[UC] Does `Quick Bull Rush (Combat)` work with `Whirlwind Attack (Combat)`?


Rules Questions


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Quick Bull Rush (Combat):

You can barrel into your opponent and follow this with
an attack.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack,
base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: On your turn, you can perform a single bull rush
combat maneuver in place of one of your melee attacks. You must choose the melee attack with the highest base attack
bonus to make the bull rush.

Normal: A bull rush combat maneuver is a standard action.

Whirlwind Attack (Combat):

You can strike out at every foe within reach.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: 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. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

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

Can I selectively apply a bull rush to any one or all of my targets of a Whirlwind?


As it reads, ONE of the attacks of the whirlwind will be a bullrush if you wish so.

Scarab Sages

It seems to me that yes, you can use Quick Bull Rush and Whirlwind Attack in conjunction, gaining a bull rush attempt against each target of your attack.


Tom Baumbach wrote:
It seems to me that yes, you can use Quick Bull Rush and Whirlwind Attack in conjunction, gaining a bull rush attempt against each target of your attack.

Why each?

Scarab Sages

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Why each?

Quick Bull Rush substitutes for one attack and Whirlwind Attack is one attack roll (as far as I know).


Tom Baumbach wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Why each?
Quick Bull Rush substitutes for one attack and Whirlwind Attack is one attack roll (as far as I know).

AFAIK is the opposite - but your interpretation is more interesting.

Scarab Sages

Yep, I'm wrong.

I concur, it would affect one opponent.


It clearly states you are making one melee attack and you must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

So, it is only a single attack, which, if substituted with Bull Rush becomes WAY complicated.

Do you Bull Rush everyone in a single round?

Probably only if you choose to not move with any of your targets. I'd even say you should probably not allow moving with the target as an option during a Whirlwind Attack.

If you do allow move with it, I'd say that removes any targets you were threatening prior to moving and you could not acquire new targets as a result of the move.

This reminds me of the scene in films where everyone is on the strong guy, and he 'busts' out of there, sending everyone back, and it certainly should be allowed.


Noah Fentz wrote:


This reminds me of the scene in films where everyone is on the strong guy, and he 'busts' out of there, sending everyone back.

As I see it, since they are separate attacks, you can only bull rush once. I'd prefer Tom's interpretation, mind it. By far.

Your bursting scene can for sure be made with a shield fighter, in case ;)


They are separate attack rolls, yet one, single melee attack.

Reread the text.

;)

Sovereign Court

"instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent."

I read that as one attack per opponent, not a single attack with multiple rolls.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

"instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent."

I read that as one attack per opponent, not a single attack with multiple rolls.

That would be RAI(nterpreted). RAW is one melee attack with each target requiring a new roll to determine the result.

Sovereign Court

That's not RAI, that's just reading :)

>>Make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.<<

The way the sentence is put together means there will be one attack per opponent. Make one attack, against each opponent within reach.

If you wanted it to be a single attack that hit multiple opponents you would have to alter the sentence in some way, for ex:

Make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus. This attack affects each opponent within reach.

*shrug*

Maybe I've spend too much time parsing statutes.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

That's not RAI, that's just reading :)

>>Make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.<<

The way the sentence is put together means there will be one attack per opponent. Make one attack, against each opponent within reach.

If you wanted it to be a single attack that hit multiple opponents you would have to alter the sentence in some way, for ex:

Make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus. This attack affects each opponent within reach.

*shrug*

Maybe I've spend too much time parsing statutes.

LOL

Well, when I break it down, the sentence reads 'Make one melee attack'. The preposition, 'at', then further describes how to handle that one melee attack.

:)

Sovereign Court

Hmmm.

Is there another example out there of a single attack requiring multiple rolls we could compare too?


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

Hmmm.

Is there another example out there of a single attack requiring multiple rolls we could compare too?

I have a hard time believing the last clause, 'You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.' would even be in there if it were to be treated as more than one melee attack.

