Whirlwind lunge

[williamoak]

I'm not quite clear on the exact nature of lunge. So, I wanted to be sure of a few things before finishing a character build.

1) What squares can a lunging character attack?

Lets say I'm using a polearm. Does lunge allow me to attack only those at 15' of me, or interchangeably attack those at 10' and 15'? Is there a penalty like when you try to use a polearm at 5'? Basically, is lunge a temporary stance (IE, I'm limited to 15 feet while in it), or is it a conditional thing (IE I can attack at 10' and 15' as long as I take the -2 to AC?)

2) Lunging and AoO:

How do I deal with people entering my "zone"? If somebody gets within 15 feat of me, do I get an AoO? And how about when he gets to 10 feet?

3) Whirlwind attack and lunge:

My basic question is, where can I hurt people (10', 15' or both)?

Edit: I'm tending towards the 10' and 15' seeing the wording of lunge, saying you "can" extend your reach for the -2 AC.

[Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan]

1) all of the squares you could before, and the ones 5' further away. Angled squares might gain you nothing on the corners, if you already had a reach weapon

2) you lose the added reach at the end of your turn, and most AOOs happen on other people's turns, but if someone was to provoke in the middle of your turn, yes you could AOO them.

3) yes, thump everyone that is 10' or 15' away (using a reach weapon), or everyone that is 5' or 10' away (without reach).

Be advised, that you can thump all of those people, and the. Take a 5' step, and continue thumping. This can have brought people who were 20' away now into your 15' reach, AND it may have caused someone that was 5' away to now be 10' away and able to be hit by your reach weapon!

Further, remember you give up a hastted attack, extra AOOs from Combat Reflexes, etc. whe using Whirlwind Attack,

[williamoak]

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Be advised, that you can thump all of those people, and the. Take a 5' step, and continue thumping. This can have brought people who were 20' away now into your 15' reach, AND it may have caused someone that was 5' away to now be 10' away and able to be hit by your reach weapon!

This is exactly what I wanted to hear. I'm building a character that also has dimensional dervish, so basically with this interpretation I CAN HIT EVERYONE ON THE BATTLEFIELD as long as I dont reach the maximum distance on dimension door. Basically, dimensional dervish allows you to teleport a minimum of 5' between each individual attack so...

I probably wouldnt do so as to not drive the a DM insane, but I could. AND IT WOULD BE AWESOME.

How about an "enlarged" person? Is the reach expansion also flexible? Or are you unable to attack people right beside you? Because then, I imagine I could threaten anyone at 10',15' and 20'.

[Kazaan]

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Further, remember you give up a hastted attack, extra AOOs from Combat Reflexes, etc. whe using Whirlwind Attack,

You don't lose extra AoOs from Combat Reflexes since those are not part of your full-attack action. If you gave up all extra attacks, even those not associated with the full-attack, you'd lose even your one standard AoO, not just the extra ones from CR. It's only referring to extra attacks on a full-attack to close the loophole of people giving up their iterative attacks, but getting additional attacks from TWF, Haste, FoB, etc.

[Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan]

Extra attacks from Feats are lost. Your original AOO isn't gained from a feat, but the others are.

[Ravingdork]

Lunge doesn't normally allow you to make attacks of opportunity at reach since it is only active on your turn.

[Gauss]

There is disagreement on whether you can 5' step in the middle of a Whirlwind attack. Ask your GM.

Against: You cannot take a 5' step and recalculate the whirlwind attack. This was dealt with in the FAQ for Cleave. Both feats start off calculating who you can hit. The FAQ for Cleave states you cannot recalculate in the middle of the sequence and since Whirlwind uses similar 'check at the start' criteria you also cannot recalculate in the middle of the sequence.

For: The FAQ on Cleave is about Cleave and not about Whirlwind Attack. Even if they both check at the beginning there is nothing in the FAQ on Cleave that states it applies to Whirlwind Attack.

Note: I am in the Against column.

Regarding AoOs being lost, no you do not lose them. Whirlwind attack specifically uses the language 'extra attack'. A search for 'extra attack' in the book shows that it mainly applies to things like TWF and Haste. It is never used in relation to Attacks of Opportunity. They are NOT 'extra attacks' they are Attacks of Opportunity.

- Gauss

[Dasrak]

Quote:

Extra attacks from Feats are lost. Your original AOO isn't gained from a feat, but the others are.

The feat doesn't specify for how long you lose the benefit of extra attacks from feats/spells/abilities. Until the end of your turn? Until the start of your next turn? For all eternity? It doesn't say.

