Whirlwind Attack vs Eldritch Blast

[Z3ro]

Alright, so I'm trying to make sense of the different rulings by the WotC team on these abilities, specifically that agonizing blast works on each beam fired from EB, while you cannot move between attacks from Whirlwind attack. If I understand the arguments correctly, they go like this:

Eldritch Blast is a single spell that generates multiple spell attacks; since each spell attack is capable of hitting, and agonizing blast triggers on a hit, you get to add your charisma modifier to each successful attack.

Whirlwind Attack (according to WotC) is an ability that grants a single melee attack, which is simply resolved with multiple rolls; since you are only making a single attack, there is no chance to move between rolls, which would normally require multiple attacks.

Here's where I'm having an issue; almost everyone, including the design team, agrees that agonizing blast triggers off each blast in EB because, despite being a single spell, the warlock in question is making multiple attacks and thus can hit multiple times. We know this because the rules tells us if there's ever a question, if you're making an attack roll, it's an attack. I'm on board with this.

But then we run into Whirlwind Attack. Now we have a circumstance were a single ability is granting us multiple attack rolls, which somehow are not multiple attacks. This does not follow from the rules telling us if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

And I know what some people are going to say; specific (in this case, whirlwind attack) overrides general. However, if that's the case, why do we get multiple agonizing blast bonuses, but not be able to move between attacks for whirlwind? Both use nearly identical language, stating you make a single attack (ranged and melee), then stating you make a roll for each additional attack. If the ranger had some sort of ability that, say, added their wisdom modifier to each attack, would they only get to add it once per whirlwind? How are we supposed to square these abilities?

[1Forge]

Thats just because they have to add more damage to an attack and they were trying to avoid +1's or +2's this editon. You could think of it as several concenterated movements againsed one target, which would make sense, considering in IRL fencing sometimes you can make multiple attacks (like disengage attack, parry , riposte, and counter) this is a basic attack in fencing where you are attacking 3 times and parrying once in under 6 seconds. But you cant move those attacks to differnet targets (it would defeat the purpose in this case) so maybe you are feinting with a longsword, then stabing and finishing with two slashes on the arms, or something.

[Sander]

Now, I'm not 100% sure that I get where your problem lies, however!
I imagine whirlwind attack to essentially be a spinny-attack type thing, where the ranger twirls around, does a pirouette, whatever, thereby allowing him or her to attack multiple enemies in close quarters extremely quickly (thus allowing for multiple attacks with a single action). Nowhere, in the middle of that spin, would the ranger have any actual control over his or her body in terms of horizontal movement. Not unless they were like world-famous parkour-artists or something anyhow.
I personally think that makes great sense in terms of justifying that ability, no? Also, if you WERE allowed to move between individual attacks you'd theoretically get an unlimited number of attacks as long as there were enemies within five feet of your new position. When you're 'grounded' between the attacks, that limits you to between 1 and 8 attacks, depending on the number of adjacent enemies, a much more fair proposition imo.

[DivisibleByZero]

It's a matter of the intention of Whirlwind.
Whirlwind was intended to allow you to attack every creature within your reach when you whirled around. Whirlwind was not intended to allow you to attack every creature that you got within reach of via running around the battlefield like a crazy person.
Just consider that, in order to convey the proper intent, and to nip any potential abuse in the bud, and to keep Whirldwind from becoming ridiculously OP, they should have phrased it "within 5' of you when you acivate this ability" instead of simply saying "within 5' of you."

[Z3ro]

It's a matter of the intention of Whirlwind.
Whirlwind was intended to allow you to attack every creature within your reach when you whirled around. Whirlwind was not intended to allow you to attack every creature that you got within reach of via running around the battlefield like a crazy person.
Just consider that, in order to convey the proper intent, and to nip any potential abuse in the bud, and to keep Whirldwind from becoming ridiculously OP, they should have phrased it "within 5' of you when you acivate this ability" instead of simply saying "within 5' of you."

Oh I agree, it would have been ridiculously easy to word these abilities so their intentions were crystal clear, but the emphasis on "plain english" really threw a wrench in certain abilities.

My issue is not that whirlwind is intended one way or another (that was made plain) but how WotC and the single attack defenders can subscribe to one interpretation for this ability, and another for EB. I'm trying to figure out if I missed something.

[DivisibleByZero]

Oh I agree, it would have been ridiculously easy to word these abilities so their intentions were crystal clear, but the emphasis on "plain english" really threw a wrench in certain abilities.

See, and I view it the other way. I read it as plain English working exactly the way it was intended.
In plain English, what does the ability say that it does?
It says that you can make one attack roll against every creature within 5' of you. That's what it does. Simple. Only when you start to question things and cross reference rules and lawyerize it does it become muddled at all.
Adding a bunch of words that really aren't needed begins to move away from the whole "plain English" thing, in my opinion.
Basically, you're not reading it in plain English, you're reading it like a lawyer. That's why you're having issues with it.

[Z3ro]

See, and I view it the other way. I read it as plain English working exactly the way it was intended.
In plain English, what does the ability say that it does?
It says that you can make one attack roll against every creature within 5' of you. That's what it does. Simple. Only when you start to question things and cross reference rules and lawyerize it does it become muddled at all.
Adding a bunch of words that really aren't needed begins to move away from the whole "plain English" thing, in my opinion.

See, I disagree that that is the plain english way to read it. Ironically, having a definition of "plain english" would make these plain english reading easier. Here, let me show you:

Whirlwind attack is a really short, really simple ability: "Whirlwind Attack. You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target". One sentence even. Here's the "plain english" way I read it, and read it the very first time without any kind of rules lawyering: "Whirlwind Attack. (You) (can use your action) (to make a) (melee attack) (against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you), (with a separate attack roll for each target).

In this reading, what you're doing is simple; making a "melee attack" against any "number of creatures". Each one (per the rules of if you roll, it's an attack) is a separate attack. I don't see how that's not a "plain english" way of reading it.

But really I don't want to argue the reading of whirlwind (I know, I'm doing a bad job). What I want to know is, if using this reading, you also came to the conclusion that EB only adds agonizing blast charisma damage once? The wording on the abilities are identical in all the important ways after all.

[djreynolds]

The drow ranger in the middle of a swarm of orcs. Theater of the mind. What do you see? A parry here, a slash, a stab, an off hand strike, parry again. Whatever. It's using his whole attack action for the turn.

If he has a quaterstaff like little john, he hits on big circle spin. Or does he strike the guy in front pivot his hips and jab the guy behind him.

You're an 11th level ranger and you have had to survive 10 levels of watching Mark the paladin mop the floor with the BBG and Stacy the assassin kill the BBG's brother with literally just one rapier stab to the temple, and then both go high five the wizard, all the while you barely killed two blind and deaf orcs chained to the wall. This is your moment. Don't let the rule's guys find out just how awesome this ability is. Just tell them Drizzt gets to do this then so can I. The reason you go ranger.

Aragorn saluting the enemy and then kicking butt, honestly I think I would've run there was like 30 of them and their Scarry boss. Now you get to Bash Brothers forearm slam with cleric.

Now add that paladin class smite, or the warlocks hex or the cleric's channel divinity to the whirlwind amd you can see the devastation that those ranger multiclasses can wreak.

