Hi, I rebuilt my TWF’er and 2Handed Fighters when the APG came out. Everyone that dissed fighter’s on the board’s mainly hated on melee because it doesn’t reduce an enemies effectiveness only HP. These 2 feats have been just so much awesome.
Now barring terrain or Caster’s using magic to keep away (problems usually solved by boots of flying.) combat rounds in our games have changed.It used to be:
Fighter charges and hits, enemy takes damage- melee enemy hits back uses Combat Maneuver. Caster either DD away further than fighter’s speed so he can cast while Fighter has to run to close or 5ft steps and casts a B/C or will save or lose (possibly eating an AOO if fighter has step up, maybe 2 if he has stepup and strike), which fighter may miss if caster has Displacement or Mirror Image up already (they usually do since most Wiz BBEG has early warning)Point is The Fighter nearly always eats a spell, maybe loses vs will or a smart Wiz/Sorc will use early wall of force to get heaps of Buffs up then fighter can win vs fully buffed caster. Fighter is reliant on Party Wiz/Cleric to make with the B/C’s or Debuffs to let him kill it.
Now, our groups fighters in similar circumstances are Charging in with Dazing/Stunning Assault (Their Gtr Wpn Fcs and Wpn Training means they can take the attack penalty). Now a Non Casting Melee monster will probably save (and they prefer melee anyway) so the fighter won’t use it. But vs those god wizards (so long as they hit- Blindfight is a good investment) they fail their save- skip a turn. Fighter leaves Dazing Assault on and full attacks hapless caster. Caster Dies.
Now I’m not saying it works all the time, but I’ve noted it happening quite a bit so it seems quite good. Not available till level 13, about the time casters start to become ‘God’. Better than the Crit feats, they don’t require a dead feat and they’re either ON/OFF as the fighter wants.
Have other people noted the same?
1. Play what is fun. Your DM should be able to make things work.
2. Why were the casters there with no barrier between them and the fighters?The APG does improve things, but the effectiveness of those feats depends on the DM.
Ardenup,
With respect, I'd be likely to contribute if decoding your post wasn't such a major effort. After about a sentence (or what would be a sentence in something containing punctuation, whole words, and some form of grammatical structure), I finally surrendered. Sorry, man. I just can't do it.
Which is a shame, because it's an interesting topic and I suspect you have some valid points to make.
The problem with the critical feats is that they're too random and too late. They occur at most on 30% of attacks, which is not enough to rely on by a wide margin, and they only come into play after you've already gone through the vast majority of your character's career.
Interestingly I consider Dazing Assault and Stunning Assault *too* good; and I'm saying that although I am a melee-player (casters have cooties).
A -5 penalty is benign for full-BAB classes that often will have tricks to increase their attack count. "Stunning Fist" has a limited number of uses a day - and can only be applied once per round. The DC for Stunning Fist is not all that easy to increase, at level 20 it would require a Wisdom=30 character to have the same DC as the dazing/stunning assaults.
Additionally the assault-feats trigger on every hit. A hasted two-weapon fighter will spill out 7 or so attacks in a round; it is quite likely that 3 of these will hit - and the target needs to resist each of them - and the DC is really quite good, even tough high-fort monsters cannot reliably make that kind of save all the time.
Ah, duh, I should have realized I was thinking of the wrong feats when I saw the "APG" mention.
Ignore my prior post.
I agree with Ardenup,
APG made Fighter (and other Warrior classes like Barbarian) much more viable at high levels.
Dazing/Stunning Assault are great because they DON´T rely on Crits to apply status effects like the ´Critical Feats´ do - which obviously doesn´t work vs. Crit Immune opponents or when Fortification kicks in. Pushing Assault is also nice, esp. because the only trade-off is damage for that single attack.
I also like the new extended Blind Fight tree,
and the ´Maneuver Strike´ series is great as well (although relying on Crits, it´s a great effect, and one I´d usually prefer vs. the Greater versions of these Maneuvers - #1 because it happens for free on top of any melee attack, e.g. with AoOs and Full Attacks).
Charge Thru is awesome, and actually Charging (and Mounted Combat) just got a whole bunch of love all around, especially w/ Rhino Charge (readied Charge outside of Surprise Round). Combat Patrol is also awesome, potentially allowing what is in effect multiple Readied Attacks (though just AoO´s and no special Standard Action attacks) if Movement + Reach is sufficient.