I could see a GM ruling as you do; that the forfeiture lasts until the start of your next turn. I could also see a GM ruling that the forfeiture only lasts until the end of your turn, in which case the extra AoO's are available to you. I could also see an arguement that an "attack of opportunity" is not an extra attack in the context referred to by the whirlwind attack feat (edit - ninja'd by Gauss on that). Bottom line: we're in nit-picky rules lawyer territory, and individual GM's can and will have different rulings on the subject.

Unless you have a FAQ with the developers calling it one way or the other, this is just your ruling on the matter. I personally take the more permissive ruling in situations like this, and would allow combat reflexes to work with whirlwind attack.

[Kazaan]

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Extra attacks from Feats are lost. Your original AOO isn't gained from a feat, but the others are.

Read it again:

PRD wrote:

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.

First, "feats, spells or abilities". Making an AoO is a standard combat ability available to anyone; So citing it as "it's not from a feat, so it doesn't apply" is incorrect.

Second, "Bonus or extra attacks". AoOs aren't made as part of a full-attack; by definition, AoOs "interrupt the normal flow of combat" so they happen outside and in parallel.

Third, Whirlwind is specifically modifying the full-attack action. Just as you could make an AoO with a non-Monk weapon you are wielding even when you make a Flurry of Blows, you can take extra AoOs through combat reflexes even though Whirlwind takes away any extra attacks on your Whirlwind Attack. Another example would be casting a quickened touch spell in the same round that you make a Whirlwind Attack; you're still allowed to deliver your touch spell, even with a weapon if you have Spellstrike, because it isn't associated with Whirlwind Attack.

Your view on the matter is wrong. It is explosively, apocalyptically wrong so stop trying to lead people astray with misinformation.

[Gauss]

Now now Kazaan, be nice. :) There are a number of people who think that extra attack means any attack that is not a whirlwind attack is not allowed during a whirlwind attack.

My suggestion to those people is to open up the CRB PDF, hit Ctrl+F, do a search of 'extra attack'. Note where it is referenced. In pretty much all cases it is an ability such as TWF or Haste rather than something like Attacks of Opportunity.

- Gauss

[StreamOfTheSky]

Gauss wrote:

There is disagreement on whether you can 5' step in the middle of a Whirlwind attack. Ask your GM.

You mean like the "disagreement" about whether the earth is flat or not?

The Core FREAKING rule book wrote:

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

Quote:

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.

Also,

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

You use WWA on your turn. Attacks that happen between your turns, like AoOs (well, in most cases they only happen then) are not subject to that restriction.

[Gauss]

StreamOfTheSky, while I failed to state 'whether you can 5' step in the middle of a Whirlwind attack and recalculate who you can hit.' I would have thought that the rest of my post made that clear. Perhaps you should read the rest of it?

I did not write the FAQ on Cleave. If you are not allowed to recalculate who can be a target in the middle of a Cleave why would you be allowed to recalculate who can be a target in the middle of a Whirlwind attack? Both Cleave and Whirlwind attack use similar language to determine who can be a target of the ability.

Regarding AoOs, AoOs can happen on your turn. Much of the AoO disagreement revolves around Whirlwind Attack + Greater Trip. Ie: Can you use Whirlwind Attack, trip people, and get your AoOs due to Greater Trip.

Against: No, you cannot make "extra attacks"

For: AoO's are not extra attacks. They are AoOs. Look at every instance of Extra Attack in the CRB. They all apply to abilities like TWF and Haste.

- Gauss

[Ravingdork]

Whirlwind attack doesn't cause you to lose attacks of opportunity.

[james maissen]

Gauss wrote:

The difference between a regular attack sequence and a Cleave or Whirlwind attack is that in a regular attack sequence you do not calculate who you can hit at the start of the sequence. You do it before each attack, not at the start.

- Gauss

Why would you believe that you would lump whirlwind with cleave rather than a full attack action?

You would rule how on the following readied actions:

1. Enemy moves out of reach after the whirlwind starts, but before being attacked.

2. Enemy moves within reach after the whirlwind starts, but before it ends.

It strains credulity to allow the attack on case 1 to be successful, while 2 is disallowed.

You are reading things into the rules. Whirlwind attacks are sequential rather than simultaneous, though others have read that into them as well as some claiming that it is one attack roll against all opponents even!