[coredump]

They are pretty much identical, you are comparing different aspects and seemed shocked they are handled differently (Movement and bonuses) But if you compare like with like, they are very consistent.

EB. One action that allows for multiple attack rolls, add Ability modifier to each, no movement between rolls

WW:One action that allows for multiple attack rolls, add Ability modifier to each, no movement between rolls


How are you seeing anything inconsistent?

[Z3ro]

They are pretty much identical, you are comparing different aspects and seemed shocked they are handled differently (Movement and bonuses) But if you compare like with like, they are very consistent.

EB. One action that allows for multiple attack rolls, add Ability modifier to each, no movement between rolls

WW:One action that allows for multiple attack rolls, add Ability modifier to each, no movement between rolls


How are you seeing anything inconsistent?

Because the EB, as interrupted, allows agonizing blast to add charisma modifier to each "hit". Now a hit is defined exclusively as part of an attack roll. If EB is a single attack with multiple rolls (and, given that the designers said whirlwind attack is and EB uses the same language), then EB should only add charisma damage once. But everyone rules it adds to each beam. Now do you see the inconsistency?

[DivisibleByZero]

Now do you see the inconsistency?

Nope, sorry. Still not seeing it.

[GiantOctopodes]

EB's ruling effect is consistent with existing rules, and is 'bounded'. We know how much impact it's going to have, when it's going to have it, etc. It's at most +5 to 3 attacks, and though it's not even remotely balanced vs other at-will spell options, there's a limit to how 'bad' it can be. Whirlwind's ruling is not consistent with existing rules, but that's because they just didn't think about it hard enough when they made the ability. Any justification given is because being consistent would have an 'unbounded' impact. Going from at most 8 targets (best case, often less) to an undefined number of targets (between wood elf rangers, mobility, haste, and possible monk levels you're looking at 100+' of movement, so a potential what, 200+ targets? Regardless, likely enough to hit every target in the engagement, every round, barring choke points) is just too much for them to condone.

Do I find it consistent with the RAW? Not at all. But I definitely understand why they ruled it that way.

[Submortimer]

1) Yes, you'd add your stat bonus to every attack. There is nothing that would counteract this in the wording.

2) not moving is tricky, but here's what I'll say about it: the ability says that you can make one attack against each creature within 5 feet of you. In my mind, I don't really care if you move between attacks, but you can ONLY target any creatyres that were within 5 feet of you when you activated the ability, so moving isn't really all that helpful. EB doesn't have this restriction; your number of attacks is always fixed, and you're free to select targets.

[CNagy]

Because the EB, as interrupted, allows agonizing blast to add charisma modifier to each "hit". Now a hit is defined exclusively as part of an attack roll. If EB is a single attack with multiple rolls (and, given that the designers said whirlwind attack is and EB uses the same language), then EB should only add charisma damage once. But everyone rules it adds to each beam. Now do you see the inconsistency?

Well, there's your problem. Eldritch Blast is not a single attack with multiple rolls. It is very explicitly one attack per beam, with a number of beams dependent on character level. Those are its specific rules, and you cannot use some other spell or feat's specific rules to interpret it. You are trying to understand why apples are red given that oranges are orange and both are fruit.

Whirlwind Attack was ambiguous enough to need clarification, but thing about it is that the assumption that you redetermine targets based on moving carries with it the very reason that such a reading is not a rational interpretation. Under the assumption that your list of available targets changes as you move and as new creatures end up within 5' of you, then if at any point there are no creatures within 5' of you, the Whirlwind Attack is over--you've made as many attacks (zero) as desired to any number of targets (zero) within 5' of you, resolving the action. If you find yourself with only 1 creature within 5' of you, then the whirlwind attack is over as soon as you have attacked them--because once you have, you've resolved all the possible targets within 5'. You cannot say "I am still moving to my next attack against that opponent, who is 15' away" because that opponent is not an eligible target until he is within 5' under this assumption, and you do not have an attack waiting to be made as a Fighter with Extra Attack taking the Attack action would. Any attempt to alter the underlying assumption to account for these problems takes you further and further away from anything that can be reasonably inferred from the text.

[Once a Fool]

Because the EB, as interrupted, allows agonizing blast to add charisma modifier to each "hit". Now a hit is defined exclusively as part of an attack roll. If EB is a single attack with multiple rolls (and, given that the designers said whirlwind attack is and EB uses the same language), then EB should only add charisma damage once. But everyone rules it adds to each beam. Now do you see the inconsistency?

Eldritch Blast doesn't allow you to add charisma damage to anything. Agonizing Blast is an entirely separate ability that gets to act however it wants without being compared to Whirlwind
Attack.


Going from at most 8 targets (best case, often less) to an undefined number of targets (between wood elf rangers, mobility, haste, and possible monk levels you're looking at 100+' of movement, so a potential what, 200+ targets? Regardless, likely enough to hit every target in the engagement, every round, barring choke points) is just too much for them to condone.

That's a real white-room scenario, there. Even if you had such a large number of foes grouped around with no surrounding obstacles, hazards, or rough terrain (and even if the ranger had spent the resources to become that kind of combatant), the wizard would be better served dropping a fireball than haste. A twinned haste from a sorcerer might swing the balance away from fireball, but maybe not away from a careful, empowered fireball.

At any rate, the inability to focus-fire severely limits the ability's potency, no matter how many targets get hit. If running around and getting a single attack on every foe consistently unbalances every round of every encounter, the problem isn't with whirlwind attack (no matter how it's being interpreted); the problem is with encounter design.

Whirlwind Attack should be frequently good and occasionally downright awesome. But in order to for it to be downright awesome (assuming an interpretation that allows for movement in between attacks), you need low-hit point foes grouped together with no significant terrain obstacles, no rough terrain, and no hazards that need to be circumvented. That's...kind of circumstantial.

[Once a Fool]

Whirlwind Attack was ambiguous enough to need clarification, but thing about it is that the assumption that you redetermine targets based on moving carries with it the very reason that such a reading is not a rational interpretation. Under the assumption that your list of available targets changes as you move and as new creatures end up within 5' of you, then if at any point there are no creatures within 5' of you, the Whirlwind Attack is over--you've made as many attacks (zero) as desired to any number of targets (zero) within 5' of you, resolving the action. If you find yourself with only 1 creature within 5' of you, then the whirlwind attack is over as soon as you have attacked them--because once you have, you've resolved all the possible targets within 5'. You cannot say "I am still moving to my next attack against that opponent, who is 15' away" because that opponent is not an eligible target until he is within 5' under this assumption, and you do not have an attack waiting to be made as a Fighter with Extra Attack taking the Attack action would. Any attempt to alter the underlying assumption to account for these problems takes you further and further away from anything that can be reasonably inferred from the text.

It does work, but only if the potential targets are within 10 feet of each other to begin with (or 5, depending on where the ranger positions him/herself), which is such a circumstantial scenario that it hardly strikes me as imbalanced, particularly since it comes at the cost of focus-firing. Narratively, instead of a single attack that looks like a whirlwind, you have an attacker that looks and moves like a whirlwind--a whirling dervish who uses the momentum of one attack to propel him/herself into the next as s/he weaves through a crowd of foes.

