|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this has been debated in various threads before, but I'm not sure a single consensus view has emerged on these issues, nor an FAQ answer, so here we go again:
Situation: Polearm Master with a Fauchard, wants to use Whirlwind attack.
Per the language of the feat, you're using the full attack action, and giving up your normal iterative attacks to gain a single attack at your highest BAB vs. every foe within reach.
1) Can the character attempt to disarm, trip or sunder his targets rather than using standard attacks against them during the Whirlwind Attack?
1a) If yes, must the character choose a single mode of attack for ALL of his targets, or can he pick and choose (i.e. attack everyone, trip everyone, disarm everyone, sunder everyone, but not mix and match)?
2) Do the normal "actions during a full attack" allowances and restrictions still apply? This would include:
2a) Can the character still take a 5' step either before, after or in between the individual attacks included in the full attack?
2b) Can the character take a free action, swift action or immediate action (swift and immediates can be taken any time that a free action could be taken) either before, after or IN BETWEEN the attacks. This is particularly relevant to the Polearm Master because they have the ability to shorten their reach from 10' to 5' as an immediate action, taking an attack roll penalty in the process.
3) Are the viable targets for the attacks granted by the feat calculated at the point when the character begins to use the feat, or can they also gain new eligible targets during the series of attacks by using either:
3a) a 5' step?
3b) the Polearm Master's "Pole Fighting" ability as an immediate action, changing his weapon from 10' reach to 5' reach (or vice versa)?
3c) (not relevant to this character, but put forward in other hypothetical versions of this question, so I'll ask it again) different weapons, i.e. a polearm to threaten with reach, and a spiked gauntlet to threaten adjacent foes?
4) The feat specifically prohibits extra attacks gained by means of feats, spells or abilities - if the character also has the Greater Trip feat and is tripping the foes he's attacking with Whirlwind Attack, do they still provoke attacks of opportunity from him?
My current inclinations are:
1) Yes
1a) Maybe okay to mix and match
2) Yes
2a) Yes
2b) Maybe, no explicit citation to answer the question, but you can put together a chain of logic (immediate action treated as a swift action that need not be taken on your turn --> swift action can be taken anytime you could take a free action --> free action takes no time --> if you can take a 5' step in between the attacks of a full attack, why wouldn't it be permissible to take free actions, which take no time at all?)
3a) Yes
3b) Yes
3c) Not if the reach weapon requires two hands, but this could be okay in the case of someone wielding a Dorn-dergar/Dwarven chain flail one-handed, though if 3a and 3b are both yes, this seems likely to be moot most of the time.
4) Maybe, as the intent seems to be to rule out automatically getting two attacks on every target instead of one by means of Haste, Blessing of Fervor, Two Weapon Fighting, Cleave, etc. Then again, you wouldn't get an AoO on a foe you had tripped without having taken the feat Greater Trip, so maybe the intent is to preclude those attacks too.
And.... go. ;)
1 AND 2: Whirlwind attack is a (special) full attack, and I see nothing to even suggest that you can't take swift actions or 5' steps during.
3:I dunno. Personally, I lean towards the liberal interpretation.
4: as I read it, WWA replaces all your attacks from full attack, including your haste and flurry attacks. Your AoOs and swifts are fine.
1. Yes
2a. Yes
2b. By RAI probably yes, but by strict RAW possibly not if the GM interprets the Polearm Master ability as granting extra attacks, which are forfeit. I would allow it
3a. Yes
3b. Yes if 2b is a Yes otherwise No
3c. In the OPs own answer to Q4 they have highlighted two weapon fighting as one of the things interpreted as not allowed in which case No. But whirlwind attack does not mention that all the opponents have to be attacked with the same weapon so if they have a one handed reach weapon and a one handed normal weapon then Yes.
4. By RAW Yes as it is an AoO, though some mean GMs interpret it as No as an extra attack
|
So I had a question regarding WWA a while back that never really got resolved, and it seems to be close to hit upon here.
Assuming I have a reach weapon and armor spikes, can I WWA all targets within the reach weapon reach and the armor spikes reach? That is, since I threaten with both weapons, can I WWA with both of them in the same WWA "full attack"? This is a variation of the polearm master issue, except that it wouldn't require an action at all or impose a penalty, but it would use two different weapons.
