PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Is Whirling Frenzy a bad Rage variant?



Altair_the_Vexed
2009-10-19, 06:31 AM
Simple question / opinion:
Is the Whirling Frenzy rage variant given in the Unearthed Arcana a bad idea, broken, underpowered, or what?

RAGE VARIANT: WHIRLING FRENZYA barbarian with this variant form of rage doesn't gain the normal bonuses when he enters a rage. Instead, when a barbarian with whirling frenzy enters a rage, he temporarily gains a +4 bonus to Strength and a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class and on Reflex saves. While in a whirling frenzy, the barbarian may make one extra attack in a round at his highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the barbarian might make before his next action.

Whirling frenzy is otherwise identical to the standard barbarian rage in all other ways. At 11th level (when a standard barbarian gains greater rage), the Strength bonus increases to +6, and the dodge bonus to Armor Class and on Reflex saves increases to +3. At 20th level (when a standard barbarian gains mighty rage), the Strength bonus increases to +8, and the dodge bonus to Armor Class and on Reflex saves increases to +4.

A barbarian using this variant doesn't gain indomitable will at 14th level. Instead, he gains evasion, but only while in a whirling frenzy.

A character can't use whirling frenzy at the same time that he uses any other form of rage (or similar ability).
There's a player character in the game I run who would - from their fluff - be better suited to this variant than the standard Rage. I'm just wondering whether it's been tried by anyone to any great extent, and what opinions people have of it.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-19, 07:17 AM
It's fairly good.

Tempest Fennac
2009-10-19, 07:20 AM
I personally like it a lot (I thinkj it looks better then standard Rage due to it not damaging your AC while giving an extra attack).

Leon
2009-10-19, 07:59 AM
No its fine.
Its one of the two that i now wish i'd taken for my Partial barbarian as the core rage doesn't quite fit with the character

Amphetryon
2009-10-19, 08:00 AM
It's a good option. It pairs especially well with the Lion Totem option from Complete Champion, to effectively provide a good number of attacks on a Charge while not hurting your defenses. Access to Evasion also opens up specific options for PrCs that would not otherwise be available to a Barbarian without a Rogue (or similar) dip.

The most obvious downside, I think, is the prohibition on using it with other forms of rage "or similar ability", which RAW seems to prohibit Frenzied Berzerker, long touted as one of the best options for a Barbarian.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-19, 09:28 AM
The most obvious downside, I think, is the prohibition on using it with other forms of rage "or similar ability", which RAW seems to prohibit Frenzied Berzerker, long touted as one of the best options for a Barbarian.

Optimized barbarians don't take FB for Frenzy, they take it for the Power Attack boost. Totem Ragers take FB for the Frenzy, seeing as they can't make efficient use of Power Attack (you know, Natural Weapons VS Two-Handing a greatsword).

Zincorium
2009-10-19, 09:43 AM
It's a good option. It pairs especially well with the Lion Totem option from Complete Champion, to effectively provide a good number of attacks on a Charge while not hurting your defenses. Access to Evasion also opens up specific options for PrCs that would not otherwise be available to a Barbarian without a Rogue (or similar) dip.

The most obvious downside, I think, is the prohibition on using it with other forms of rage "or similar ability", which RAW seems to prohibit Frenzied Berzerker, long touted as one of the best options for a Barbarian.

Frenzied berserker is excellent for character optimization 'how can I do the most damage in one turn' builds.

It sucks in actual play. I've been there. Usually, the first level after someone starts frenzied berserker, you have to retreat after the first room of a dungeon because they killed a party member and then died after rage ended.

I don't mind people not being able to combine it with an extra attack.

Fluffles
2009-10-19, 09:52 AM
Frenzied berserker is excellent for character optimization 'how can I do the most damage in one turn' builds.

It sucks in actual play. I've been there. Usually, the first level after someone starts frenzied berserker, you have to retreat after the first room of a dungeon because they killed a party member and then died after rage ended.

I don't mind people not being able to combine it with an extra attack.

FB is perfect for arena builds. Well, solo arenas that is.

AslanCross
2009-10-19, 10:28 AM
Whirling Frenzy works great if you're looking at a TWF build, especially if you're throwing in some Tome of Battle. Pouncing Charge! :smallbiggrin: (I also like how it adds to AC)

I think the variant that is considered subpar is the berserker strength variant from PHB2, since you mostly don't have control over it.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-19, 11:09 AM
The most obvious downside, I think, is the prohibition on using it with other forms of rage "or similar ability", which RAW seems to prohibit Frenzied Berzerker, long touted as one of the best options for a Barbarian.