[CNagy]

It does work, but only if the potential targets are within 10 feet of each other to begin with (or 5, depending on where the ranger positions him/herself), which is such a circumstantial scenario that it hardly strikes me as imbalanced, particularly since it comes at the cost of focus-firing. Narratively, instead of a single attack that looks like a whirlwind, you have an attacker that looks and moves like a whirlwind--a whirling dervish who uses the momentum of one attack to propel him/herself into the next as s/he weaves through a crowd of foes.

I didn't say it wouldn't work under that assumption, only that when you actually think through that assumption to its logical result, you end up with a situation where it takes a paragraph to describe how Whirlwind Attack would work if you could move between attacks and what might cut the attack short. Compared to the rules actually used to describe Whirlwind attack, it becomes the more unreasonable of the two interpretations.

[GiantOctopodes]

That's a real white-room scenario, there. Even if you had such a large number of foes grouped around with no surrounding obstacles, hazards, or rough terrain (and even if the ranger had spent the resources to become that kind of combatant), the wizard would be better served dropping a fireball than haste. A twinned haste from a sorcerer might swing the balance away from fireball, but maybe not away from a careful, empowered fireball.

At any rate, the inability to focus-fire severely limits the ability's potency, no matter how many targets get hit. If running around and getting a single attack on every foe consistently unbalances every round of every encounter, the problem isn't with whirlwind attack (no matter how it's being interpreted); the problem is with encounter design.

Whirlwind Attack should be frequently good and occasionally downright awesome. But in order to for it to be downright awesome (assuming an interpretation that allows for movement in between attacks), you need low-hit point foes grouped together with no significant terrain obstacles, no rough terrain, and no hazards that need to be circumvented. That's...kind of circumstantial.

it certainly is, on all fronts, but keep in mind the ranger is not *just* getting 1 hit on each target (and even without haste, 50+' of movement speed should be *more* than enough to get around to most, if not all targets in the majority of circumstances). He's also, so long as at least 1 target is adjacent to another, getting horde breaker, then potentially using his bonus action for another attack, for 3 attacks on 1 target, 1 hit on all other targets. It doesn't matter whether that's 3 targets, 8 targets, 15 targets, whatever else, it becomes an uncapped, non-situational AOE ability on top of their other offensive capabilities, which are very similar to a fighter of the same level even before you account for the extra targets. Add in that as a weapon attack, those are all subject to bonuses from buffs such as crusader's mantle, poison, or whatever else is going on. It's fine that you don't see any potential balance issues from it whatsoever, feel free to rule differently regarding whirlwind attack in your games. All I'm saying is that I personally can certainly see the rationale behinds such a decision.

[Once a Fool]

I didn't say it wouldn't work under that assumption, only that when you actually think through that assumption to its logical result, you end up with a situation where it takes a paragraph to describe how Whirlwind Attack would work if you could move between attacks and what might cut the attack short. Compared to the rules actually used to describe Whirlwind attack, it becomes the more unreasonable of the two interpretations.

I disagree. Interpreting the ability to allow for movement between attacks needs no further clarification on its limitations. Those limitations are already included in the description.

[djreynolds]

Whirlwind attack you are "not" a spinning blender of death. I would assume you are in you're square, 5ft square say and you are shifting and pivoting with each attack and are striking anyone with in reach and staying in that imaginary box. And the box may shrink, you may be using the pommel of your sword Aragon at helmsdale, really in all the books. Fighting hordes.
Obviously you're fighting mostly cannon fodder but still awesome. Protecting the homestead, 200 goblins are dangerous. 200 dragons, I'm not even sure if I'd known if I blanked my pants. Aragorn does not pirouette.

[Once a Fool]

It doesn't matter whether that's 3 targets, 8 targets, 15 targets, whatever else, it becomes an uncapped, non-situational AOE ability on top of their other offensive capabilities

It is neither uncapped, nor non-situational. It is entirely capped by the situation. Anything that hampers movement caps the ability, as does the proximity of the enemies to each other. Both of which are mostly out of the players' hands. Added to that, the ability has dimenishing returns with each round that passes.

Melee combatants are usually better served when they can focus-fire, instead of using AoEs. And a fighter will always be able to do that better than a melee ranger because of fighting styles, plentiful ASIs/feats, and action surges (not to mention extras like plentiful crits or battlemaster maneuvers).

[Giant2005]

They are pretty much identical, you are comparing different aspects and seemed shocked they are handled differently (Movement and bonuses) But if you compare like with like, they are very consistent.

EB. One action that allows for multiple attack rolls, add Ability modifier to each, no movement between rolls

WW:One action that allows for multiple attack rolls, add Ability modifier to each, no movement between rolls


How are you seeing anything inconsistent?

Coredump has the right of it - there isn't any inconsistency.

the main issue with Whirlwind Attack isn't actually within Whirlwind Atttack, it is within the "Moving Between Attacks" section of the PHB. The "Moving Between Attacks" section uses the term "Weapon Attack" as its limitation as the writers assumed that was synonymous with "Taking the Attack Action" and for most intents and purposes it is. The only time when it isn't synonymous is with Whirlwind Attack which is something that is easily overlooked in the grand scheme of things. If you change the first line of "Moving Between Attacks" to read as "If you take the attack action" then everything functions fine. No doubt the Errata will fix this one day, it just hasn't done so yet.

[Ashrym]

it certainly is, on all fronts, but keep in mind the ranger is not *just* getting 1 hit on each target (and even without haste, 50+' of movement speed should be *more* than enough to get around to most, if not all targets in the majority of circumstances). He's also, so long as at least 1 target is adjacent to another, getting horde breaker, then potentially using his bonus action for another attack, for 3 attacks on 1 target, 1 hit on all other targets. It doesn't matter whether that's 3 targets, 8 targets, 15 targets, whatever else, it becomes an uncapped, non-situational AOE ability on top of their other offensive capabilities, which are very similar to a fighter of the same level even before you account for the extra targets. Add in that as a weapon attack, those are all subject to bonuses from buffs such as crusader's mantle, poison, or whatever else is going on. It's fine that you don't see any potential balance issues from it whatsoever, feel free to rule differently regarding whirlwind attack in your games. All I'm saying is that I personally can certainly see the rationale behinds such a decision.

Except hordebreaker is also situational. Hordebreaker and whirlwind both become useless on a solo encounter. Whirlwind isn't a great ability because it's situational in requirements to be surrounded with enough weaker enemies that focused damage isn't optimal and it's also a smaller target area than volley. Volley already allows selection of the highest concentration of enemies and doesn't require opportunity attack risks or a feat to avoid opportunity attacks like allowed movement in whirlwind causes. Volley also allows hordebreaker and a possible bonus attack; 2 with swiftquiver. Extra risk / cost to only get a single attack on creatures to catch up to volley and maybe surpass it isn't overpowered; everything else you described already happens regardless of allowing movement and extra attacks.

On topic, I don't see the inconsistency in the ruling either. Whirlwind does add ability modifier damage to each attack just like eldritch blast does.

