|
1) Spring Attack can't actually be combined with Whirlwind, because Spring Attack uses a special full-round action.
However, since Whirlwind Attack uses a Full Attack, you do get the option of making a 5ft step in the middle of the Whirlwind (because that's allowed before, during or after a Full Attack sequence), which may bring new targets in range.
2) The same reach as without Whirlwind; it depends on the character and weapon (along with Enlarge Person). Reach weapons interact differently with EP than normal weapons.
In general: if EP turns you large, you get 10ft natural reach instead of 5ft natural reach.
Weapons with the Reach property (not to be confused with natural reach) work slightly differently. If you're Large, they can't reach anything within 10ft, but can reach enemies at the 15 and 20ft distances.
3) Yes. There's nothing that says that they don't.
Oh, and yes, you can combine EP and Lunge.
4) Yes. They're different types of bonus ("armor" and "natural armor"), so they stack.
I disagree with the 5' step bringing new targets in range. The Cleave FAQ would seem to indicate that any ability that checks what is within range before working does not allow you to recheck when you move.
The element I am referencing is:
Cleave: Can I take a 5-foot step in the middle of my attempt to use the Cleave feat, to bring another foe within reach?
No. Cleave is a special action and the conditions for that action are checked at the moment you begin your action. At that moment, all of the available targets are checked to make sure they adjacent to each other and within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step in the middle of the action and check conditions again. If you do not have two targets within reach, adjacent to each other at the start of the attack, you could not even attempt to make an attack using Cleave.
Since Whirlwind attack is another special action and the conditions for that action are also checked at the moment you begin your action I would state that you cannot take a 5' step and recheck conditions.
- Gauss
Kazaan, the problem is still that you are checking the available targets within reach BEFORE making your attacks.
- Gauss
|
|
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.
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.
Reading that, to me the obvious interpretation is that you can make a 5ft step in the middle of a Whirlwind Attack. You've given up your regular attacks for a new set of attacks; you're rolling all of those separately, so there is a "between" those attacks in which you can make a 5ft step. All those attacks are independent from each other.
I don't think Cleave is a good analogy; Cleave is strictly a Standard action in which one attack is sort of "stretched" into the skull of that attack's neighbour, not a full attack with entirely separate independent attacks. And you don't make 5ft steps in the middle of standard action attacks.
Whirlwind attack specifically says 'you give up your normal attacks' (paraphrased) to make an attack against targets within reach as a full round attack action. How is that not a special action? It by no means is a 'regular' full attack action.
I've actually spoken directly with the game developers about 5-foot step during whirlwind.
You CAN take a 5-foot step before, after, or between your whirlwind's attacks. However, you only check to see all of your targets within reach once, at the start o your first attack. You cannot ADD additional targets to your whirlwind by taking a 5-foot step somewhere in the middle or end.
You could, however, LOSE targets by doing so if they fall outside your reach.
Then that means it's exactly how I described it; a single melee attack that's applied to all targets in reach. You can take a step in the middle of performing the action, but it's still the single attack and no re-acquire is involved.
No it isn't a single attack, it is multiple attacks that hit only the targets that were within reach from the initial space you occupied. You still need to make multiple attack rolls which can result in critical threats (and require confirmation rolls) and which could trigger other abilities based on attack roll resolution for each of the targets.
It states '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.' Multiple attack rolls for attacks against multiple opponents, you'd roll damage for each separate attack.
Whirlwind Attack is a name, 'attack' is a term which can be used to describe the act of multiple individual strikes, the summation of the act.
|
|
@Kazaan: I find your reasoning far-fetched. If you're rolling separate attack rolls, why would you be sharing damage? Separate attack rolls -> separate attacks.
If you had some bonus that you could apply to only one ability per round, you'd not get to split it over all whirlwind targets either; they're all separate attacks, more-or-less performed at the same time.
---
Ravingdork's comment is interesting though: the "target check" at the start of the action. Because it's not entirely in keeping with the normal Full Attack method, where if you move in the middle of the attack, you definitely can reach new enemies.
Well there is another difference.... They state that they are considered one attack and explain the mechanics in how they are applied. Whirlwind Attack has no such explanation and just states make multiple attacks.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Making a post for people to hit the FAQ button (since starting a whole new thread seems a tad unnecessary; hope that's not uncouth).
When using Whirlwind Attack, is the character:
1. Making a single attack which targets all enemies within reach (but using a separate attack roll for each target), which therefore only makes one damage roll which applies to all enemies that were hit?
-OR-
2. Making multiple attacks (each enemy within reach being the target of one attack, and each attack using a separate attack roll), therefore requiring a separate damage roll for each enemy that was hit?
I am of the opinion that because they used the word "each" instead the word "all" in:
...make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
the user is making multiple attacks and therefore gets multiple damage rolls.
You're swinging your sword at each enemy within reach, you're not swinging your sword against all enemies within reach.
Just my 2 coppers.
EDIT: Also, Kazaan, I see you're point and find your arguments compelling. I think this is something that needs to be FAQed (or errata-ed to be read "make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus which targets each opponent within reach" if that is indeed the intent of the developers.
|
|
It could've been made less ambiguous by writing either
for each opponent within range, make one attack against that opponent at highest BAB
or
make one attack against all opponents in range; roll too-hit for each individual opponent but roll damage only once for all opponents that you managed to hit[/url]
The problem is that it's hard to formulate either option in such a way that you can't argue the case for the other interpretation.