This always surprised me. It seems to me completely arbitrary - why can't count as a rage?



It sucks in actual play. I've been there. Usually, the first level after someone starts frenzied berserker, you have to retreat after the first room of a dungeon because they killed a party member and then died after rage ended.


I conceeded to overcome this through a feat in Exalted Deeds that allow moments of mercy during rage (I made it count for frenzy too). Because we wanted a PC like Guts in Berserk :smallsmile:

Before the feat, there were 2 dedicated player (CE fighter and Wall of F Sorcerer) that had the duty of keep at bay the guy :smalltongue: and deaths happened anyway. Without cheese, FB is dangerous (but maybe fun in some campaign).



I think the variant that is considered subpar is the berserker strength variant from PHB2, since you mostly don't have control over it.

Agree. I prefer the Str/Con or Str/Dex rages, but the whirling is good too. The Berserk Strenght is simply quite dangerous, even if flavourful.

Eldariel
2009-10-19, 11:48 AM
Frenzied Berserker only kills allies when misbuilt. As long as you take care, you should be able to construct it in a manner that doesn't relevantly threaten allies (such as a Merciful weapon, just plain obscene Will-save or similars)

But yeah, Whirling Frenzy is a fine Rage-variant; it trades the defensive benefits (save increases & HP increase) for more damage. It's the most offensive of the 3 Rages (though for some builds, the "can't use other Rages"-limitation is a deal breaker) and as a Barbarian, if you go Shock Trooper, killing people fast is a good idea. It's also got an AC boost which makes it ideal for low-level play; one of my arena-builds had no-shield no-magic AC of 21 on level 1 thanks to Whirling Frenzy.

Again, standard Rage is defensively better (especially later on when HP & saves subsume AC) and Ferocity has the Immediate Action-activation going on for it; in other words, it's faster. But Whirling Frenzy is the best offensively and as such, the one I find myself using overwhelmingly most (particularly with archers who really need the offensive help).

Grumman
2009-10-19, 12:23 PM
Frenzied Berserker only kills allies when misbuilt. As long as you take care, you should be able to construct it in a manner that doesn't relevantly threaten allies (such as a Merciful weapon, just plain obscene Will-save or similars)
Something tells me that a frenzied Frenzied Berserker isn't going to be satisfied with a Nerf bat.

Eldariel
2009-10-19, 12:27 PM
Something tells me that a frenzied Frenzied Berserker isn't going to be satisfied with a Nerf bat.

Just make sure he has nothing else in the immediate vicinity and isn't proficient with his natural attacks and you'll be fine. He'll smash everyone unconscious and nothing worse. Of course, this means he'll be completely useless vs. some opponents, but then you can Dispel the weapon or something.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-10-19, 12:58 PM
(Frenzied Berserker is not an option in my game.)

It seems that everyone appears to like this variant... which makes me suspicious.
Running through the maths, it appears that WF gives you more damage per round, and makes you 10-20% harder to hit. Compared with standard rage, which gives you more damage per round (but less than WF, as less attacks) and makes you easier to hit, with more HP per level (in the order of 16-30% more HP).

The character in question is TWF, mobile, AoO, battlefield-controller and flanking-monkey. She's not the damage dealer of the party - that'd be a race between the fighter, the paladin and the half-orc barbarian.

One last point - I'm not the player here, I'm the DM. I'm cautious about adding variants.
Is the enthusiasm for the damage dealing ability of Whirling Frenzy enough reason for me to bar it from my game, or am I over-reacting to your collected praise?

Eldariel
2009-10-19, 01:06 PM
Here's the basic difference between the two:

Whirling Frenzy:
- Extra attack (at -2)
- +2 AC
- +2 Reflex-saves

Rage:
- 2xHD HP
- -2 AC
- +2 Fort-saves
- +2 Will-saves


For a TWFer, Whirling Frenzy isn't all good simply because one extra attack for a TWFer is far less than an extra attack for a two-hander. The -2 penalty, likewise, is bigger for TWFers since they already have a penalty to start with and have more attacks it applies to.