[Once a Fool]

Whirlwind attack you are "not" a spinning blender of death. I would assume you are in you're square, 5ft square say and you are shifting and pivoting with each attack and are striking anyone with in reach and staying in that imaginary box. And the box may shrink, you may be using the pommel of your sword Aragon at helmsdale, really in all the books. Fighting hordes.
Obviously you're fighting mostly cannon fodder but still awesome. Protecting the homestead, 200 goblins are dangerous. 200 dragons, I'm not even sure if I'd known if I blanked my pants. Aragorn does not pirouette.

The thing is, narratively, it makes far more sense to allow the movement than disallow it, because the rules already assume you are moving around within that five foot square.

You're not going to be able to swing a 360 degree arc from the center of that square and even have a chance of hitting every surrounding enemy which also has free reign of each of their five foot squares (and are likewise assumed to be maneuvering within them).

No, you're already moving from one attack to the next. Narratively, you may just as well move outside of your starting square while you do it.

[GiantOctopodes]

Coredump has the right of it - there isn't any inconsistency.

the main issue with Whirlwind Attack isn't actually within Whirlwind Atttack, it is within the "Moving Between Attacks" section of the PHB. The "Moving Between Attacks" section uses the term "Weapon Attack" as its limitation as the writers assumed that was synonymous with "Taking the Attack Action" and for most intents and purposes it is. The only time when it isn't synonymous is with Whirlwind Attack which is something that is easily overlooked in the grand scheme of things. If you change the first line of "Moving Between Attacks" to read as "If you take the attack action" then everything functions fine. No doubt the Errata will fix this one day, it just hasn't done so yet.

Actually, with the way "moving between attacks" is written, arguments have been made for moving between attacks for spells (such as scorching ray and eldritch blast), multi attack options (such as whirlwind and barrage), and multiattack itself (from creatures), with no one walking away from any of those discussions satisfied or with their minds changed regarding their original viewpoint.

In my opinion the rules support moving between attacks for all of those things, and I have no qualms with it. However, making that determination for Whirlwind vastly increases its power, beyond that of virtually anything other martial characters have available, and well beyond the abilities of most spells. As such I would only allow a Ranger in one of my games to use it in that way if they were behind the party's power curve, to give them a boost up, and if they were already equal or ahead of the rest of the party members would instead allow them to move all they want between attacks, but not target anyone other than those originally within the area of effect for the attack.

[Z3ro]

Well, there's your problem. Eldritch Blast is not a single attack with multiple rolls. It is very explicitly one attack per beam, with a number of beams dependent on character level. Those are its specific rules, and you cannot use some other spell or feat's specific rules to interpret it. You are trying to understand why apples are red given that oranges are orange and both are fruit.


It absolutely does not. Here's the spell description:

A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage. The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam.

Read in order, it's very clear; the spell permits you to make a ranged spell attack against a target. At higher levels, you get more beams, but it absolutely does not say you make more than one spell attack. The wording is identical to whirlwind, and the designers confirmed that if it states a single attack (even with more than one roll), it's a single attack. How is this any different?

[coredump]

Because the EB, as interrupted, allows agonizing blast to add charisma modifier to each "hit". Now a hit is defined exclusively as part of an attack roll. If EB is a single attack with multiple rolls (and, given that the designers said whirlwind attack is and EB uses the same language), then EB should only add charisma damage once. But everyone rules it adds to each beam. Now do you see the inconsistency?

You are not making any sense.

Whirlwind Attack and Eldritch Blast behave *exactly* the same.

EB adds Cha to each attack roll
WA adds Dex to each attack roll

There is no rule saying EB nor WA should only add their bonus once.

[Steampunkette]

Z3ro: Specific Beats General. PHB Page 7 Subheading 3.

Whirlwind Attack is a Specific Rule that circumvents the General Rule on movement between attacks by making you hit targets "Within 5 feet" when you use the Whirlwind Attack action, rather than allowing for movement.

Eldritch Blast does not, and instead follows the General Rule wherein each attack is separate. The attacks are -provided- by the spell, and part of the spellcasting action, but allow movement normally.

[Giant2005]

Actually, with the way "moving between attacks" is written, arguments have been made for moving between attacks for spells (such as scorching ray and eldritch blast), multi attack options (such as whirlwind and barrage), and multiattack itself (from creatures), with no one walking away from any of those discussions satisfied or with their minds changed regarding their original viewpoint.

I don't really see how there is any room for debate there. It specifies weapon attacks. Although I guess those threads could be talking about the spirit of the rules and they are under the impression that magic attacks should have been included but weren't (Kind of like how I was suggesting that it should have been limited to attack actions rather than melee attacks).

[Anlashok]

So is it just me or is there absolutely no inconsistency between the rulings whatsoever and in fact they seem to either agree with each other or have absolutely nothing to do with each other?

[MeeposFire]

You are not making any sense.

Whirlwind Attack and Eldritch Blast behave *exactly* the same.

EB adds Cha to each attack roll
WA adds Dex to each attack roll

There is no rule saying EB nor WA should only add their bonus once.

You are slightly confused on what point the OP is actually trying to make and thus are answering the question (at least as I see it).

The OP is not trying to say that WA should add an attribute once. What he is trying to say is that the language in the rules for preventing whirlwind attack (at least after the clarification) from moving between attacks is the same language used in EB and thus his question would be if agonizing blast triggers off of attacks it should only apply once since then EB would only be one attack with multiple attack rolls.


Fortunately for EB the language is not an issue as agonizing blast gets applied on a "hit" and not by "attack". Since the whirlwind attack "ruling" applies only to multiple attack roll to one attack and not hits agonizing blast still works as before.

[Xetheral]

I don't really see how there is any room for debate there. It specifies weapon attacks. Although I guess those threads could be talking about the spirit of the rules and they are under the impression that magic attacks should have been included but weren't (Kind of like how I was suggesting that it should have been limited to attack actions rather than melee attacks).

Multiattack may be an action, but it's still listed as a weapon attack in the MM. Do you interpret the rules as permitting moving between the attcks of a multiattack?

[Kryx]

Multiattack may be an action, but it's still listed as a weapon attack in the MM. Do you interpret the rules as permitting moving between the attcks of a multiattack?

I think you're debating Giant, but there should be no confusion around moving between multiattacks.

MELEE AND RANGED ATTACKS
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook.


A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability. A creature can't use Multiattack when making an opportunity attack, which must be a single melee attack


Regarding Eldritch Blast: There is definitely no movement between beams by RAW. It is not a weapon attack. See http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?393237-Okay-so-how-exactly-do-I-cast-eldrich-blast-as-a-warlock for a thread about it.

[Easy_Lee]

The short version is that WotC likes to have their cake and eat it too.

Writing exactly what you mean is not difficult, but takes a little forethought. As an example, consider the sentence, "Jack called John and he went to the mall." Who went to the mall, Jack or John? It's probably Jack, but we aren't 100% sure. I should have said, "Jack called John, then went to the mall." That's more clear and also uses fewer words.

WotC did not bother with that kind of proofreading. Instead, they wrote everything one time, without making sure that similar abilities use the same language, dissimilar abilities do not use the same language, or ensuring that intent was clear with every option.