Sovereign Court

It is an addition to the wording since 3.5, which is interesting. Is it a clarification, or an intent to change.

Of course a separate attack roll sort of implies a separate attack per opponent.

If it is a single attack is there anyway of combining it with some of those "release a touch spell through your sword" type abilities.

[edit] Confused the magus with the duskblade and had a flashback to the duskblade arcane channel / whirlwind combo [/edit]

Scarab Sages

Noah Fentz wrote:
I have a hard time believing the last clause, 'You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.' would even be in there if it were to be treated as more than one melee attack.

Valid point. I'm bowing out before I change my mind yet again.

Spoiler:
Damn. Too late.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

It is an addition to the wording since 3.5, which is interesting. Is it a clarification, or an intent to change.

Of course a separate attack roll sort of implies a separate attack per opponent.

If it is a single attack is there anyway of combining it with some of those "release a touch spell through your sword" type abilities.

[edit] Confused the magus with the duskblade and had a flashback to the duskblade arcane channel / whirlwind combo [/edit]

I believe the spell would be expended on the first strike, regardless.

Edit: Didn't see your edit, but it should probably be addressed anyway.


I just reread the feat and Quick Bull Rush allows you to replace your highest attack with a bull rush...well with Whirlwind ALL your attacks are at your highest attack so why can't you replace one or all of them?


Because 2 of your DM's said you can't...

I might be able to see one of them being replaced, but then where would the area of the whilrwind be if you followed with the bullrush?

The idea in my mind is that whirlwind is a large swooping single swipe at many enemies that is simulated by by the rules as rolling multiple times for each target, at your highest base attack. That does not mean you are making multiple attacks.


Uh... we're losing focus here.

Is cleave one attack or two? Mechanically two (vs the targets).

Is whirlwind attack one or many? Mechanically many (vs the targes).

So the whirlwind attacking character will be able to:

perform a single bull rush combat maneuver in place of one of your melee attacks. You must choose the melee attack with the highest base attack bonus to make the bull rush

This will replace one of the attacks gained from Whirlwind:

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. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

Fluff: Whirlwind attack is just one attack in blinding speed.
Mechanically: Whirlwind attack is many separate attacks against many targets (and can even be performed with different weapons).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noah Fentz wrote:


This reminds me of the scene in films where everyone is on the strong guy, and he 'busts' out of there, sending everyone back, and it certainly should be allowed.

If you have a character going that deep into two different feat chains, reward him with his moment of awesome. How often is this going to come up? Is it going to be game breaking or disruptive? Is it going to be fun and cool?

Even if the RAW frowns on this, it wins with the Rule of Cool.

Remember, we are not computers. It's OK to bend things a little to make things work. Particularly as the game grows and there are more moving parts that need to mesh.

For organized play, I'm not sure if this is RAW, but for any game I ran, it'd get a thumbs up (and a guarantee that every so often you'd be surrounded by mooks with low CMDs)


My thoughts exactly, Khuldar. RAW considered, it shouldn't work, however, by the time these feats come together... you should reward that player by allowing it. And it IS awesome.

Our group might be a bit different though because we have two sets of prerequisites for Whirlwind Attack: the normal set, and Str 13, Cleave, Great Cleave.


Stynkk wrote:

Uh... we're losing focus here.

Is cleave one attack or two? Mechanically two (vs the targets).

Is whirlwind attack one or many? Mechanically many (vs the targes).

So the whirlwind attacking character will be able to:

perform a single bull rush combat maneuver in place of one of your melee attacks. You must choose the melee attack with the highest base attack bonus to make the bull rush

This will replace one of the attacks gained from Whirlwind:

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. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

Fluff: Whirlwind attack is just one attack in blinding speed.
Mechanically: Whirlwind attack is many separate attacks against many targets (and can even be performed with different weapons).

Mechanically, Whirlwind Attack is ONE attack, using different rolls for each valid target.


Noah Fentz wrote:
Mechanically, Whirlwind Attack is ONE attack, using different rolls for each valid target.