That there is now multiple ways for different classes to get multi-attacks as Standard Action or Charge is certainly a good thing, although I´m slightly disappointed the only way for Barbarians to do so is via Pounce with the 3 Rage Power Beast Totem Chain (the Nat. Armor is nice, but I can see just ignoring the Claws so that Power is speed-bump-ish). (I can see taking Lesser Hurling and Hurling Charge instead, getting dual attack Charges for one less Rage Power... but hey, 2 viable options is nice).
Amongst the other Rage Powers, Boasting Taunt is very interesting, and of course Come and Get Me makes all the Fighters jealous (though 2WF and Free Hand archetype Fighters get a similar but lesser ability for free eventually). Guarded Life and Flesh Wound, along with the Orc-blood-only Feat Ferocious Tenacity do alot to help Barbarian resiliency (vs. HP loss), and Good For What Ails You (synergizing with Drunken archetype) gives the Barbarian pseudo-Lay on Hands status removal...cool. Not to mention Reckless Abandon, the to-hit boosting Rage Power as it SHOULD have been done to begin with.
But don't you think the dazing/stunning assaults are too good? Any build that focuses on these feats would have 5+ attacks after level 11; even with the penalty to attack a full-BAB class has little trouble hitting consistently. Assuming only 3 attacks hit and the target has a 90% chance of making the save, that is still a massive 27% chance of daze/stunning the target.
But don't you think the dazing/stunning assaults are too good? Any build that focuses on these feats would have 5+ attacks after level 11; even with the penalty to attack a full-BAB class has little trouble hitting consistently. Assuming only 3 attacks hit and the target has a 90% chance of making the save, that is still a massive 27% chance of daze/stunning the target.
Not really. Martial types still have to get to the bad guys, and get the full attack in, and by that level the save is not to hard to make either.
Well the "balance" consideration would be that stun-crit is on all crits, where stun-advance is on all attacks but with a -5 penalty.
No, I don´t think they´re too good... Though honestly they´re ALMOST there. :-)
Dazing Assault is the equivalent level when Full Casters have 6th level spells, and Stunning Assault is gained 1 level after 8th level spells are gained (by Wizards).
As mentioned, the balance is in the -5 penalty, which actually IS signifigant enough to affect # of successful hits (and Crit confirms) against higher ACs (monsters, optimized heavy armored NPCs and Eidolons). Especially if you´re planning on taking alot of AoO´s against the enemy (Come and Get Me for one), not taking the -5 and relying on Crits to Daze/Stun will mean you will HIT (and Crit) on alot more of those AoO´s.
...But I do think that the Assault Feats are probably a better over-all choice than the Critical Status Effect Feats, if only because the Crit Feats don´t work when you can´t Crit (Immune/Fortification). As I intimidated in my take on Rage Powers, some APG material is just better than Core material (e.g. Reckless Abandon giving +hit to ALL attacks for -AC vs. Core´s Surprise Accuracy +hit to ONE attack).
It just means melee types can dream of playing the caster´s game of Save or Suck.
Of course, it also means that melee types are more likely to invest in maxing their Fort Saves further, including Re-Roll options like Imp. Great Fortitude.
Personally, I think it´s rather wierd how Dazing Assault ´scales´...
After you take Stunning Assault, Dazing doesn´t get any better and it´s basically in no way better than Stunning Assault. Fighters can Retrain out of Dazing (since it´s not a Pre-Req for Stunning), but other Melee Types can´t retrain and Feats tend to be tight anyways. I would have expected that having both would reduce the penalty for Dazing, or increase it´s DC, or otherwise ´scale´ it better, but per RAW you just WISH you are a Fighter so you can Retrain out of it. Of course, if you dip 4 levels of Fighter by 16th level you can do just that.
...And as I mentioned, there´s TONS of other great feats for melee types, and building alot of those combos just might mean NOT taking Dazing/Stunning Assault.
So, if these feats mean a save for each hit, it not only helps out fighters, but gives a solid reason for investing feats in two weapon fighting, over two handed? Sounds like a double fix to me, well done Paizo.