To make things worse, WotC struggles with a wizard bias. WotC, as the name would imply, very much likes wizards. They believe that magical options should generally be superior to mundane options, and take steps to ensure that a mundane option which accomplishes a normally magical feat is generally inferior. For example, I have to roll to succeed on hiding, but invisibility works every time. For another example, whirlwind attack accomplishes the same thing as many AoE spells. So we could deduce how WotC was going to rule, regardless of what they actually wrote.

I wouldn't expect errata on this one. They're going to continue to pretend that the text says what they want it to say without updating it. By RAW, this trick absolutely works regardless of what anyone thinks it ought to say. You make multiple attack rolls, you can move between attacks, thus you can increase the number of targets who are "within 5' of you" during the action. That's very clear. WotC did not intend that, and should have considered their own rules before writing it that way.

[Kryx]

To make things worse, WotC struggles with a wizard bias. WotC, as the name would imply, very much likes wizards. They believe that magical options should generally be superior to mundane options, and take steps to ensure that a mundane option which accomplishes a normally magical feat is generally inferior.
To be fair 4e fixed this and the general populace hated that edition.


For example, I have to roll to succeed on hiding, but invisibility works every time.
A finite resource vs an infinite resource. Who would've thought that the infinite one wasn't quite as good? /s


For another example, whirlwind attack accomplishes the same thing as many AoE spells.
Again, finite vs infinite. AoE equivalent every round is not balanced. X times per day, sure.


On the topic of Casters > Mundanes: This is only true after 13th level (7th level spells). And GMs (like myself) who do not like the "omg its high level everything is broken" mindset are free to houserule out the worst offending spells like wish, true polymorph, etc.


By RAW, this trick absolutely works regardless of what anyone thinks it ought to say. You make multiple attack rolls, you can move between attacks, thus you can increase the number of targets who are "within 5' of you" during the action. That's very clear. WotC did not intend that, and should have considered their own rules before writing it that way.
Don't make this another one of those threads.
This is another case of strict lawyering the rules giving a case that doesn't fit with the fluff. Whirlwind was never intended to be more than hitting adjacent enemies. Past versions of whirlwind: 3.5 (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Whirlwind_Attack), PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/whirlwind-attack-combat---final).
You're free to play a strict RAW game, but 5e does not prescribe that.

If you're interested in buffing Whirlwind and to follow the standard movement between attacks model then it should be a limited amount of times per day and likely at half speed. It shouldn't unbalance much as Rangers, especially melee, are a bit weak.

[squab]

See, and I view it the other way. I read it as plain English working exactly the way it was intended.
In plain English, what does the ability say that it does?
It says that you can make one attack roll against every creature within 5' of you. That's what it does. Simple. Only when you start to question things and cross reference rules and lawyerize it does it become muddled at all.
Adding a bunch of words that really aren't needed begins to move away from the whole "plain English" thing, in my opinion.
Basically, you're not reading it in plain English, you're reading it like a lawyer. That's why you're having issues with it.

Thank you for putting into words how I feel every time I read rules discussions on this thread. The moment you start cross referencing rules (that don't already reference each other) you're overcomplicating things.

[GiantOctopodes]

Regarding Eldritch Blast: There is definitely no movement between beams by RAW. It is not a weapon attack. See http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?393237-Okay-so-how-exactly-do-I-cast-eldrich-blast-as-a-warlock for a thread about it.



Don't make this another one of those threads.
This is another case of strict lawyering the rules giving a case that doesn't fit with the fluff. Whirlwind was never intended to be more than hitting adjacent enemies. Past versions of whirlwind: 3.5 (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Whirlwind_Attack), PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/whirlwind-attack-combat---final).
You're free to play a strict RAW game, but 5e does not prescribe that.

If you're interested in buffing Whirlwind and to follow the standard movement between attacks model then it should be a limited amount of times per day and likely at half speed. It shouldn't unbalance much as Rangers, especially melee, are a bit weak.

I am not certain I understand your viewpoint at the moment. On the one hand, you argue from a strict RAW standpoint that Eldritch Blast does not allow movement between attacks, because it's not a weapon attack (correct).

You then turn around and argue Against a strict RAW standpoint, because it doesn't fit with what You feel is the fluff. What if I feel the fluff for eldritch blast is that it's like throwing daggers of force, after all you make an attack roll to hit with it, and I can't align the fluff with the mechanical difference between the way that and throwing actual daggers work? How is that different? Because previous editions had mechanics that supported your perceived fluff? I hate to break it to you, but this is not 3.5. 3.5 did not allow movement between attacks *at all*, except in the case of the Whirling Dervish, so *of course* you could not move in between attacks for Whirlwind. Just because in this edition you imagine it as someone standing in place and spinning around, somehow actually hitting *something* with that, much less all the enemies around them, does not mean that is the only valid way to imagine things.

If 5e does not prescribe a strict RAW game (which by your own admission, by RAW movement is allowed in between attacks during Whirlwind), why does it matter that strict RAW says you can't move between attacks for Eldritch Blast?

(By the way it's not "buffing" whirlwind to allow standard movement between attacks. It's following RAW. Nothing in the errata has changed that either, in the latest errata I've seen, there's no mention of Whirlwind at all. The relevant sections of the rules are below for those who are interested. Note that I'm not arguing that RAW supports attacking creatures that were not within 5' of you at the time at which you chose to use your action for whirlwind. Just that it 100% fully supports moving between attacks.)

If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target.

edit: (Also just to help out anyone who hangs up on the whole "to make a melee attack" bit and argue for singular case, completely ignoring the PHB rule on page 194 while doing so, let me try to put it in a different context. John hands out a muffin to any number of people within 5'. Assuming there were 4 people within 5', dd John hand out a singular muffin, or multiple muffins? The correct answer is multiple, for the muffin being handed out to the person is singular (each person only gets one muffin), due to that singular event being repeated multiple times with different people, multiple muffins were handed out. In the same way, multiple attacks were made.)

[CNagy]

To make things worse, WotC struggles with a wizard bias. WotC, as the name would imply, very much likes wizards.

It's a nitpick to be sure, but D&D has always been this way. Back when it was under TSR, as far back as AD&D at least, Wizards were the only classes with 9th level spells. Priest spells for the Cleric and Druid only went up to 7th level. Bards had up to 6th level Wizard spells. Paladins had up to 4th level Priest spells and Rangers had up to 3rd level.

The power growth was still mostly linear for warriors and exponential for casters; the mage started his career as the guy who cast Sleep once per day and otherwise functioned as fairly poor dartillery, but he eventually became a reality warping functional-immortal wearing contingencies like clothing and buff spells with multi-day or "until discharged" durations.

[Kryx]

I am not certain I understand your viewpoint at the moment. On the one hand, you argue from a strict RAW standpoint that Eldritch Blast does not allow movement between attacks, because it's not a weapon attack (correct).
Not allowing movement between spells is not just RAW, but seemingly RAI as well. Evidence:

Weapon attack (they likely would've left out the word weapon had they intended to work with all attacks)
Spells like EB are cast once, not cast multiple times. Therefore all the beams go out at once, therefore no movement.
No talk of concentration if you can "hold" the spell, move, cast, move, cast.


Though again, on Whirlwind you're welcome to take the strict RAW stance. It has already been made clear that this was never the intention of the power. Therefore taking strict RAW is a "buff" over the intended ability.

Houserules > RAI > RAW. That's always been my stance and is 5e's stance as well.

[Steampunkette]

Pointing to 194 is a bad place to point for the basis of "Multiple Eldritch Blasts allow Movement" which they totally do, by the way.

The appropriate place to point is the bottom of 193. "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure."

Now you could argue that this passage and 190 are mutually exclusive, that using a spell attack doesn't count because it specifies "Weapon". However that means many (some might say most) monsters cannot attack while moving because their attacks don't use weapons but are, instead, bites and claws. Similarly, a Monk is incapable of moving between attacks because they're unarmed and not using a weapon attack.

Similarly, an Eldritch Knight couldn't move, cast a spell, move, and attack in the same round. Further nerfing that class...

As for spells being instantaneous: It is defined as being immune to dispelling for rules purposes. You can't dispel a Fireball, for example. That doesn't mean the "Glowing Bead" that streaks to the target does so without crossing the distance between attacker and target area to explode in simultaneity with the spell cast like a quantum locked particle. It just means it does it fast enough that you can't dispel it.

[Easy_Lee]

This is another case of strict lawyering the rules giving a case that doesn't fit with the fluff. Whirlwind was never intended to be more than hitting adjacent enemies. Past versions of whirlwind: 3.5 (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Whirlwind_Attack), PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/whirlwind-attack-combat---final).
You're free to play a strict RAW game, but 5e does not prescribe that.

If you're interested in buffing Whirlwind and to follow the standard movement between attacks model then it should be a limited amount of times per day and likely at half speed. It shouldn't unbalance much as Rangers, especially melee, are a bit weak.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that person a rules lawyer. Show some respect.

And regarding finite vs infinite resources, casters have a large number of spell slots (by level 11) to accomplish a finite list of goals (limited number of encounters) each adventuring day. How many turns out of the day will an AoE be useful? Not at that many, most likely. The ranger can use his action to whirlwind on those turns, but it will never be as powerful as a caster's AoE if WotC has anything to say about it.

And that's a major problem. Why? Because casters have more options than martials, that's why. The longer the game goes on, the more spell slots and options casters have. The later levels get, the more likely casters are to have a better option of whatever a martial can do, on-hand, in the form of a spell. And the later the game goes on, the less "finite" a caster's resources become.

That's why WotC's idea of balance and, by association, your idea of caster-martial balance, is ****ed up. There is no other way to put it. This kind of crap is exactly why everyone says the game is balanced at low levels but not at high levels. Until WotC wakes up and realizes that casters shouldn't have better versions of everything than mundanes just because they have theoretically limited resources, WotC will be totally unable to release a balanced game.

[Kryx]

However that means many (some might say most) monsters cannot attack while moving because their attacks don't use weapons but are, instead, bites and claws. Similarly, a Monk is incapable of moving between attacks because they're unarmed and not using a weapon attack.
Incorrect on both claims:


MELEE AND RANGED ATTACKS
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook.

A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability. A creature can't use Multiattack when making an opportunity attack, which must be a single melee attack

You can make a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike

Had Spells been meant to allow movement between them then they would've covered the 3 items I listed above.



Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that person a rules lawyer. Show some respect.
5e decided to not go the "legal document" route. Rules lawyering makes people come to false conclusions and is used to confuse issues. It is bad. Therefore there are several people like me harping against rules lawyering in several of these type of threads.



That's why WotC's idea of balance and, by association, your idea of caster-martial balance, is ****ed up. There is no other way to put it. This kind of crap is exactly why everyone says the game is balanced at low levels but not at high levels. Until WotC wakes up and realizes that casters shouldn't have better versions of everything than mundanes just because they have theoretically limited resources, WotC will be totally unable to release a balanced game.
I'd love to see the balance restored at higher levels. As I said I do this by getting rid of the OP spells. Beyond that fixing it would require a huge change to give martials options at higher levels. I'm open to options though.

The Ranger being able to Whirlwind Attack every round hitting nearly every opponent on the map in melee range is not balanced at all.

[Steampunkette]

So PRIOR to the Tweet Monks couldn't move between attacks?

I dunno. I feel like Weapon in the sentence might be an artifact related to the example rather than an actual intended specification. It's how I'll continue to run it.

That said, maybe someone should Tweet Crawford or Mearls?

[GiantOctopodes]

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that person a rules lawyer. Show some respect.

And regarding finite vs infinite resources, casters have a large number of spell slots (by level 11) to accomplish a finite list of goals (limited number of encounters) each adventuring day. How many turns out of the day will an AoE be useful? Not at that many, most likely. The ranger can use his action to whirlwind on those turns, but it will never be as powerful as a caster's AoE if WotC has anything to say about it.

And that's a major problem. Why? Because casters have more options than martials, that's why. The longer the game goes on, the more spell slots and options casters have. The later levels get, the more likely casters are to have a better option of whatever a martial can do, on-hand, in the form of a spell. And the later the game goes on, the less "finite" a caster's resources become.

That's why WotC's idea of balance and, by association, your idea of caster-martial balance, is ****ed up. There is no other way to put it. This kind of crap is exactly why everyone says the game is balanced at low levels but not at high levels. Until WotC wakes up and realizes that casters shouldn't have better versions of everything than mundanes just because they have theoretically limited resources, WotC will be totally unable to release a balanced game.

I agree with everything you said.

The thing I think is crazy, too, is that let's say Rangers really *were* the absolute kings of AOEs. Let's say that Whirlwind hit everyone within weapon reach +5', for 10 or 15' spread, and Barrage hit in a 20' radius, and their damage had scaling attached to it that made those abilities outdamage the spells available to casters of comparable levels. Would anyone say casters were then underpowered? Sure, fighters outdamage you on single target, and rangers outdamage you when it comes to AOEs, but they still can't summon, polymorph, teleport the group out of there in a pinch, turn invisible, dominate outright the opponent, and so on and so forth. As a caster, you would still have more tactically diverse and impactful options on winning the fight. The same is true of invisibility, knock, and pass without trace and rogues.

Yet still, it's always an argument of "of course I should be able to be better than them at what their entire character is built around. After all, I can only be better than them at their area of expertise a limited number of times per day", ignoring that the area of expertise is only called on a limited number of times per day.

[Kryx]

So PRIOR to the Tweet Monks couldn't move between attacks?

I dunno. I feel like Weapon in the sentence might be an artifact related to the example rather than an actual intended specification. It's how I'll continue to run it.

That said, maybe someone should Tweet Crawford or Mearls?
They were entirely able to as per the normal rules. The errata changed monk weapons to not be weapons. That tweet was to clear up the confusion created by the errata.

That said I've tweeted him (https://twitter.com/MLenser/status/612546926085566464).





