I have questions about this.
Whirlwind Attack (...)
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.
Full Attack (...)
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
Suppose a monk (or melee character with Improved Unarmed Strike) with a Reach weapon (a Guisarme, for instance). Suppose that he's completely surrounded with medium foes (one enemy per square in a 3 square radius). Normally, the monk can attack his adjacent foes with his feet, and the foes at 10 ft with his guisarme.
Question #1: can he attack all 16 squares at 10 ft or is the double diagonal too long for his reach weapon? In the following questions, I'll suppose that he can't.
#2: Can the monk attack with Whirlwind Attack with his feet (8 enemies) and his guisarme (12 enemies)? The feat's description doesn't mention that only one weapon is to be used, so I'd say yes. Your ideas?
#3: Can he make a 5 ft step during his turn to reach 7 more enemies? Same as above, RAW seems to say yes as well.
#4: The Whirlwind Attack feat precludes "extra or bonus attacks". Does this apply during his turn or during his round?
#5: Is an AoO considered an "extra or bonus attack" or are they only attacks given by, say, Snap Kick?
#6: This is because the Greater Trip gives AoO on tripped enemies. Would the monk be able to use this feat during a Whirlwind Attack?
Question #1: can he attack all 16 squares at 10 ft or is the double diagonal too long for his reach weapon? In the following questions, I'll suppose that he can't.#2: Can the monk attack with Whirlwind Attack with his feet (8 enemies) and his guisarme (12 enemies)? The feat's description doesn't mention that only one weapon is to be used, so I'd say yes. Your ideas?
#3: Can he make a 5 ft step during his turn to reach 7 more enemies? Same as above, RAW seems to say yes as well.
#4: The Whirlwind Attack feat precludes "extra or bonus attacks". Does this apply during his turn or during his round?
#5: Is an AoO considered an "extra or bonus attack" or are they only attacks given by, say, Snap Kick?
#6: This is because the Greater Trip gives AoO on tripped enemies. Would the monk be able to use this feat during a Whirlwind Attack?
1) All 16 squares.
2) Yes.
3) No he can take a 5' step before or after his full attack, not during.
4) During his turn, if an opponent did something that provoked an attack of opportunity he could still make attacks of opportunity.
5) It depends.
6) No, he would not get these attacks of opportunity because they would be based on HIS action (tripping the people) and his full turn is used on the whirlwhind. HOWEVER if they on their turn got up, then he would get an attack of opportunity then.
1) Good to know :-)
2) Good to know as well. That's 24 attacks, then.3) Quoting the PRD, "You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks." It seems to me that you can. Can you point to me where you saw the contradictory ruling?
4, 5, 6) I see your point, but the wording is contradictory: Greater Trip says that a Tripped opponent "provokes an AoO", not merely "you can make an AoO". As per your #4, said opponent "does something" (provokes AoO) in response to something I did, and I can react... or not?
Should the Greater Trip feat include some flavor text like "you can make someone fall head over heel, in a manner that allow you to take advantage of his fall to attack him"?
Should the Whirlwind Attack feat include some additional text like "such extra attacks include any AoO happening during your full-attack"?
Hmm I may be wrong there then I could have sworn that it was before or afterthough checking the old PHB shows it was the same wording. However I would still not allow it on a whilwind due to balance issues. It is now harder to argue that by RAW it is not allowed.
3) Quoting the PRD, "You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks." It seems to me that you can. Can you point to me where you saw the contradictory ruling?
You're right about the balance issue. If the 5-ft step is allowed (as per RAW), a melee character with Whirlwind Attack and reach could strike 33 medium-sized enemies. That's quite the shock trooper :-)
Of course, that would mean standing in the middle of the aforementioned 33+ enemies... which is bad in its own right. On the level where WA can be acquired, that could mean a hundred attacks on the poor character, depending on initiative. That could be seen as balanced.
|
Srd:
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.
So my understanding of this for a long time is this:
You give up your regular attacks, and get to hit everyone around you.
Normally if you had say, 3 attacks per round you could attack 1,2 then step then attack 3, or any variation. But Whirlwind specifically states you do not get your regular attacks at the exchange of hitting everyone in reach. I believe the wording specifies that each attack is rolled separately to help distinguish the fact that you are attacking everyone at "once" and as such are not granted the same maneuvering capability that is normally available to you.
As to the trip issue I think RAW is pretty clear IMHO (heh ;-p ). Greater trips provokes attacks of opportunity. Attacks that would be additional or extra to your normal suite of attacks. Whirlwind says you lose any bonus OR extra attacks granted by feats. It would seem to me that the express nature of indicating bonus OR extra attacks is an attempt to paint with the broadest possible brush as far as indicating what you do not get. And what do you not get? Any attacks other than the whirlwind attacks.
I think you answered yourself as far as I can see:
4, 5, 6) I see your point, but the wording is contradictory: Greater Trip says that a Tripped opponent "provokes an AoO", not merely "you can make an AoO". As per your #4, said opponent "does something" (provokes AoO) in response to something I did, and I can react... or not?
Emphasis mine.
Greater trips says they provoke attacks of opportunity. Provocation does not indicate that you can or will be able to *make* such attacks. And normally you would, were it not for the fact that as you are tripping each person you are continuing your whirlwind turn against the successive squares of your attack. Exactly at which point does you character take that AoO while they are spinning around?
I additionally believe the provocation language is important because if one your allies is standing near you, then *they* can attack as the trip provokes attacks not *just* by the person being tripped but by whoever would normally have a chance to jump in on a provoked AoO.
My .02
So my understanding of this for a long time is this:
You give up your regular attacks, and get to hit everyone around you.
Normally if you had say, 3 attacks per round you could attack 1,2 then step then attack 3, or any variation. But Whirlwind specifically states you do not get your regular attacks at the exchange of hitting everyone in reach. I believe the wording specifies that each attack is rolled separately to help distinguish the fact that you are attacking everyone at "once" and as such are not granted the same maneuvering capability that is normally available to you.
While I agree it is a valid interpretation of the Word, "make one melee attack (...) against each opponent within reach" can also mean "make several attacks" and can then mesh very well with "take a 5-ft step between your attacks". IMHO, the next sentence is there just to indicate that it isn't one d20 rolled for each attack.
As to the trip issue I think RAW is pretty clear IMHO (heh ;-p ). Greater trips provokes attacks of opportunity. Attacks that would be additional or extra to your normal suite of attacks. (...)
I agree that it shouldn't be allowed, although it isn't much of a stretch since it's only one attack, barring other feats. The balance problem comes from WA itself. Part of the reason behind my post was that RAW don't explain this clearly enough.
And it is not the Greater Trip feat that provokes the AoO, it is the enemy. I wrote that because I tried to mix the rules with what Ughbash wrote about "which character is the cause of this action". As written (and interpreted by myself), I see the enemy as being the cause.
I additionally believe the provocation language is important because if one your allies is standing near you, then *they* can attack as the trip provokes attacks not *just* by the person being tripped but by whoever would normally have a chance to jump in on a provoked AoO.
In that case, it should have been written as such, like in other parts of the book. As I said (in another thread), the book is written in a human language, which can be the cause for many paradoxes. Personally, I'd put all the important words with a special font - with a link to the glossary. Attack. Provokes AoO. Bound. (etc)
.02+.02 :-)
As for getting the AoO with greater trip that itself is something thats been debated here on the forums. I'm of the camp that you get the AoO. It's also much more situational than most people think as its only highly effective against bipedal foes and such.
|
|
While I agree it is a valid interpretation of the Word, "make one melee attack (...) against each opponent within reach" can also mean "make several attacks" and can then mesh very well with "take a 5-ft step between your attacks". IMHO, the next sentence is there just to indicate that it isn't one d20 rolled for each attack.
I understand and would agree where there not language specific to the replacement of attacks and then a very very clear provision that you don't get any extra attacks. In my mind the bookending of that language would indicate to me that a certain level of immediate resolution is necessary specifically because you are replacing what you "normally" get to do, for the specified benefit. Were you to take a 5 foot step, you suddenly would be within reach or certain characters and out of reach of others. Your 5 foot step is in my mind violates the "extra attacks" provision and the "between attacks" convention set by other combat situations.
I agree that it shouldn't be allowed, although it isn't much of a stretch since it's only one attack, barring other feats. The balance problem comes from WA itself. Part of the reason behind my post was that RAW don't explain this clearly enough.
And it is not the Greater Trip feat that provokes the AoO, it is the enemy. I wrote that because I tried to mix the rules with what Ughbash wrote about "which character is the cause of this action". As written (and interpreted by myself), I see the enemy as being the cause.
Mhmm yes I should have been clearer with my language. : - p Funny given the topic. I agree that Greater Trip causes the circumstance but it is the creature being tripped, and as such, the creature that provokes the AoO...my other point would not have been possible were I not to take that tack (regarding provoking)...So I muddled my own argument a bit in regards to Whirlwind's language.
However,I still believe that the specific provision regarding no other attacks strikes me as being an intentional nod towards nullifying the sort of situation that has been proposed. What makes AoO special that the language would NOT refer to them?
In that case, it should have been written as such, like in other parts of the book. As I said (in another thread), the book is written in a human language, which can be the cause for many paradoxes. Personally, I'd put all the important words with a special font - with a link to the glossary. Attack. Provokes AoO. Bound. (etc)
Mmhhhm yes on this I whole-heartedly agree. Most of my posts are in threads of this type and I often make a similar comment. Actually now that I think about it weren't you in that bound thread? ; - p
|
|
As for getting the AoO with greater trip that itself is something thats been debated here on the forums. I'm of the camp that you get the AoO. It's also much more situational than most people think as its only highly effective against bipedal foes and such.