So no, for a TWFer it's definitely not broken. Two-hander can be pretty frightening a damage dealer with it, but trades the defensive abilities of a Barbarian there (also note that Whirling Frenzy doesn't last as long; the Con-bonus enables normal Rage to last longer), so I wouldn't say it's broken there either, but it's definitely not broken for a TWFer.


I honestly cannot see why you'd want to ban it.

Myrmex
2009-10-19, 01:08 PM
Whirling Frenzy is best when combined with a way to get a full attack on a charge. Otherwise it's just good, not great. It's a step up from regular rage at lower levels, since a small amount of AC and an extra attack are significant, but at higher levels, it won't matter as much as +3*lvl HP and +2 will saves.

TWFing is tricky to make work, since you have to hope that whatever you are next to isn't going to either out-full attack you, or simply move away.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-19, 01:10 PM
(Frenzied Berserker is not an option in my game.)

It seems that everyone appears to like this variant... which makes me suspicious.
Running through the maths, it appears that WF gives you more damage per round, and makes you 10-20% harder to hit. Compared with standard rage, which gives you more damage per round (but less than WF, as less attacks) and makes you easier to hit, with more HP per level (in the order of 16-30% more HP).

The character in question is TWF, mobile, AoO, battlefield-controller and flanking-monkey. She's not the damage dealer of the party - that'd be a race between the fighter, the paladin and the half-orc barbarian.

One last point - I'm not the player here, I'm the DM. I'm cautious about adding variants.
Is the enthusiasm for the damage dealing ability of Whirling Frenzy enough reason for me to bar it from my game, or am I over-reacting to your collected praise?

Melee needs all the help it can get. What's 10-20% increase to AC compared to a single casting of Pyrotechnics, which is effectively auto-blindness to everyone within the area (and possibly not for your allies, if you know what you are doing)? That 20% increase to AC just became meaninglessly trivial, as now every enemy now has a 50% chance of missing on every attack, with no saving throw, for 1 round/CL and for 1d4+1 rounds after the duration ends.

Melee needs help (and FB is good help if used properly). Don't knock an idea down just because it only helps the weakest of characters.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-19, 01:16 PM
Melee needs all the help it can get. What's 10-20% increase to AC compared to a single casting of Pyrotechnics, which is effectively auto-blindness to everyone within the area (and possibly not for your allies, if you know what you are doing)? That 20% increase to AC just became meaninglessly trivial, as now every enemy now has a 50% chance of missing on every attack, with no saving throw, for 1 round/CL and for 1d4+1 rounds after the duration ends.

Melee needs help (and FB is good help if used properly). Don't knock an idea down just because it only helps the weakest of characters.

True, but you need a fire.

Vangor
2009-10-19, 01:18 PM
TWF and AoO will suffer for using Whirling Frenzy as the -2 to Attacks applies to far more attacks throughout the round. Of course, the variant plays perfectly in terms of adding to the character type of repetitious attacks and has the advantage of not needing a Full Attack to receive the additional attack which seems all the more reasonable for the character type. I would absolutely allow the Barbarian to use Whirling Frenzy, primarily because I still vastly prefer using ordinary Rage for my Desert Orc with SfD for +4 Will Saves; Will and Health has always been far more important to my survival than AC and Reflex.

Oslecamo
2009-10-19, 01:19 PM
Melee needs all the help it can get. What's 10-20% increase to AC compared to a single casting of Pyrotechnics, which is effectively auto-blindness to everyone within the area (and possibly not for your allies, if you know what you are doing)? That 20% increase to AC just became meaninglessly trivial, as now every enemy now has a 50% chance of missing on every attack, with no saving throw, for 1 round/CL and for 1d4+1 rounds after the duration ends.


WTF? It lasts only 1d4+1 rounds!

Assuming they fail their will save and you bypass their SR.

Assuming they just didn't snipe your wizard as he aproached carrying a very seeable torch that's basicaly making him a walking target.

Assuming they're not outright immune to blindness.

Assuming they don't hide behind something.

That's a lot of assumptions for it to work.

EDIT:If you're talking about the smoke effect, it still demands you manage to get a fire source in the midle of the enemy, and they stand there dully while you position yourselfs.

Myrmex
2009-10-19, 01:21 PM
Of course, the variant plays perfectly in terms of adding to the character type of repetitious attacks and has the advantage of not needing a Full Attack to receive the additional attack which seems all the more reasonable for the character type.

Oh wow, there's no "full attack" clause. I totally missed that. No wonder I've been so underwhelmed with the whirling variant.