I think the "each", rather than the "all", indicates that individual attacks were meant.
I don't think the gunslinger and suchlike are relevant; that's been written many years later than the original WA; uses quite different wording; and is about many attacks hitting one target, not many attacks hitting many targets. It's far too different to be a compelling argument.
The separate attack rolls suggest to me that the attacks are also separate. Pretty much always, separate attack rolls are part of separate attacks; if it's different, that deserves explicit mention. (The gunslinger does have explicit mention that it's an abnormal mechanic.)
Fireball isn't a good comparison either: it doesn't make attack rolls.
There are also "soft" flavor arguments to be made: there's no clear reason why all attacks made with a WA on different people would do identical damage. But a fireball is one big ball of flame; everyone's affected by it the same way.
|
|
Except that Dead Shot and Deadly Shuriken are, explicitly, not about "many attacks hitting one target". It's one attack with many attack rolls hitting one target.
That's one of the reasons why I think the comparison is bad: WA is NOT many attacks against a single target. They're very different.
They, along with Fireball, are exemplars as to how a single attack with a single damage roll can be executed using multiple attack rolls.
Fireball doesn't use an attack roll, and is also clearly a single thing; one ball of fire. WA on the other hand is a series of strikes against multiple targets. Fireball has a single target: the area of effect. WA has multiple targets: all enemies in range. They're so very different, that it's not a good basis for deriving anything about WA.
In other words, each attack roll doesn't count as a separate attack; they're all part of the same, single, attack.
Your analogies are not analogous. I still hold that the simplest interpretation is that normally, there's one attack roll per attack, and one attack per attack roll. That's the most normal interpretation; anything less normal (multiple attack rolls leading to a single damage roll) needs explicit mention. Deadly Shuriken and Dead Shot have this explicit mention.
Lets use slightly less ambiguous terminology here. I'm going to keep the term 'attack roll' as it is, but the term 'attack', referring to a discrete attack as in the case of an iterative 'attack', I'll replace with the word battery.
This helps cut down the confusion by divorcing the term 'attack' from 'attack roll'.Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular batteries and instead make one melee battery 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 batteries granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
I'm not confused at all. But I think it's a different word that needs attention: each.
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.
"make one melee attack (...) against each opponent within reach"
Which is equivalent to:
for each opponent within reach, do:
make one attack on that opponent
If it was intended to make a single attack on all of them, the proper phrasing would have been
"make one melee attack (...) against all opponents within reach"
Your logic is completely sound, if it didn't say that you are making "one attack" against "each opponent". The sentence starts out sounding like what you are describing, but it finishes by making it clear that you are to make one (and only one) attack, against every opponent in reach. That's very clearly multiple attacks.
No question that the other examples you cited are different though.
I wasn't debating either way on the 5' step to change reach. Merely saying that it is very definitely discrete attacks.
The argument against allowing it is that when you initiate the whirlwind attack, you are gain the ability to attack all creatures within reach once. You *can* take a 5' step as you take those (perhaps gaining a flank), but perhaps not gaining the ability to attack additional creatures that were not in your reach previously. I have a mixed opinion on this, but it is legitimate.
|
|
By the way WA is described in the rules, it's a bit fuzzy whether you can 5ft step to acquire more targets. I think by strict reading you can do that; you can do it with FA, and WA has no exception to it.
However, some of the writers apparently told Ravingdork that that's not what they intended. I do like to take RAI into account, but it's a bit thin.
---
That said, whether you can 5ft step or not is quite separate from the other issue with one or separate attacks; namely whether there's only one damage roll.
For example, if you had some power that would let you do something once per round on a succesful hit - like add some damage to one attack - if there's only one damage roll, that benefit would suddenly apply to every enemy you hit. Conversely, if you roll damage separately for every attack, your damage will move towards a normal probability curve, whereas only a single roll is rather spiky.
Kazaan, using a distinctly different ability like dead shot to make your argument for whirlwind attack is a bad idea, it doesn't do anything for your case. Because it is different and is spelled out to be different. Dead shot is one attack which is the summation of multiple attack rolls, it is spelled out to be that. The whirlwind write up has none of that, you are comparing apples to oranges. It isn't a valid comparisson.
As for the 5' step, Whirlwind is a special case, it allows you to potentially make 8 attacks in the most basic scenario. That is more than is typically allowed in the CRB basic rule set where it is from and balanced for (20th level full BAB class TWFing gets 7 all with penalties). Allowing for a 5' AND the ability to aquire new targets when doing so means that some opponents could be hit multiple times (which is clearly not intended by the ability write up) as well as pushing the potential attacks up to 12. They probably decided that was too powerful for the feat investment when you get access to Whirlwind Attack.
I would imagine you could attack the empty square if you believed there was an opponent in it as part of the whirlwind attack. It isn't a spell so targeting issues from that portion of the book shouldn't come up (LoS/LoE).
RAW on something like that should be covered with the 'making an attack roll' in the normal sense. Whirlwind attack just gives more possible attacks than normally allowed with the reach restrictions and feat investment.