-James

[KainPen]

I believe WWA has been clarified to be a single attack, that is why you can't take a 5ft step between the to hit rolls, The because it is not more then one attack, like in a normal full attack action.

This also means you have to decided before hand to replace that attack with trip or disarm. Then you have to preform that action to all targets. As it is only one attack you can't change up and do trip, damage, trip, damage, damage, trip.

I still think the wording on the extra attacks needs to be reworded and cleared up. I can see both sides of that argument about give up or keeping AOOs.

[StreamOfTheSky]

KainPen wrote:

I believe WWA has been clarified to be a single attack, that is why you can't take a 5ft step between the to hit rolls, The because it is not more then one attack, like in a normal full attack action.

This also means you have to decided before hand to replace that attack with trip or disarm. Then you have to preform that action to all targets. As it is only one attack you can't change up and do trip, damage, trip, damage, damage, trip.

Please cite where exactly this was "clarified."

The WWA feat itself says one attack against each foe. And that you have to roll the attacks separately for each.

Which is the exact opposite of it all being a single attack.

[williamoak]

Wether or not I can use whirlwind attack with dimensional dervish depends on which wording is correct.

In the end, I dont care about AoOs (whirlwind doesnt make you /loose gain anything AoO-wise, and you loose lunge at the end of your round, so it doesnt affect AoOs as far as I can tell).

But yeah, there need to be clarification on what "each attack" is. I mean, if I'm using cleave, even if I do move between each attack (which I consider top be each time I roll to hit someone), it wont be terribly useful, because I still need to be adjacent to the initial attack.

However, whirlwind attack says everyone within reach. So what happens if I use dimensional dervish to move 5 feat? Or 20 feat? I can, after all, move between each attack (which I consider to be each time I roll to hit someone). Does the whirlwind stop being used each time I dim door? Its hard to say.

I'll admit I'm fishing a bit. I got the idea of chaining dimensional dervish and whirlwind yesterday and was wondering if it was legit (because I could theoretically take out hordes of mooks at once, so it might be against RAI).

[KainPen]

I am going to see if I can find it for you Sky, but there is over 150 pages of post considering WWA on these boards. It may take a while.

it does kind of say it in the actual benefit already

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.{this parts says you give up multiple attack for one attack. This one attack just so happens to go at all targets with in reach.} You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent. {this part is just telling you have to roll to confirm what target the attack hit not that it is separate attacks. A lot of people treat it as separate attacks but is is just one attack.}

I know true strike and Furious focus brought up the concerns with the wording, but true strikes and furious focus says only for next attack roll or first attack roll.

It also means if you fail to trip a target and drop a trip weapon your WWA stops.

williamoak the only real way to get AOO during a WWA is via greater trip. it is a complete none issue for you. but the fact that one attack limits your dimensional Dervish range and targets. Hope I can find the clarification before it comes up in your game. in the mean time as your GM on his ruling on this. you think after 150 pages of post on these board the feat would have had FAQ based clarification by now for easy finding.

[williamoak]

Thanks kaipen, but this character isnt being played at the moment (its a vanity build). I would like to consider that it says one melee attack...against each opponent (and thus multiple attacks) but this would be so easy to abuse.

My idea was, dim door between each X attacks and potentially wipe out a whole army of mooks with a single dim door.

I do have a more conventional dim dervish build being used without whirlwind, so I'm fine.

[Name Violation]

if you lunge, then trip an opponent with greater trip, you get an AoO, which is on your turn, and you are lunging. repeat per EACH OPPONENT

[williamoak]

Eh, I can understand both wordings. If you look at it as a literal whirlwind attack (like link in legend of zelda does), where you're swinging your weapon around in a circle, you have one attack, several hits (although having to roll for each individual makes no sense). This idea is support by the fact you give up your full attack, and that you do everything at full BAB.

On the other hand, if its a metaphorical whirlwind attack (as in, "whirlwind of blades ") where you wack everybody around you once suggests they are each a different attack. This idea is supported by the fact you have to reroll you attack for each individual.

So the way the ability works seems to suport both interpretations, but never quite fully. I'm not really interested in a grammar war (since a single forgotten comma can lay waste to an entire forum).

In the end, it depends on the DM. I would tend to favor the second interpretation (since it takes a hell of a lot of minimally useful feats to obtain) but the other one is acceptable to. However, with the first interpretation, I would stick to one roll (for everything). Meaning you might hit most of them, but you'll do nothing to the guy in the heaviest armor.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a few posts and their replies. Please keep hostility and personal insults out of the conversation.