Cieyrin
2009-10-19, 01:35 PM
WTF? It lasts only 1d4+1 rounds!

Assuming they fail their will save and you bypass their SR.

Assuming they just didn't snipe your wizard as he aproached carrying a very seeable torch that's basicaly making him a walking target.

Assuming they're not outright immune to blindness.

Assuming they don't hide behind something.

That's a lot of assumptions for it to work.

EDIT:If you're talking about the smoke effect, it still demands you manage to get a fire source in the midle of the enemy, and they stand there dully while you position yourselfs.

You act like Mr. Wizard is alone and running in like some chump. You ready an action to pyrotechnics after having another party member throw their torch to where you want the smoke to go off. They're effectively blind in the smoke and possibly suffering Str and Dex penalties from smoke inhalation, which lasts while in the cloud (which lasts for 1 round/CL) and then 1d4+1 rounds after that as they get fresh air back into their lungs.

If they just want the fireworks, it's the same procedure, except you don't have to throw the torch, since the flash hits 120' around the source, unless you're trying to get somebody just out of range of that, in which case you throw the damn torch anyways.

Myrmex
2009-10-19, 01:37 PM
You act like Mr. Wizard is alone and running in like some chump. You ready an action to pyrotechnics after having another party member throw their torch to where you want the smoke to go off. They're effectively blind in the smoke and possibly suffering Str and Dex penalties from smoke inhalation, which lasts while in the cloud (which lasts for 1 round/CL) and then 1d4+1 rounds after that as they get fresh air back into their lungs.

If they just want the fireworks, it's the same procedure, except you don't have to throw the torch, since the flash hits 120' around the source, unless you're trying to get somebody just out of range of that, in which case you throw the damn torch anyways.

A torch can be thrown up to 50 feet. With this tactic, you're blinding the whole party, aren't you?

The Glyphstone
2009-10-19, 01:49 PM
A torch can be thrown up to 50 feet. With this tactic, you're blinding the whole party, aren't you?

Parties can be warned beforehand, and, say, have a readied action to close their eyes and look away from the flash. The monsters won't know you're going to do it, unless your DM is a jerk and has all enemies constantly walk around with free-readied actions to close their eyes if someone throws a torch at them. Not foolproof, but if you're using it as a pre-planned tactic, it doesn't endanger your party at all.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-19, 01:51 PM
Of course, the variant plays perfectly in terms of adding to the character type of repetitious attacks and has the advantage of not needing a Full Attack to receive the additional attack which seems all the more reasonable for the character type.

Citation for this? Unless it's specified in UA, general "extra attack" stuff (Haste/etc.) require a full attack. Not-full-attack is the exception, not the rule.

Eldariel
2009-10-19, 01:52 PM
It's much better to use it with e.g. Bullseye Lantern anyways.

EDIT: Let's stop derailing this thread, k?

Myrmex
2009-10-19, 01:55 PM
Parties can be warned beforehand, and, say, have a readied action to close their eyes and look away from the flash. The monsters won't know you're going to do it, unless your DM is a jerk and has all enemies constantly walk around with free-readied actions to close their eyes if someone throws a torch at them. Not foolproof, but if you're using it as a pre-planned tactic, it doesn't endanger your party at all.

So the party gets a +2 circumstance bonus on the will save to avoid the flash. Still not very awesome, considering the save on that flash is likely to be near 20.

lsfreak
2009-10-19, 02:05 PM
Citation for this? Unless it's specified in UA, general "extra attack" stuff (Haste/etc.) require a full attack. Not-full-attack is the exception, not the rule.

Do you have a source that unless specified, it requires a full attack? I've been casually looking for one but have been unable to find it. I know that most things specifically say that you need a full attack, but things like Whirling Frenzy and Raging Mongoose don't.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-19, 02:05 PM
WTF? It lasts only 1d4+1 rounds!

Assuming they fail their will save and you bypass their SR.

Assuming they just didn't snipe your wizard as he aproached carrying a very seeable torch that's basicaly making him a walking target.

Assuming they're not outright immune to blindness.

Assuming they don't hide behind something.

That's a lot of assumptions for it to work.

EDIT:If you're talking about the smoke effect, it still demands you manage to get a fire source in the midle of the enemy, and they stand there dully while you position yourselfs.

2 rounds minimum. 5 rounds maximum. Knowing that the average combat lasts 3-5 rounds, those 2 rounds are a massive advantage. And the Smoke effect has no save or SR. The save is against the Str/Dex penalty, not the blindness (the biggest debuff).