No. It's a separate attack for each opponent.

We are in a candy store. I tell you:

"There are ten children here. Please give one lollipop to each child."

How many lollipops do you get from the shelf, one or ten?

If you said "one", I have to assume that English is not your first language.

The "one melee attack" is modified by the "each opponent" to cause you to make one attack per opponent -- which is more than one attack.


While I agree this feat is worded very ambiguously, the grammar alone has me believing it's but one attack which affects multiple targets. The ambiguity alone makes us both right in each of our respective minds.

:P


Noah Fentz wrote:
While I agree this feat is worded very ambiguously, the grammar alone has me believing it's but one attack which affects multiple targets.

Answer my question please -- how many lollipops?

Again, if you say "ten", then grammar alone clearly isn't the source of your confusion. The grammar in the two sentences is the same.

"One X to/for each Y" doesn't mean "one X total". It means "a number of X equal to the number of Y". That's what the word "each" means.

With the word "each" in that sentence, your interpretation is not supported by the language of the feat as written.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Noah Fentz wrote:
While I agree this feat is worded very ambiguously, the grammar alone has me believing it's but one attack which affects multiple targets.

Answer my question please -- how many lollipops?

Again, if you say "ten", then grammar alone clearly isn't the source of your confusion. The grammar in the two sentences is the same.

"One X to/for each Y" doesn't mean "one X total". It means "a number of X equal to the number of Y". That's what the word "each" means.

With the word "each" in that sentence, your interpretation is not supported by the language of the feat as written.

We're not talking lollipops.

One huge issue I have with your interpretation is the fact that a PC using Whirlwind Attack could then substitute trips, disarms, sunders, and other Combat Maneuvers in any combination. That is something I simply can't see happening.

I can see, however, sundering every blade, tripping every opponent, or even disarming to an extent. It makes sense.

I stand by my interpretation.

"I have a hard time believing the last clause, 'You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.' would even be in there if it were to be treated as more than one melee attack." Multiple melee attacks would make that statement completely redundant.


Noah Fentz wrote:
Mechanically, Whirlwind Attack is ONE attack, using different rolls for each valid target.

You do realize that if you make a different roll for each opponent then you are making a different attack for each opponent - in pathfinder mechanics.

Whirlwind attack is a feat that lets you make single attack vs every opponent in your threatened area (translation: one separate, individual attack per opponent) as a Full Round Action.

Can we please move away from what are your personal feelings about the subject and what the rules are?

RAW states one of the whirlwind attack's attacks is replaced as a bull rush, the others will be normal.

If you want to allow it to replace every attack with a bull rush (because there are more than one), then fine, but that's a house rule.

Noah Fentz wrote:
One huge issue I have with your interpretation is the fact that a PC using Whirlwind Attack could then substitute trips, disarms, sunders, and other Combat Maneuvers in any combination. That is something I simply can't see happening.

I'm unclear why you would not allow the interchanging of combat maneuvers, because a PC with 5 iterative meleee attacks would be able to mix combat manuevers that replace attacks at will - with no problem. Using whirlwind attack to perform 5 melee attacks doesn't change the way melee attacks function.

Aside:
If this were one attack does that mean you only make a single damage roll and disperse the damage equally over all targets?


Noah Fentz wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Noah Fentz wrote:
While I agree this feat is worded very ambiguously, the grammar alone has me believing it's but one attack which affects multiple targets.

Answer my question please -- how many lollipops?

Again, if you say "ten", then grammar alone clearly isn't the source of your confusion. The grammar in the two sentences is the same.

"One X to/for each Y" doesn't mean "one X total". It means "a number of X equal to the number of Y". That's what the word "each" means.

With the word "each" in that sentence, your interpretation is not supported by the language of the feat as written.

We're not talking lollipops.

One huge issue I have with your interpretation is the fact that a PC using Whirlwind Attack could then substitute trips, disarms, sunders, and other Combat Maneuvers in any combination. That is something I simply can't see happening.