So I had a question regarding WWA a while back that never really got resolved, and it seems to be close to hit upon here.
Assuming I have a reach weapon and armor spikes, can I WWA all targets within the reach weapon reach and the armor spikes reach? That is, since I threaten with both weapons, can I WWA with both of them in the same WWA "full attack"? This is a variation of the polearm master issue, except that it wouldn't require an action at all or impose a penalty, but it would use two different weapons.
No, unless the reach weapon is one-handed. FAQ states
Every character has a main hand attack and an optional extra off-hand attack. These attacks need not use actual hands but could be a leg and a body slam for instance. If a character uses the off-hand attack then both the main attack and the off-hand attack are penalised. Alternatively the off-hand attack can be substituted for using a shield or the character can replace both the main and off-hand attack with a two-handed attack.
So I had a question regarding WWA a while back that never really got resolved, and it seems to be close to hit upon here.
Assuming I have a reach weapon and armor spikes, can I WWA all targets within the reach weapon reach and the armor spikes reach? That is, since I threaten with both weapons, can I WWA with both of them in the same WWA "full attack"? This is a variation of the polearm master issue, except that it wouldn't require an action at all or impose a penalty, but it would use two different weapons.
Yes you'd effect everyone, the ones at reach and close, because they are all within your threatened area which is what determines if they are within reach for WWA.
EDIT: The FAQ linked above doesn't matter here since you aren't doing an attack where you'd have an off hand. WWA is a special attack, not 2WF, so the 2WF restrictions or limitations don't apply.
So I had a question regarding WWA a while back that never really got resolved, and it seems to be close to hit upon here.
Assuming I have a reach weapon and armor spikes, can I WWA all targets within the reach weapon reach and the armor spikes reach? That is, since I threaten with both weapons, can I WWA with both of them in the same WWA "full attack"? This is a variation of the polearm master issue, except that it wouldn't require an action at all or impose a penalty, but it would use two different weapons.
Yes you'd effect everyone, the ones at reach and close, because they are all within your threatened area which is what determines if they are within reach for WWA.
EDIT: The FAQ linked above doesn't matter here since you aren't doing an attack where you'd have an off hand. WWA is a special attack, not 2WF, so the 2WF restrictions or limitations don't apply.
Interesting interpretation, not my take but I can see where you are coming from and a good example of table variation. I would rule that the player would have to choose whether to threaten with the armour spikes or the two-handed weapon and that they couldn't threaten with both at the same time, which to me is the intent behind the FAQ's reasoning.
If you have armor spikes, IUS, boulder helmet, etc and a reach weapon you threaten at both reach and close range. For an attacks you have to pick one, but you threaten with both. So you're welcome to make houserules to fit your view of the game, but just know that they are houserules and the actual rules are you threaten with both.
If you have armor spikes, IUS, boulder helmet, etc and a reach weapon you threaten at both reach and close range. For an attacks you have to pick one, but you threaten with both. So you're welcome to make houserules to fit your view of the game, but just know that they are houserules and the actual rules are you threaten with both.
I respectfully suggest you review the rule on threatened squares in conjunction with the FAQs on two-handed weapons before claiming it to be a houserule. A character only threatens squares upon which they can make an attack and if they are wielding a reach weapon they cannot make off-hand attacks with armour spikes and therefore are not threatening their adjacent squares. The player can choose, as a free action on their turn, which weapon to effectively wield but cannot threaten with both at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have armor spikes, IUS, boulder helmet, etc and a reach weapon you threaten at both reach and close range. For an attacks you have to pick one, but you threaten with both. So you're welcome to make houserules to fit your view of the game, but just know that they are houserules and the actual rules are you threaten with both.I respectfully suggest you review the rule on threatened squares in conjunction with the FAQs on two-handed weapons before claiming it to be a houserule. A character only threatens squares upon which they can make an attack and if they are wielding a reach weapon they cannot make off-hand attacks with armour spikes and therefore are not threatening their adjacent squares. The player can choose, as a free action on their turn, which weapon to effectively wield but cannot threaten with both at the same time.
That's not true. A character is free to mix up attacks as they please. The whole "handedness" thing only comes into play when a character is trying to two-weapon fight with a two handed weapon in one "hand". So long as you don't try to two-weapon fight (as in the actual rule) you can fight with multiple weapons just fine, even if one of them uses two hands.