You assume a lot more than I do (that an ally throws a torch into the middle of a group of enemies). How many enemies are truly immune to Blindness? Only a handful, which is why spells like Glitterdust and Pyrotechnics are so powerful. Even True Dragons are not outright immune to the effect. At the lowest levels, such as 3rd when the spell becomes first available, how many things are immune?


A torch can be thrown up to 50 feet. With this tactic, you're blinding the whole party, aren't you?

You never use the Flash version. It offers a save, the Smoke doesn't. The smoke is also shapeable through Metamagic or a class feature (Recaster, Archmage). The Familiar you so conveniently have on hand can also just fly the torch over the enemy at double speed, giving you quite a range. Assuming it flies, of course.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-19, 02:10 PM
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Key point "for some special reason". That generally covers everything. Ergo, specific exemption from full attack requirement is necessary.

lsfreak
2009-10-19, 02:12 PM
Key point "for some special reason". That generally covers everything. Ergo, specific exemption from full attack requirement is necessary.

...you know, you'd think I'd look under full attack instead of feats, spells, and all that. Thanks.

Vangor
2009-10-19, 02:16 PM
Citation for this? Unless it's specified in UA, general "extra attack" stuff (Haste/etc.) require a full attack. Not-full-attack is the exception, not the rule.

Haste, Frenzy, and Flurry of Blows all seem to disagree as those include phrasings denoting the necessity of a full attack action.


When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding...


While frenzied, she gains a +6 bonus to Strength and, if she makes a full attack action, gains a single extra attack each round at her highest bonus.


A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-19, 02:18 PM
Things can frequently be repeated for emphasis. None of those directly contradict my assertion of a general rule (as opposed to, say, an effect with specific language being demonstrated in an example to apply on a standard attack)

Vangor
2009-10-19, 02:30 PM
None of those directly contradict my assertion of a general rule

Except your previous assertion was not-full-attack being the exception, whereas rules frequently state full-attacks being required, and the problem comes with what qualifies as an exemption from the rule. I happen to accept the wording of Whirling Frenzy as being so exempt, but you may accept "extra attack" as being especially what the full attack action wording is referring to.

I should ask, as well, if anyone knows of an instance of an additional attack explicitly stating it is exempt from the full attack action rules. If one does exist I might reinterpret, but I simply do not know of one.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-19, 02:34 PM
Well, yeah, that's the thing. The concept of any given person's interpretation being inviolate is sort of shaky, which undermines my whole argument. But hey; I provided adequate documentation.

Vangor
2009-10-19, 02:37 PM
You certainly did, and I am not saying you are wrong as I imagine more people would consider "extra attack" as being exactly what the rule was denoting, I just see a stark contrast between the other instances I know of for receiving additional attacks and Whirling Frenzy.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-19, 02:40 PM
I should ask, as well, if anyone knows of an instance of an additional attack explicitly stating it is exempt from the full attack action rules. If one does exist I might reinterpret, but I simply do not know of one.

Slashing Fury or Snap Kick, IIRC.

Rion
2009-10-19, 02:45 PM
Things can frequently be repeated for emphasis. None of those directly contradict my assertion of a general rule (as opposed to, say, an effect with specific language being demonstrated in an example to apply on a standard attack)
But if the rule is that extra attacks only require full-attack actions if specifically said so, then any extra attacks not requiring a full-attack action won't say that they don't, because the rule is that they don't unless specifically said so.

sofawall
2009-10-19, 02:58 PM
However, the rule is if you have an extra attack, you need a full attack. Only explicitly spelled out exceptions get by that.

deuxhero
2009-10-19, 03:02 PM
It stacks with haste, so at worst (and that is hardly the default) it is useful in large number of attacks/round builds (like a soulbow that gets a large number of attacks per turn to pull off a Macross missile massacre )

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-19, 03:03 PM
It stacks with haste, so at worst (and that is hardly the default) it is useful in large number of attacks/round builds (like a soulbow that gets a large number of attacks per turn to pull off a Macross missile massacre )

If your referring to the Whirling Frenzy, IIRC it only works with melee.

Faleldir
2009-10-19, 03:12 PM
With all due respect, you don't, and I checked.

Eldariel
2009-10-19, 03:26 PM
If your referring to the Whirling Frenzy, IIRC it only works with melee.