I can see, however, sundering every blade, tripping every opponent, or even disarming to an extent. It makes sense.

I stand by my interpretation.

"I have a hard time believing the last clause, 'You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.' would even be in there if it were to be treated as more than one melee attack." Multiple melee attacks would make that statement completely redundant.

The clause is there to clarify against just this interpretation. One attack, one roll. Multiple attacks, multiple rolls.

And why can't I sunder, trip, disarm, and regular attack all during a whirlwind? If it's just the flavor of it, then consider this.

Let's say I am whirlwinding with my quarterstaff.

123
ey4
eee

1,2,3,4 are enemies. I am Y. E are empty spaces.

I start out low in the bottom right corner and sweep 4's feet. I raise the staff as I do so, so that by the time I get to 3, I clip him right in the gut for solid hit. My momentum continues upward, chunking into 2's sword right at the weak point above the pommel for a sunder attempt. Finally, I catch my staff underneath the heavy cutting blade of 1's greataxe and try to lever it right out of his hands for a disarm.

Why is that not a whirlwind attack?

And again, the feat is:

"One melee attack against each opponent." Let's flip the sentence around:

"Each opponent is targeted by one melee attack." How many melee attacks have we just made? As many as there are opponents. Sentences 1 and 2 are grammatically the same.


Aside: Bascaria is my rules soulmate.

That is all.


A Whirlwind Attack is just that. A single, spinning attack that targets multiple opponents. It's not my personal feelings. It's in the flavor and spirit of the feat.

Just like when Conan (I believe) sundered all his enemies blades in one, fell swoop.

You don't gain up to nine (or more attacks) all of a sudden. You attack them all in the same motion.


Noah Fentz wrote:
You don't gain up to nine (or more attacks) all of a sudden. You attack them all in the same motion.

Except you do gain nine attacks. Why? because this game is based on abstractions for rules purposes.

9 targets = 9 attack rolls = 9 damage rolls = 9 attacks


Yep, and the abstraction here is attacking nine opponents in one motion.

Well said!

;)


Noah Fentz wrote:
Yep, and the abstraction here is attacking nine opponents in one motion.

And because there is no way for the rules to describe this, it uses 9 attacks mechanically with the descriptive fluff of it being performed in one motion.

I humbly accept your surrender on this issue, you fought well, but ultimately found yourself on the wrong side of the RAW.


Stynkk wrote:
Noah Fentz wrote:
Yep, and the abstraction here is attacking nine opponents in one motion.

And because there is no way for the rules to describe this, it uses 9 attacks mechanically with the descriptive fluff of it being performed in one motion.

I humbly accept your surrender on this issue, you fought well, but ultimately found yourself on the wrong side of the RAW.

You're joking, right?


Noah Fentz wrote:
You're joking, right?

Of course not.

You cannot supply any more RAW evidence to further your argument, you cannot explain why cleave not treated as two attacks nor prove your case that whirlwind attack is a single attack.

Hint: Because the feat has clear language in the feat that states that "one melee attack" against "each opponent within reach" (thus one attack per opponenet).

Furthermore, because Whirlwind Attack even explicitly states "You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent." that means you can substitute combat manuevers in the whirlwind attack at will just as you can with any other Melee Attack because all Melee Attacks are subject to the same rules.

Here are the facts:

1. A cleave is two separate attacks, these can be replaced with combat maneuvers. And one of them can be replaced by a Quick Bull Rush.

2. A whirlwind attack is many separate attacks, which can be replaced with combat manuevers. And one of them can be replaced by a Quick Bull Rush.

Because you are not able to make an argument to disprove any of the above, I can only assume that you have surrendered your position.


Whirlwind Attack wrote:
You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

Where does this get complicated?

1x1=1
1x2=2
1x3=3
etc...

The purpose of saying you to get to make ONE attack roll is to ensure that you understand that you get one EACH. EACH target gets ONE attack. That way, you can't say "Well, there are nine around me, I want to use whirlwind attack, but only attack the biggest one with all 9 of my attacks."