The issue really is that it blows Stunning Critical totally out of the water (same DC, BAB+10) if it triggers on every hit. Really needs a developer clarification IMO.But don't you think the dazing/stunning assaults are too good? Any build that focuses on these feats would have 5+ attacks after level 11; even with the penalty to attack a full-BAB class has little trouble hitting consistently. Assuming only 3 attacks hit and the target has a 90% chance of making the save, that is still a massive 27% chance of daze/stunning the target.Not really. Martial types still have to get to the bad guys, and get the full attack in, and by that level the save is not to hard to make either.
No clarification needed. It can stunlock you. What we might want to ask for is a rewrite so that you can only force one save per round. The bad guys should be working together to save their partner though if he gets lock up. It is a good reason as to why allowing the BBEG to have help is a better idea.
You can do a similar thing with the crit feats, but those feats force you to take a lot of feats to make them work, you still have to crit, and the enemy still has to make the save.PS: The crit based stun feat takes you out for rounds at time though so it may be a bad comparison
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The issue really is that it blows Stunning Critical totally out of the water (same DC, BAB+10) if it triggers on every hit. Really needs a developer clarification IMO.But don't you think the dazing/stunning assaults are too good? Any build that focuses on these feats would have 5+ attacks after level 11; even with the penalty to attack a full-BAB class has little trouble hitting consistently. Assuming only 3 attacks hit and the target has a 90% chance of making the save, that is still a massive 27% chance of daze/stunning the target.Not really. Martial types still have to get to the bad guys, and get the full attack in, and by that level the save is not to hard to make either.No clarification needed. It can stunlock you. What we might want to ask for is a rewrite so that you can only force one save per round. The bad guys should be working together to save their partner though if he gets lock up. It is a good reason as to why allowing the BBEG to have help is a better idea.
You can do a similar thing with the crit feats, but those feats force you to take a lot of feats to make them work, you still have to crit, and the enemy still has to make the save.PS: The crit based stun feat takes you out for rounds at time though so it may be a bad comparison
I'd agree that stunning for DURATION (vs. just 1 rd) is a pretty sweet advantage; that's what made 3.0/3.5 Pain Touch so good - a monk could stun, and then the round after that the target was still nauseated. A 2-round take-out effect.
If you're up against one target you can hit every round, not such a big deal. If you're up against several tough opponents, being able to do more than make your opponent lose *a* turn is pretty awesome.
The issue really is that it blows Stunning Critical totally out of the water (same DC, BAB+10) if it triggers on every hit. Really needs a developer clarification IMO.But don't you think the dazing/stunning assaults are too good? Any build that focuses on these feats would have 5+ attacks after level 11; even with the penalty to attack a full-BAB class has little trouble hitting consistently. Assuming only 3 attacks hit and the target has a 90% chance of making the save, that is still a massive 27% chance of daze/stunning the target.Not really. Martial types still have to get to the bad guys, and get the full attack in, and by that level the save is not to hard to make either.No clarification needed. It can stunlock you. What we might want to ask for is a rewrite so that you can only force one save per round. The bad guys should be working together to save their partner though if he gets lock up. It is a good reason as to why allowing the BBEG to have help is a better idea.
You can do a similar thing with the crit feats, but those feats force you to take a lot of feats to make them work, you still have to crit, and the enemy still has to make the save.PS: The crit based stun feat takes you out for rounds at time though so it may be a bad comparison
I'd agree that stunning for DURATION (vs. just 1 rd) is a pretty sweet advantage; that's what made 3.0/3.5 Pain Touch so good - a monk could stun, and then the round after that the target was still nauseated. A 2-round take-out effect.
If you're up against one target you can hit every round, not such a big deal. If you're up against several tough opponents, being able to do more than make your opponent lose *a* turn is pretty awesome.
I remember pain touch, a most annoying ability.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I beleive Stunning Assault does indeed only force one save per round.
It doesn´t say each attack stuns them, but ´targets you hit with your melee attackS´ are stunned if they fail the save. You could split a full attack amongst multiple enemies and stun them all, but once you have hit each opponent the condition required to force the save (being hit by your melee attack(s)) has been met, and hitting the same opponent more often doesn´t do anything - Again there´s no wording that each attack forces a save. I agree it´s unclear, and the wording could be better.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
I beleive Stunning Assault does indeed only force one save per round.