It's specifically the reason martial archers should always dip Barbarian; it's by far the easiest way to improve archer damage output.

Darrin
2009-10-19, 04:40 PM
Slashing Furry

Definitely did not need that image in my head...

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-19, 05:12 PM
Definitely did not need that image in my head...

Unintentional nightmare fuel is unintentional.

Oslecamo
2009-10-19, 05:47 PM
Definitely did not need that image in my head...

Allow me to better ilustrate the concept of slashing furry:

http://media.onemanga.com/mangas/00002282/000178842/09.jpg

Deepblue706
2009-10-19, 07:05 PM
On the note of the Frenzied Berserker, I've been wondering about the wording of their Frenzy as how it relates to them attacking friendly targets.

They're supposed to attack the nearest target to "the best of their ability", but does it necessarily mean they're meant to use lethal force? It doesn't say kill whatever they can, as efficiently as they can. It says Attack.

Basically, I'm wondering if there's any chance a FB who simply doesn't have his sword ready might just resort to punching allies when he accidentally triggers a trap or something. A FB's unarmed strike is probably pretty damn hard compared to most, but I imagine significantly less of a threat than his Greatsword.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-19, 07:12 PM
Unarmed Strike deals 1d3+30 damage (for example). Greatsword deals 1d3+31 damage. Using the unarmed strike isn't attacking to the best of your ability.
Of course, this is why Merciful weapons were earlier mentioned. Turning off the Merciful would deal 1d6 less damage; and thus not be attacking to the best of your ability. You're obligated to deal that nonlethal.

Fluffles
2009-10-19, 09:06 PM
However, the rule is if you have an extra attack, you need a full attack. Only explicitly spelled out exceptions get by that.

No where in the rules does it say that. In almost every thing that does grant an extra attack, it SPECIFIES that it doesnt stack, not the other way around.

deuxhero
2009-10-19, 09:21 PM
The relevant rules

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/Haste.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#speed
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy

"When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation."

"When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with i"

"While in a whirling frenzy, the barbarian may make one extra attack in a round at his highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round"

Kylarra
2009-10-19, 09:26 PM
Actually...

Multiple Attacks

A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action in order to get more than one attack.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm#multipleAttacks

Since whirling frenzy doesn't explicitly say that you don't have to make a full attack action, the general rule still applies.

Fluffles
2009-10-19, 09:49 PM
The relevant rules

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/Haste.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#speed
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy

"When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation."

"When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with i"

"While in a whirling frenzy, the barbarian may make one extra attack in a round at his highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round"

Every single one of your examples is a specific example. Not a general rule.

The closest thing that applies here is Flurry of Blows, which is as underpowered as a pile of **** making gore attacks.

And it is fairly specific enough to break the general rule, "the barbarian may make one extra attack in a round at his highest base attack bonus". The full attack is not mentioned, but the extra attack is.

Kylarra
2009-10-19, 09:59 PM
And it is fairly specific enough to break the general rule, "the barbarian may make one extra attack in a round at his highest base attack bonus". The full attack is not mentioned, but the extra attack is.Nah it isn't, else two-weapon fighting wouldn't require the full attack action either.


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting)


Multiple attacks clearly require the full attack action unless otherwise stated specifically.

Multiple Attacks

A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action in order to get more than one attack. emphasis mine.
source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm#multipleAttacks)

deuxhero
2009-10-19, 10:16 PM
acctually, going by a ruleing that it allows you to take an extra attack without full attacking would buff a fairly underpowered fighting style. (completly irelevent though)

Myrmex
2009-10-19, 10:24 PM
It's much better to use it with e.g. Bullseye Lantern anyways.

Why?
That's going to blow up in your face, too.


You never use the Flash version. It offers a save, the Smoke doesn't. The smoke is also shapeable through Metamagic or a class feature (Recaster, Archmage). The Familiar you so conveniently have on hand can also just fly the torch over the enemy at double speed, giving you quite a range. Assuming it flies, of course.

The smoke also offers a save.

Vangor
2009-10-19, 10:30 PM
Nah it isn't, else two-weapon fighting wouldn't require the full attack action either.

The problem is the rules for two-weapon fighting were explicitly stated within the rules for multiple attacks as being made as part of a full attack action.