Let's say that Whirlwind hit everyone within weapon reach +5', for 10 or 15' spread, and Barrage hit in a 20' radius, and their damage had scaling attached to it that made those abilities outdamage the spells available to casters of comparable levels.
I think one of is misunderstanding the ramifications of Whirlwind attack. If it allowed movement between each attack the Ranger could move up to their speed (typically 30, but could be buffed) and attack every adjacent enemy. For simplification sake that's nearly every enemy within ~10-25 feet based on the situation. In a normal encounter that's ~3-6 enemies every round until some drop. Stack that with Ranger's level 3 ability Horde breaker and you have absolutely ridiculous sustainable DPR. Add on Escape the Horde for AC funzies.
This can be done every turn as an action.

How is that balanced?

[Steampunkette]

On an unrelated note, Kryx, you and the person beside you in your Twitter Profile pic are both very attractive people. Bright and happy smiles and, in particular, I love your noses. Very stately schnozzes.

[Giant2005]

Multiattack may be an action, but it's still listed as a weapon attack in the MM. Do you interpret the rules as permitting moving between the attcks of a multiattack?

I do interpret the rules as allowing for attacks between Multi-attacks. I don't consider a Multi-Attack to be an action though, it is just an Extra Attack feature.

[GiantOctopodes]

5e decided to not go the "legal document" route. Rules lawyering makes people come to false conclusions and is used to confuse issues. It is bad. Therefore there are several people like me harping against rules lawyering in several of these type of threads.


You completely missed his point. Let me repeat his statement. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that person a rules lawyer. Show some respect..

Even IF we accept your premise that Rules lawyering is bad and makes people come to "false" conclusions, the act of disagreeing with you does not mean someone is engaged in rules lawyering.

The fact is, it is possible for someone to disagree with you regarding RAI. It may seem impossible, but it's true. In fact, it's way easier than disagreeing with someone regarding RAW. You just disagree on the intent, and you're done. No justification needed, no sources needed, developer tweets are inconsistent and contradictory and show better than anything else that even they disagree on the intent of the rules. After all, when someone is posturing based on their interpretation of the intent of the rules, the only justification typically provided is throwing around their interpretation as fact, often throwing in words like "clearly" and "obviously", as though just because they can't look past their own viewpoint to understand how someone would see something differently, no one else could possibly see a viewpoint other than their own, either. It's a very egocentric stance to take in an argument, and it accomplishes nothing, except maybe angering and insulting the people involved in the discussion who disagree. It is bad.

Just look at the situation surrounding unarmed strikes and whether they are or are not weapons and how they interact with the rest of the rules as a prime example of how unclear the intent is, and how many rational people can disagree regarding that intent.

That being said, I do agree with you on the ranger being able to hit every target on the map being *potentially* unbalanced, so there is that. But I recommend defining how and why better. After all, if a ranger is standing in front of a door, and the enemies surround him in a semi circle, it's quite possible he *will* hit every target on the map, every round, so the act of hitting them every round can't be unbalanced in and of itself. And if you don't walk into it with the assumption that the intention is for it to not allow movement, you can't use how much more powerful it is than an alternative interpretation as an argument it's unbalanced. Hitting 5 people in a line as you run down that line is not inherently more powerful than hitting them in a semi circle, after all.


I do interpret the rules as allowing for attacks between Multi-attacks. I don't consider a Multi-Attack to be an action though, it is just an Extra Attack feature.
This I don't understand. Looking at the Black Bear, for example: Actions- Multiattack, Bite, Claws. In fact, Multiattack is directly underneath the word actions and the first word in that category. Why would you not consider it an action?

[Once a Fool]

The Ranger being able to Whirlwind Attack every round hitting nearly every opponent on the map in melee range is not balanced at all.

This statement is both unrealistic and utterly ridiculous.

1: Assuming a whirlwind attack that allows movement between attacks, the ranger is unlikely to be able to frequently attack every foe unless the DM puts absolutely no effort in building the battlefield. There are many ways to hamper or channel movement and, thereby, reign the ability in. Plus, you know, make the encounter interesting.

2. A spellcaster's AoEs rarely have the limitations caused by 1, and, if they do, hey, options.

3. If you're complaining that a melee character's superior ability to do anything that isn't focus-fire makes it unbalanced, you might be right, but it isn't because the character is too powerful. In most cases, a melee character who isn't using it's extra attacks to bring down single targets is simply failing to fulfill its role.

Whirlwind Attack has niche use (and even that has diminishing returns), even if you get to move it with you.

[Kryx]

You completely missed his point. Let me repeat his statement. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that person a rules lawyer. Show some respect..
I didn't miss the point at all. He's offended by being called a rules lawyer. Yet the statement I quoted was another prime example of him rules lawyering an issue.

I'm not calling him names. I am disagreeing with his methodology. 5e disagrees with his methodology.


Even IF we accept your premise that Rules lawyering is bad and makes people come to "false" conclusions, the act of disagreeing with you does not mean someone is engaged in rules lawyering.
You're right. And I didn't say he was rules lawyering because he disagreed with me. I said he was rules lawyering because he was choosing to use a strict RAW over what has been clarified to not be RAI.

The fact is, it is possible for someone to disagree with you regarding RAI.
I think you're missing the point. The RAI on this is not my opinion. It has been clarified by Crawford.




This I don't understand. Looking at the Black Bear, for example: Actions- Multiattack, Bite, Claws. In fact, Multiattack is directly underneath the word actions and the first word in that category. Why would you not consider it an action?
Multiattack allows movement between attacks. Please stop making me quote this:


MELEE AND RANGED ATTACKS
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook.

A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability. A creature can't use Multiattack when making an opportunity attack, which must be a single melee attack





1: Assuming a whirlwind attack that allows movement between attacks, the ranger is unlikely to be able to frequently attack every foe unless the DM puts absolutely no effort in building the battlefield. There are many ways to hamper or channel movement and, thereby, reign the ability in. Plus, you know, make the encounter interesting.
I outlined the exact situation that is likely to happen every encounter. Sure, a DM can create encounters to limit this OP trick. That doesn't really change anything.

If it allowed movement between each attack the Ranger could move up to their speed (typically 30, but could be buffed) and attack every adjacent enemy. For simplification sake that's nearly every enemy within ~10-25 feet based on the situation. In a normal encounter that's ~3-6 enemies every round until some drop. Stack that with Ranger's level 3 ability Horde breaker and you have absolutely ridiculous sustainable DPR. Add on Escape the Horde for AC funzies.
This can be done every turn as an action.



2. A spellcaster's AoEs rarely have the limitations caused by 1, and, if they do, hey, options.
AoEs do not go around corners and are limited by line of sight. Plus spells are a limited resource. They are balanced on the idea that they are a limited resource.
This is how D&D is. 4e tried to remove the whole finite vs infinite resource deal and it was rejected. If you make a version of it for 5e I'd be very interested, but that's not how 5e works.


3. If you're complaining that a melee character's superior ability to do anything that isn't focus-fire makes it unbalanced, you might be right, but it isn't because the character is too powerful. In most cases, a melee character who isn't using it's extra attacks to bring down single targets is simply failing to fulfill its role.

Whirlwind Attack has niche use (and even that has diminishing returns), even if you get to move it with you.
Again, I'd love for more varied martials. I was a huge fan of tome of battle and 4e's martials. Unfortunately that's not the direction 5e took.

Whirlwind is not niche. If you're complaining about Martials having nothing to do that would simply change from the Ranger auto attacking every round to Whirlwind Attacking every round. Likely 80% of rounds. It is the best option for nearly every situation if movement is allowed in between.