It doesn´t say each attack stuns them, but ´targets you hit with your melee attackS´ are stunned if they fail the save. You could split a full attack amongst multiple enemies and stun them all, but once you have hit each opponent the condition required to force the save (being hit by your melee attack(s)) has been met, and hitting the same opponent more often doesn´t do anything - Again there´s no wording that each attack forces a save. I agree it´s unclear, and the wording could be better.
When a condition is limited to once per round it normally says so.
APG:You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to daze opponents you hit with your melee attacks for 1 round, in...
APG:You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to stun targets you hit with your melee attacks for 1 round, in...
you hit with your melee attacks for 1 round.
That seems like every attack to me. There is no verbiage restricting it to one attack. The word attacks is even plural.
Edit: That is RAW of course. I have no idea what RAI is.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I beleive Stunning Assault does indeed only force one save per round.
It doesn´t say each attack stuns them, but ´targets you hit with your melee attackS´ are stunned if they fail the save. You could split a full attack amongst multiple enemies and stun them all, but once you have hit each opponent the condition required to force the save (being hit by your melee attack(s)) has been met, and hitting the same opponent more often doesn´t do anything - Again there´s no wording that each attack forces a save. I agree it´s unclear, and the wording could be better.
When a condition is limited to once per round it normally says so.
APG:You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to daze opponents you hit with your melee attacks for 1 round, in...
APG:You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to stun targets you hit with your melee attacks for 1 round, in...
you hit with your melee attacks for 1 round.That seems like every attack to me. There is no verbiage restricting it to one attack. The word attacks is even plural.
Prefaced that I didn't write those feats and so have no special insight into the RAI of them:
It is actually the plural that makes the previous poster's point: You can stun targets you hit with your melee ATTACKS. One attack. Two attacks. Five attacks. Ten attacks. Doesn't matter. The ability is triggered by hitting the enemy with your attacks. Unless I'm misremembering, it doesn't stipulate that every attack comes with its own separate save. I'll look it up later when I'm off work.
Do you hit an enemy with any non-zero number of attacks? If yes, then the ability activates. The first time you hit them with an attack, they'd save. Any other attacks you make on them are superfluous; you've already met the triggering condition for it; the triggering condition doesn't reset on subsequent hits vs. the same target. It DOES make it worth your while to spread your attacks around.
Just my two bits.
good points
This is one time I am hoping my RAW interpretation is wrong.
Ardenup,
With respect, I'd be likely to contribute if decoding your post wasn't such a major effort. After about a sentence (or what would be a sentence in something containing punctuation, whole words, and some form of grammatical structure), I finally surrendered. Sorry, man. I just can't do it.
Which is a shame, because it's an interesting topic and I suspect you have some valid points to make.
Sorry dude,
I actually wrote it after a 12 hour night shift and was pretty bombed.
I'm happy a few people got my point.
I REALLY like these feats, they are nearly must haves.
I believe they trigger the save for each hit. This is a good thing.
They come in around the same level wizards become 'God', helping fighter remain viable.Are they overpowed? I don't think so. Someone pointed out, it's still usually pretty hard to reach the wizard.
If they are used against the party it could mean a dead party though. The player and the DM side of me are having different views on this.
Well, this certainly makes a barbarian a lot riskier to play...a single TWF chump full attacks your barb with a dazing assault at lvl 11, 4 hits at a DC 21. Sure you can use lunge to try and trip people who come after you, but so can they! All this means is that encounters with moderately competent goons will no longer pose zero threat. Better start thinking more about your AC folks. That armed patrol with 2 crit focused llight crossbow archers and 3 two-weapon fighters could rock your party if you don't take em seriously.
In regards to its 'scaling', stunning assault really is a fighter only feature IMHO. Odds are dazing will do the job just fine for anything you don't expect to make the save, but a fighter can ditch it for stunning without any loss.
In regards to how superior this feat is to the critical line or how overpowered it might be, an archer fighter can't use these, and a -5 to hit makes this kind of a non issue against high AC enemies, whom will take at most 2 hits, and high AC usually has a decent fort save.
At the end of the day, it makes fighters a lot more dangerous, I like it.
Well, this certainly makes a barbarian a lot riskier to play...a single TWF chump full attacks your barb with a dazing assault at lvl 11, 4 hits at a DC 21. Sure you can use lunge to try and trip people who come after you, but so can they! All this means is that encounters with moderately competent goons will no longer pose zero threat. Better start thinking more about your AC folks. That armed patrol with 2 crit focused llight crossbow archers and 3 two-weapon fighters could rock your party if you don't take em seriously.