For those attempting to argue Whirling Frenzy does not explicitly state requiring a full attack action and therefore the additional attack is allowed without, you would be wrong. My contention has been due to the phrasing of the additional attack from Whirling Frenzy contrasted with numerous other sources for additional attacks which say a full attack action is necessary that I, and let me emphasize I, feel Whirling Frenzy is explicit enough against the rule. However, please do not be misinformed about the rule which includes any other special reasons about gaining an additional attack necessitate a full attack action, and thus if you do not feel Whirling Frenzy is explicit enough against the rule the rule stands for Whirling Frenzy.


Slashing Fury or Snap Kick, IIRC.

A significant problem with Slashing Flurry is the feat functions differently depending on using a standard or full attack action. Snap Kick, though, seems much closer, but, considering the attack is strictly an unarmed strike whereas the triggering attack(s) may not necessarily be, I would say this is somewhat separate. Thank you, though, since those might be about as near what I asked as possible as I have not seen anything which crossed the rule.

Leon
2009-10-19, 10:31 PM
Why?
The smoke also offers a save.

Only Vs the Str/Dex penalty

Myrmex
2009-10-19, 10:42 PM
Only Vs the Str/Dex penalty

But that's all there is....

Smoke Cloud

A writhing stream of smoke billows out from the source, forming a choking cloud. The cloud spreads 20 feet in all directions and lasts for 1 round per caster level. All sight, even darkvision, is ineffective in or through the cloud. All within the cloud take -4 penalties to Strength and Dexterity (Fortitude negates). These effects last for 1d4+1 rounds after the cloud dissipates or after the creature leaves the area of the cloud. Spell resistance does not apply.

The "blinding" effect isn't terribly useful, unless you want to buy your team a round or two of buff time.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-20, 01:06 AM
I see only 2 down sides to whirling frenzy.

No con bonus. Offset by no AC penalty, but AC is a nonissue at mid level and up. HP is often not.

Can't stack with Frenzied Berserker's Frenzy. Standard rage does.

Other than that, it's an awesome ACF.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-20, 09:12 AM
But that's all there is....

Smoke Cloud

A writhing stream of smoke billows out from the source, forming a choking cloud. The cloud spreads 20 feet in all directions and lasts for 1 round per caster level. All sight, even darkvision, is ineffective in or through the cloud. All within the cloud take -4 penalties to Strength and Dexterity (Fortitude negates). These effects last for 1d4+1 rounds after the cloud dissipates or after the creature leaves the area of the cloud. Spell resistance does not apply.

The "blinding" effect isn't terribly useful, unless you want to buy your team a round or two of buff time.

Umm...


The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

How is that not an opportunity to murder the enemy? 50% miss chance means everyone has an AC eqaul to the opponent's attack bonus +10.5. If they do fail their save against the smoke's effect, that an additional -4 Str/Dex penalty that stacks. So -8 Str is massive (it also satcks with Ray of Enfeeblement).

As for getting your allies into the smoke without screwing them over, there's a number of effects that work (or just use Gust of Wind to disperse the smoke and leave them blinded for 1d4+1 rounds, no save). 2 rounds of auto-blindness is more than enough to screw the enemy!

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-10-20, 10:33 AM
Can we get back to the topic, please? Pyrotechnics has nothing to do with Whirling Frenzy. :smallconfused:

I'm going to stand on the side of "Can't use the extra attack without a full attack action" based on the wording of "Multiple attacks" in the SRD.
In the cases where one can use extra attacks without the full attack action, it's clearly stated.
All deviations must be clearly accounted for. Where a definition or procedure is given, only explicit instruction to deviate from that procedure or definition is a valid reason to deviate. If I learned anything from ten years in QA, that's one of the most applicable here.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-20, 10:49 AM
I'm going to stand on the side of "Can't use the extra attack without a full attack action" based on the wording of "Multiple attacks" in the SRD.
In the cases where one can use extra attacks without the full attack action, it's clearly stated.
All deviations must be clearly accounted for. Where a definition or procedure is given, only explicit instruction to deviate from that procedure or definition is a valid reason to deviate. If I learned anything from ten years in QA, that's one of the most applicable here.

Well said. I second this.

Roderick_BR
2009-10-20, 02:57 PM
Something tells me that a frenzied Frenzied Berserker isn't going to be satisfied with a Nerf bat.
Or know how to use one. Can he let it active all day long?

"Don't worry, he's using a mercyful weapon."
"But does HE knows that?"

Myrmex
2009-10-20, 05:41 PM
[edit]
Moved to another thread.