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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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).
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
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."
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.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.
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.
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."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?
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".
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.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.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.
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'.
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.
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.
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"?
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 ;).
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
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.
*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.
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.
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)