You make separate attack rolls for each target. Each individual. Multiples of one are only one if both factors are one.

This is not rocket surgery. If you don't like it, houserule it and go on.

Edit: Missed a word. And ninja'd.


You can type until your little fingers hurt, and it's not going to change the fact that you get a single attack versus all threatened creatures.

Call it RAW, call it RAI, it's the way the feat is to be utilized.

To even think, using a polearm, you could attack 16 different enemies, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers, all in six seconds, is ludicrous, even in a fantasy game.

Edit: Oh, and let's not forget the Great Axe-wielding Minotaur would get 24 attacks, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers? Even more ludicrous!


Noah Fentz wrote:

To even think, using a polearm, you could attack 16 different enemies, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers, all in six seconds, is ludicrous, even in a fantasy game.

Edit: Oh, and let's not forget the Great Axe-wielding Minotaur would get 24 attacks, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers? Even more ludicrous!

And yet, numerous builds are built on employing this very concept for using whirlwind attack.

Foghammer wrote:
This is not rocket surgery. If you don't like it, houserule it and go on.

Could not agree more. If you [Noah] have nothing left to contribute to the topic I suggest we move along.


Noah Fentz wrote:

You can type until your little fingers hurt, and it's not going to change the fact that you get a single attack versus all threatened creatures.

Call it RAW, call it RAI, it's the way the feat is to be utilized.

To even think, using a polearm, you could attack 16 different enemies, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers, all in six seconds, is ludicrous, even in a fantasy game.

Edit: Oh, and let's not forget the Great Axe-wielding Minotaur would get 24 attacks, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers? Even more ludicrous!

Uh... okay?

What was the point of all that I wonder...?


Foghammer wrote:
Noah Fentz wrote:

You can type until your little fingers hurt, and it's not going to change the fact that you get a single attack versus all threatened creatures.

Call it RAW, call it RAI, it's the way the feat is to be utilized.

To even think, using a polearm, you could attack 16 different enemies, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers, all in six seconds, is ludicrous, even in a fantasy game.

Edit: Oh, and let's not forget the Great Axe-wielding Minotaur would get 24 attacks, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers? Even more ludicrous!

Uh... okay?

What was the point of all that I wonder...?

The point is, it's simply not viable for Whirlwind Attack to grant multiple, individual attacks and how a single attack versus multiple enemies is the only viable interpretation?

Stynkk wrote:
Noah Fentz wrote:

To even think, using a polearm, you could attack 16 different enemies, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers, all in six seconds, is ludicrous, even in a fantasy game.

Edit: Oh, and let's not forget the Great Axe-wielding Minotaur would get 24 attacks, in any order, using any combination of Combat Maneuvers? Even more ludicrous!

And yet, numerous builds are built on employing this very concept for using whirlwind attack.

Foghammer wrote:
This is not rocket surgery. If you don't like it, houserule it and go on.

Could not agree more. If you [Noah] have nothing left to contribute to the topic I suggest we move along.

Still contributing :)

These numerous builds you speak of are simply abusing a loophole in a feat description. Nothing more.


You know... I was just thinking about it. Even if one of my players used our homebrew prerequisites for Whirlwind Attack (Str 13, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave) which is a much shorter route, I would still allow this.

RAW doesn't supposrt it, but I am houseruling it because the character who uses this is wasting a full round to have a chance to move everything around him back a square or two. They can just five foot back in and full attack again.

This is not only a poor subversion of the rules, but to even be practical, the attacker would have to beat the targets' CMDs by 35 or so to make them have to spend a double move to get back (averaging 30' move speed).

So yeah... Bull Rushing isn't the way to go with this. [Greater] Tripping is. If you're not taking the whirlwind attack to deal damage, you're really just wasting the actions.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / [UC] Does `Quick Bull Rush (Combat)` work with `Whirlwind Attack (Combat)`? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions