "bonus" is an adjective modifying "attacks".


Son of the Veterinarian wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
Son of the Veterinarian wrote:

I'd take Cleaving Finish before either of them. But if you've already got Cleaving Finish then I would go with Great Cleave.

Whirlwind only let's you make one attack against adjacent opponents and you can't use any other feats or bonuses (such as Power Attack) in conjunction.

I could see Whirlwind being useful if you expected to be consistently surrounded by 6-8 enemies, but beyond that I'd stick with the Cleave chain.

FYI, there's nothing that prevents you from using Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack. The word "bonus" in the description of Whirlwind Attack is referring to bonus attacks, not bonuses in general.
Do you have an official ruling on this somewhere? Because that might be RAI, but by RAW it still looks to me like you're forfeiting Power Attack and all other bonuses.

That's the thing, it's not RAI that you're allowed to use Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack, it's RAW. AS WRITTEN that sentence means "bonus attacks or extra attacks" by grammatical structure. The way the sentence is structured, the words 'bonus' and 'extra' are both adjectives describing the noun 'attacks'.


http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k8gk?Whirlwind-Attack-Improved-Unarmed-Strike- Reach

I while no official rule based on Son of the Veterinarian search these boards there are tons of people asking about whirlwind attack and using maneuvers and feats. No one as ever said even suggested this before. Because of rules of grammar. if it was the other way the sentence would have had a comma. " you also forfeit any bonus(,) or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." That Comma make a world of difference. If the comma was there it is telling you to pause and turn bonus in to a noun not and adjective. That why there is a comma before "or abilities" at the end.


take neither and be happy you didnt. powerattack based builds, as well as long feat chain builds are not necessarily a bad choice but are without a doubt not good.


If it were a list of nouns, then my ear would require the plurality to match: "forfeit any bonuses or extra attacks" (which would be clear), or maybe "forfeit any bonus or extra attack" (which would be exceedingly vague). Instead, it says "forfeit any bonus or extra attacks"; so "bonus or extra" is a redundant modifier of "attacks", and the "bonus or" should be deleted for clarity.

KainPen wrote:

most common examples cleave should get them all and honestly i would rule not at all. on this you could not cleave into any, because all adjacent to you but not each other. they are diagonal to each other.

x2x
1u3
x4x

I believe that is false. The definition of adjacent is within 5 feet (CRB, pg. 182). And in this simplified system, a single diagonal counts as 1 square (pg. 193), which equals 5 feet (pg. 192). So each one is adjacent to another, and you could Great Cleave them all if you kept on hitting.


Like I said it should get them all, I believe most GM would rule as you stated. Because as you said simplified system and page numbers you mention. I just stated I would not rule they are adjacent to each other. to me adjacent mean directly next or side by side. That sometime I ruled in my games. but the rest of my examples are correct. It show cleave and great cleave are very limited feats. A person would get more use out of cleave then great cleave any time. While Whirlwind has a huge feat tax and is made for higher levels.


Jupp wrote:
take neither and be happy you didnt. powerattack based builds, as well as long feat chain builds are not necessarily a bad choice but are without a doubt not good.

So how exactly are Power Attack based builds "without a doubt not good"?


I think Jupp suggesting power attack monk builds. It is a waste because they have a hard enough time trying to hit, unless they flurry. Whirlwind has such a huge feat tax for a monk, he be better off using other feats. Now for fighters Power attack is very effective tool. same for deadly aim for archers.


Yes, Power Attack based Monk builds are typically not the best of ideas. The thread had wandered away from Monks and I sort of forgot it was ever about them ;).


Xexyz wrote:


That's the thing, it's not RAI that you're allowed to use Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack, it's RAW. AS WRITTEN that sentence means "bonus attacks or extra attacks" by grammatical structure. The way the sentence is structured, the words 'bonus' and 'extra' are both adjectives describing the noun 'attacks'.

I think I have to take this with a grain of salt until an official from Pathfinder comes in and says "Yes, Xexyz, you are right" or "No Xexyz you are wrong." Or words to that affect.

I appreciate the info, but I was hoping for more than "the book's grammar is wrong" :)

Thanks


ngc7293 wrote:
Xexyz wrote:


That's the thing, it's not RAI that you're allowed to use Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack, it's RAW. AS WRITTEN that sentence means "bonus attacks or extra attacks" by grammatical structure. The way the sentence is structured, the words 'bonus' and 'extra' are both adjectives describing the noun 'attacks'.