In regards to its 'scaling', stunning assault really is a fighter only feature IMHO. Odds are dazing will do the job just fine for anything you don't expect to make the save, but a fighter can ditch it for stunning without any loss.
In regards to how superior this feat is to the critical line or how overpowered it might be, an archer fighter can't use these, and a -5 to hit makes this kind of a non issue against high AC enemies, whom will take at most 2 hits, and high AC usually has a decent fort save.
At the end of the day, it makes fighters a lot more dangerous, I like it.
Some things are immune to being stunned. Not even undead are immune to being dazed though. The AC in the game for NPC's is really low. You can probably be good for 3 hits even with the negative penalty.
I'd love clarification on this.
One save per round is still worth it. Multiple saves rocks awesome.I guess I'm balancing this against The fact that high level opponents have ways of preventing the fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Cavalier even getting to him.
A buffed cleric/oracle could also use it but spells may be a better option for them anyway....
By the time I am 11th level I expect to be able to fly, and I am not one of those optimization experts. I agree it is harder to get to them, but I won't say can't. At some point I would like to teleport, but I have not played to a high enough level as a player to try to get it done.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You know what's funny...EK builds can use this feat with vampiric touch. Or better yet chill touch...see how little I care about -5 to hit when I'm doing touch attacks.
now certainly needs clarification. As a GM I would never let those feats work with touch attacks, just like touch attacks don't work with power attack.
I'd love clarification on this.
One save per round is still worth it. Multiple saves rocks awesome.
And that is the reason its probably too much. Limiting it to 1 hit per round balances it with the critical feats, which can be multiple times per round but you never know when they will fire off.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You know what's funny...EK builds can use this feat with vampiric touch. Or better yet chill touch...see how little I care about -5 to hit when I'm doing touch attacks.
I agree - it does need to be clarified whether it works with touch attacks. I'd say no as well, but a definitive ruling would be good.
Flagged.
You know what's funny...EK builds can use this feat with vampiric touch. Or better yet chill touch...see how little I care about -5 to hit when I'm doing touch attacks.
I don't know, I don't think that's that bad. I'd rather have an EK unload chill touch on me while possibly dazing me than a well-build two-weapon fighter possibly dazing me while unloading a full attack on me (with a slightly higher DC to boot.)
To put it another way, the chill touch version of this tactic is a, what, 14th level character burning a feat so that he can more or less manage the 1st level fey sorcerer's laughing touch, except with a save?
I think part of the problem is that the meaning of `melee attacks` isn`t as clear and consistent as it could be. It COULD signify solely normal damaging attacks vs. normal AC, i.e. defined as per `Melee Attacks` (misleadingly) located after the Attack Action in the Combat Chapter... OR it COULD simply refer to the ´range´ of attacks. The problem is that in many cases one wants to refer solely to normal, damaging melee attacks vs. normal AC, but in other cases one would like to include ALL attacks with `melee range`... yet I`m not aware of clear terminology distinguishing between these meanings. (`melee ranged attacks` for the second meaning? but that almost sounds like a contradiction in terms, since there is no `melee range` per RAW)
This is really due to the fact that PRPG`s treatmeant of Touch Attacks (and Maneuvers) isn`t really 100% clear in it`s relation to `Melee (or Ranged) Attacks` (in the case Maneuvers, there`s no wording which would apply DEX to Ranged Manevuers e.g. a Bola Trip, because Maneuvers are presented as autonomously defined, rather than an EXCEPTION or MODIFICATION of normal attacks). Touch Attacks as an attack mode are actually poorly defined, depending on oblique references spread around in different areas... e.g. `Touch Attacks` is a sub-heading of the *AC Section* (which really focuses on Touch *AC* not Touch Attacks per se), and the distinction between Touch Attack as an attack mode and Touch Attacks delivered via UAS/Natural Weapons is unclear depending on which section one looks at... There simply IS NO `Touch Attack` sub-heading to the Attack Action (ahem) as there is for `Melee Attack`, `Ranged Attack`, `Unarmed Attack`, etc, so we are left to inference as to how to class Touch Attacks (i.e. are they a ´melee attack´ or not?).