Mhmm Thanks for the ref.
I think most of the time we get caught up in the "maybe" so it is a very good point. It if fun to puzzle through with Louis IX because we can be civil but I agree with you, Sprith, that it is highly situational and probably not such a huge concern when the dragon or balor is melting off your face. ; -)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
6 questions
#1 Double Diagonal is within reach.
#2 Yes#3 Yes
#4 Until he says "done" and you go to the next player in init.
#5 AoO allowed (after your turn is over but not before), Snap Kick is not allowed
#6 Not allowed
#1, #4, #5 are pretty clear cut.
#2, #3, #6 are RAW, but your DM may have other interpretations of RAW or simply may choose not to allow them in his game this way. So they become "Ask your DM" questions since the forums here can't help you if your DM doesn't agree.
If the 5-ft step is allowed (as per RAW), a melee character with Whirlwind Attack and reach could strike 33 medium-sized enemies.
He couldn't take a 5 ft step then, since the corpse would make adjacent squares difficult terrain and prevent 5 ft steps.
To PirateDevon and others who have commented in great length:
- I posted this thread to get your feeling about the rules as written for this situation. Some parts are easy to figure, some are more difficult. Thanks for the input.
- "Is an attack of opportunity an attack?" In fact... yes. Thus, we could effectively rule out the "extra attack" (of opportunity) given by Greater Trip (Language, language...). Or not, since it's very situational (as seen in the other thread you kindly indicated).
- 'the corpse would make adjacent squares difficult terrain and prevent 5 ft steps." I hadn't thought of that. However, should a situation where all squares are filled except one adjacent to you, could you step there and continue the attack?
- To my previous question, I'll follow what said before. The wording of the WA feat is "you can make one attack against each target in reach" and can be interpreted as "take a set of targets in your range when you begin your full-attack ; make an attack against each of them." So, I could make that 5-ft step, but it wouldn't change the set of creatures I'm attacking. However, I could attack some of them with my feet, now that they are closer.
- The flavor text indicating that you become a whirlwind with a weapon is just that: flavor. Nowhere in the feat's benefits' description it is indicated that you ought to make all your attacks with only one weapon.
Some people might see me as changing my mind every few posts :-) but it is because some ideas are to be thrown around so that a consensus can emerge.
|
|
To my previous question, I'll follow what said before. The wording of the WA feat is "you can make one attack against each target in reach" and can be interpreted as "take a set of targets in your range when you begin your full-attack ; make an attack against each of them." So, I could make that 5-ft step, but it wouldn't change the set of creatures I'm attacking. However, I could attack some of them with my feet, now that they are closer.
I just don't see why that interpretation follows since it is redundant and , IMHO overpowered, to say "replace your full attack action with a full attack action against everything near you at your highest bonus with no restriction or penalty". It seems to me by forcing you to stay still it is still costing you "something" to get that extra *umph*. I contend that although there are some language issues in the book that it would have been far easier to say : "with this feat you make make a single melee attack against each adjacent foe as part of your full attack action. No extra attacks, etc." rather than indicating that a "replacement" is happening, in effect, an exchange -my contention is maneuverability for attacks.
I was thinking of more stuff but this is such a weird set of rule interactions and it does come down to weird wording and ambiguous interactions which could stand a bit of a polish.
Thanks for the stimulating exercise Louis IX
I just don't see why that interpretation follows since it is redundant and , IMHO overpowered, to say "replace your full attack action with a full attack action against everything near you at your highest bonus with no restriction or penalty". It seems to me by forcing you to stay still it is still costing you "something" to get that extra *umph*. I contend that although there are some language issues in the book that it would have been far easier to say : "with this feat you make make a single melee attack against each adjacent foe as part of your full attack action. No extra attacks, etc." rather than indicating that a "replacement" is happening, in effect, an exchange -my contention is maneuverability for attacks.
I was thinking of more stuff but this is such a weird set of rule interactions and it does come down to weird wording and ambiguous interactions which could stand a bit of a polish.
Thanks for the stimulating exercise Louis IX
You're welcome. We agree once again. What I wrote was about interpreting part of the feat's description, not the whole description. If you can make that 5-ft step and can't attack the creatures that suddenly appear in your reach (which is what I proposed for that point), it actually reduces (by a tiny bit) the WA's cheeze-like power.
Note that we are discussing the "take a 5-ft step between your attacks" bit. In fact, my proposal isn't different than taking your 5-ft step after your whole WA attack routine. You're also right that forcing the character to stand still during a turn in which he makes this routine can lower the WA's power by another bit.
This thread isn't the only one in which fellow posters discussed about WA. All these discussions' conclusions could be included in the official Errata... unless it has already been done?