I think I have to take this with a grain of salt until an official from Pathfinder comes in and says "Yes, Xexyz, you are right" or "No Xexyz you are wrong." Or words to that affect.

I appreciate the info, but I was hoping for more than "the book's grammar is wrong" :)

Thanks

*sigh*

The book's grammar is correct. As I and others have said above, the grammatically correct reading of the sentence in question indicates that you can use Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack. No correction from the designers is strictly needed. I certainly will welcome any clarification on their part, but, RAW, Power Attack is Usable with Whirlwind Attack.


Xexyz wrote:

*sigh*

The book's grammar is correct. As I and others have said above, the grammatically correct reading of the sentence in question indicates that you can use Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack. No correction from the designers is strictly needed. I certainly will welcome any clarification on their part, but, RAW, Power Attack is Usable with Whirlwind Attack.

If the book was grammatically correct as you say then what I copied out of it would not be incorrect as you seem to think it is.

The text in the Core Rule book reads one way. You switched the text around and declared that it was wrong and the new reading was the correct way to understand it.

My GM is an English Major. I'll just print this topic and he can just tell me what you guys are on about.

I understand that changing the words around changes the meaning of the sentence and that is what you have done. Both the sentence that Paizo printed in their book and the sentence that you transformed are correct. The question is which one did THEY want in the book. If THEY wanted the original sentence, then I have my answer.


ngc7293 wrote:
Xexyz wrote:


That's the thing, it's not RAI that you're allowed to use Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack, it's RAW. AS WRITTEN that sentence means "bonus attacks or extra attacks" by grammatical structure. The way the sentence is structured, the words 'bonus' and 'extra' are both adjectives describing the noun 'attacks'.

I think I have to take this with a grain of salt until an official from Pathfinder comes in and says "Yes, Xexyz, you are right" or "No Xexyz you are wrong." Or words to that affect.

I appreciate the info, but I was hoping for more than "the book's grammar is wrong" :)

Thanks

:)

But seriously, these are game rules, not science or theology; there's not "true truth" waiting to be revealed by the devs. Rules are constructed for 1) balanced but probablistic gameplay, 2) verisimilitude to improve the experience, 3) create opportunities for strategy, 4) and maybe to be interesting mechanics or even mechanics to inspire flavor on their own. I am sure there are more to be added to this list...

The rules are a starting place.

If your group or you agree to allow power attack with whirlwind, then try it experimentally. If it is terribly broken or imbalancing then decide whether that is ruining the game. If not, then enjoy it. If it is ruining the game for someone or everyone, then ditch it.

And ditching it is its own roleplaying opportunity: "Pedro the Giant San Franciscan Monk discovered that he could throw incredible sidearm curve balls that no batter could hit. But he also knew that the unnatural technique was wearing and tearing his elbow. He couldn't sustain the sweet move and switched back to his bread and butter pitches."


In 3.0 and 3.5 we used the rules and we used them well. If we didn't like something, it was well written and we could easily set it aside.

Here, Pathfinder has made many changes; some good, some .....maddening.
This is where the questions come up. I ask a question and them more questions come up because of them.


It sounds like you have your mind already made up so why ask the question at all? The vast majority says whirlwind works way we suggest. which in turn make it Superior to cleave in every way.Which answer the question you asked, everyone also explained how different they are. You made up in your mind to Nerf it by say it does not. It does not make any sense to even bother with the question. No one is going to change your mind.


KainPen wrote:
It sounds like you have your mind already made up so why ask the question at all? The vast majority says whirlwind works way we suggest. which in turn make it Superior to cleave in every way.Which answer the question you asked, everyone also explained how different they are. You made up in your mind to Nerf it by say it does not. It does not make any sense to even bother with the question. No one is going to change your mind.

If you read the original post, the question was never about grammar. I thought it was perfectly understood how sentence structure worked. Then SOMEONE says that if you change the words around suddenly Whirlwind means something entirely different.

I get the impression that you guys think it is fine to change the sentence structure to make a feat (or something else) different, until someone Official comes along and says you can't do that. This sounds familiar to me....

Anyway, I was looking for a comparison between the two feats. I got way more than I bargained for.

Since I can't trust what I am reading here, I will have to try my own GM (I came here because I thought I could get good insight from the the Pathfinder board)

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Great Cleave or Whirlwind? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.