#3: You check at the initiation of the feat just like with Cleave (See the Cleave FAQ).
Note: This has been debated in other threads and there are those that agree and those that disagree with this stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have armor spikes, IUS, boulder helmet, etc and a reach weapon you threaten at both reach and close range. For an attacks you have to pick one, but you threaten with both. So you're welcome to make houserules to fit your view of the game, but just know that they are houserules and the actual rules are you threaten with both.I respectfully suggest you review the rule on threatened squares in conjunction with the FAQs on two-handed weapons before claiming it to be a houserule. A character only threatens squares upon which they can make an attack and if they are wielding a reach weapon they cannot make off-hand attacks with armour spikes and therefore are not threatening their adjacent squares. The player can choose, as a free action on their turn, which weapon to effectively wield but cannot threaten with both at the same time.
You're making a very common mistake. Off-hand attacks only exist during 2wf. If you're not 2wf, you're not using an off-hand.
Threatened squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
Can I make an attack with my IUS at close range? Yes, with a kick or headbutt. Can I make an attack at range? Yes with my reach weapon. Thus making it so I threaten all the squares. There's a FAQ that says I can use any weapon I want for each of my attacks as long as I'm not getting extra attacks at no penalty. And this FAQ says I can use as many weapons as I want without using any off-hands as long as I'm not getting extra attacks during a full-attack like 2wf.
cleave is a standard action.
@Chess Pwn - an interesting point though the example is made with two one-handed weapons, one held in the main hand and one held in the off-hand and as long as no extra attacks are gained then there is no penalty.
The point the FAQ regarding armor spikes is making is that if you are holding a two-handed weapon then you cannot also be threatening with an off-hand weapon, whether or not that weapon actually requires a hand. There are several FAQs and Paizo staff comments that support that position.
Longspear FAQ - Q: Can I threaten 5' and 10' using one end as an improvised weapon? A: No
Release and regrip a 2 handed weapon It's a free action one release and regrip is fair with an example allowing spellcasters to cast spells and still be able to take advantage of AoO.
The thread about the Armor Spikes FAQ
The interpretation of the ruling that I take from those references is that if a two-handed weapon is being wielded then another weapon cannot be used at the same time. So a character wielding a two handed reach weapon cannot also threaten adjacent squares with armour spikes or similar. In their turn things become a little murkier wherein the release and regrip FAQ can be quoted. I believe the RAI, particularly given the example is to allow the caster to cast a spell and to use a weapon to enable them to use a weapon for AoO. Not to allow a whirlwind attacker to attack reach opponents with a longspear and then change grip to allow those close in to be hit with armour spikes and then to switch back to longspear - this is counter the FAQ on the longspear about attacking reach and adjacent opponents.
What I would allow is for a character to threaten with armour spikes and switch to the longspear for the whirlwind attack and then switch back to the armour spikes for any AoO or vice versa.
You aren't actually using the two weapon fighting rules unless you are getting extra attacks from fighting with two weapons, so the off-hand thing doesn't apply.
Yes, I have evidence for that.
Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack (an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB"). As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
@Snowblind - thank you for posting, that is the FAQ I refer to with the multiple weapons/High BAB. Perhaps if we drop the term Main and off-hand and just go with hand 1 and hand 2 it might be simpler to follow.
With the high BAB FAQ example:
Hand 1 = Longsword
Hand 2 = Mace
Either hand can be used for attacks
With my armless dwarf example:
Hand 1 = Boulder Helmet
Hand 2 = Armour Spikes or Boot Dagger
Either hand can be used for attacks and the extra weapon is interchangeable
With the Longspear wielding armour spike wearing fighter:
Hand 1 = Longspear
Hand 2 = Longspear
There are no hands available to wield the armour spikes, alternatively
they could be:
Hand 1 = Longspear
Hand 2 = Armour Spikes
But now they do not have enough hands to wield the longspear.
Something that people seem to be omitting is the text of Whirlwind Attack, wherein it is stated that you make one attack at your highest BAB against all foes within reach. Threatening has nothing to do with it. That will matter for AoOs and determining Flanking, but has NOTHING to do with Whirlwind Attack.
The people right next to you aren't within reach for you to attack if you don't threaten them. IF you do then you can attack them too. That's the idea of why this matters.