Assuming that `melee attack` is meant to signify one thing and one thing only,
If it`s supposed to mean only normal (damaging) melee attacks against normal AC, does that mean that the -5 penalty doesn`t apply vs. Touch Attacks? ...Though Touch Attacks delivered via UAS/Natural Attacks/Weapon Delivery Touch Spells vs. Normal AC would still be subject to the penalty. That`s really kind of a wierd corner case for this Feat, which might only happen when one has a Touch Attack (non-UAS/Nat/Weapon-delivered) one can deliver on one`s own turn, but wants to use Stunning Assault on any AoO`s one might take later in the round.
If melee attack solely refers to range, would that mean Touch Attacks (not delivered via UAS/Natural Weapons) can indeed trigger a Stun? What about melee range MANEUVERS, as well? Obviously, there`s plenty of other abilities in the game that require `melee attacks`, so if that solely is a reference to `range` (as opposed to damaging attack vs. normal AC) then Maneuvers and Touch Attacks should be compatable with all those cases as well.
OR, the intent could be based upon reading `melee attack` in parallel, different ways...
I.e., Stunning Assault doesn`t apply to Touch Attacks, but the penalty applies to Touch Attacks anyways.
(also applying to Maneuvers is explicitly called out)
...That seems hugely problematic on many levels, of course.
Personally, given that the scenario with both Touch and normal Melee Attacks is so marginal, I would go with the first interpretation (where the penalty doesn`t apply to Touch Attacks and Stun doesn`t trigger on Touch Attacks or Maneuvers). The fact that the Feat specifically calls out that the penalty also applies to Maneuvers (which would be superfluous if ANY melee range attack roll qualifies as `melee attack`) also supports that interpretation IMHO.
I really think a FAQ clarifying exactly what is meant by references to `melee attacks` (i.e. whether it includes Touch Attacks and Maneuvers, or not) would be useful, because it really goes beyond just these Feats. As mentioned, the entire relation between (Ranged/Melee) Attacks, Touch Attacks, and Maneuver Attacks isn`t quite so clearly explained in the actual RAW, so ideally that could be addressed along with this issue.
If they are used against the party it could mean a dead party though. The player and the DM side of me are having different views on this.
I actually would like to be able to use a martial NPC for a BBEG for once, instead of being forced to make him a full spellcaster every time. I mean, even if you could use Stunning Assault in conjunction with Whirlwind Attack, it's still not as good in many ways as a simple confusion spell (lower range; successful hit needed and still allows a save; lasts 1 round vs. 1 per level).
With a whirlwind attack at level 20, you can effectively force a DC30 stun save on everyone inside your attack range that you want to under the (everyone you hit must save, but only once) interpretation. That's what...15' range with enlarge and lunge, or 25' range with reach, enlarge and lunge? AE stun spammable each round without limitation is pretty nice. My gut tells me every melee player who could would take that feat with my interpretation.
I went through a similar thought process, and yet...
1) Now you're a high int high dex fighter, and probably have been one your whole career... and I'm certainly not going to say that's unplayable, but I think we can agree that the fighter who instead dumped more of those points into strength will have a lot of moments throughout his career to shine over the finesse fighter.
2) It's, what, eight feats to set that up? (Dodge, Mobility, Sprint Attack, Expertise, Whirlwind, Lunge, Power Attack, Stunning Assault?) Doable, but it's not without some opportunity cost.
3) As good as that maneuver is, and I think it is really good, I still don't feel that this character is better than the full casters at that level, or more able to neuter/contain/delay/etc. groups of enemies than they are, but it does finally feel useful.
So ultimately, I think this is really good, but it's not too good.
(I think a decent alternative to your version, incidentally, is two-weapon fighter with enlargement/lunge -- he doesn't cover as much area, and he can't stun a theoretical super-packed battlefield of smaller targets, but he can keep swinging at the one or two people he most wants to stun until he does hit, and once he's hit everyone he cares to stun at least once he can dump the rest of his attacks for damage wherever he likes. That fighter doesn't need the high int of the whirlwind version, but he does need a lot more dex.)
I'm actually perfectly OK with that manuever. What I'm not ok with is forcing a single target to make 5 or 6 saves in a single round.
Oh, then I misread you and we're in complete agreement. Carry on!