[Giant2005]

This I don't understand. Looking at the Black Bear, for example: Actions- Multiattack, Bite, Claws. In fact, Multiattack is directly underneath the word actions and the first word in that category. Why would you not consider it an action?

Sure you can understand it, it really doesn't take a lot of thought. Multi-Attack and Extra Attack are very nearly identical, just the former is written in short-hand and often flavoured with a creature's instinctive attack strategies.
Those tiny stat blocks have been made as concise as possible and aren't intended to be read as a legal document. If you read it as a legal document the game breaks down - just look at the Baboon next to the Black Bear. That Baboon is mightily unthreatening considering it can't take the Attack Action, which means it can't attack at all.

[GiantOctopodes]

Sure you can understand it, it really doesn't take a lot of thought. Multi-Attack and Extra Attack are very nearly identical, just the former is written in short-hand and often flavoured with a creature's instinctive attack strategies.
Those tiny stat blocks have been made as concise as possible and aren't intended to be read as a legal document. If you read it as a legal document the game breaks down - just look at the Baboon next to the Black Bear. That Baboon is mightily unthreatening considering it can't take the Attack Action, which means it can't attack at all.

I was not saying I don't understand why they would be able to move between attacks. I was saying I don't understand why you would not consider multi attack an action. Based on your response, you do agree it's definitely an action. Whether or not you consider it a reflavored variant of the attack action or whatever else, it's still using the creature's action for the turn to use.



I think you're missing the point. The RAI on this is not my opinion. It has been clarified by Crawford.


I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's your opinion, Crawford's opinion, Mearl's opnion, my grandma's opinion. It's still an opinion. Crawford and Mearls have on multiple occasions given completely different answers regarding things, and I do not accept, on a fundamental level, the tweets of one developer, who may or may not even have been involved in the creation of the ability in question, as being anything of any kind of merit. Disagreeing with Crawford does not make you a rules lawyer any more than disagreeing with you.

[Giant2005]

I was not saying I don't understand why they would be able to move between attacks. I was saying I don't understand why you would not consider multi attack an action. Based on your response, you do agree it's definitely an action. Whether or not you consider it a reflavored variant of the attack action or whatever else, it's still using the creature's action for the turn to use.

My bad, I guess I could have worded that better. I didn't mean to suggest that Multi-Attack wasn't an action at all, I just meant that I consider it to be a part of the Attack Action.

[Kryx]

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's your opinion, Crawford's opinion, Mearl's opnion, my grandma's opinion. It's still an opinion. Crawford and Mearls have on multiple occasions given completely different answers regarding things, and I do not accept, on a fundamental level, the tweets of one developer, who may or may not even have been involved in the creation of the ability in question, as being anything of any kind of merit. Disagreeing with Crawford does not make you a rules lawyer any more than disagreeing with you.
Ok, so you ignore developers of the game. The larger community here and on other forums actually cares how the developers tried to design it.

You're free to ignore them, but that's not what is expected from the system.

[GiantOctopodes]

My bad, I guess I could have worded that better. I didn't mean to suggest that Multi-Attack wasn't an action at all, I just meant that I consider it to be a part of the Attack Action.

no, no worries at all, apparently I wasn't clear in my query either as two people misinterpreted my question, from how I read it your statement just sounded odd, thus the request for clarification. I definitely agree with the interpretation of multi attack to be functionally identical to the attack action, as well as bite, claws, stinger, etc. I also do agree, for what it's worth, that strict RAW does not support movement between of eldritch blast. However, why would you choose not to derive the same equivalence to other actions which are not explicitly the attack action, but are actions which involve weapon attacks, namely Whirlwind and Volley? Why have the rules apply to everything *but* them?


Ok, so you ignore developers of the game. The larger community here and on other forums actually cares how the developers tried to design it.

You're free to ignore them, but that's not what is expected from the system.

Strange, on the very first introduction page of the DMG, it states "And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules", yet nowhere in the entire book could I find a single reference to "be sure to follow us on twitter" or "and as designers, Mearls and Crawford interpret the rules". It's almost like the idea of the players themselves interpreting the rules is a core part of the expectation of the system, so much that it's called out on the very first page, yet hanging on the opinions of the developers is not an expectation of the system at all.

Nice try, though, with the implied exclusion from the "larger" community (you disagree with me, so you're the minority is a very popular and totally unprovable argumentative tactic) while simultaneously implying your inclusion (I speak for the majority here is another one).

[Giant2005]

However, why would you choose not to derive the same equivalence to other actions which are not explicitly the attack action, but are actions which involve weapon attacks, namely Whirlwind and Volley? Why have the rules apply to everything *but* them?

It is because the only reason Whirlwind Attack has more than one attack roll is to simulate the randomness of battle, rather than everything within the viscinity being hit or everything being missed regardless of circumstance.
Each offensive action and defensive reaction in DnD has 1 random roll against every targeted enemy compared to a static value. In the case of fireball, every enemy within the blast radius has a unique dexterity roll to accommodate the random and not have everything hit or everything missed simultaneously - it is done that way so some can dodge while others don't. Whirlwind attack has multiple attack rolls because enemy ACs are the constant and it needs to capture that same element - there always needs to be a random variable roll for every unique target.

[GiantOctopodes]

It is because the only reason Whirlwind Attack has more than one attack roll is to simulate the randomness of battle, rather than everything within the viscinity being hit or everything being missed regardless of circumstance.
Each offensive action and defensive reaction in DnD has 1 random roll against every targeted enemy compared to a static value. In the case of fireball, every enemy within the blast radius has a unique dexterity roll to accommodate the random and not have everything hit or everything missed simultaneously - it is done that way so some can dodge while others don't. Whirlwind attack has multiple attack rolls because enemy ACs are the constant and it needs to capture that same element - there always needs to be a random variable roll for every unique target.

I agree that the reason Whirlwind Attach has more than one attack roll is to increase randomness, but that doesn't answer why you would deny someone the ability to move between those attack rolls. The reason fighters have 4 attack rolls instead of just doing 4x the damage is partially yes, so they can split up their attacks, but also to increase randomness, and just as with whirlwind attack, the ability to move between those attacks is an ability specifically granted by the rules. Changing those rules to say "when using the attack action", then further bending over backwards to resolve the resultant inconsistencies by gathering in all the other things that aren't whirlwind attack and saying 'well, they're fundamentally the same as the attack action' is going out of your way to create an exclusion where there is not one currently. Honestly it would be much cleaner to just change the rules to say "except when using Whirlwind" if you want to do it that way. But why create that exclusion in the first place? Let's assume for the moment you disallow the acquisition of new targets, because that is not expressly supported by the rules. They get to attack anyone within 5' of their original position. Why deny them the ability to move while doing so?

[Giant2005]

Let's assume for the moment you disallow the acquisition of new targets, because that is not expressly supported by the rules. They get to attack anyone within 5' of their original position. Why deny them the ability to move while doing so?

I wouldn't deny them that. I can't imagine why they would want to do that, but I wouldn't deny them that.
It is the acquisition of more targets that I would deny.

[MadBear]

AoEs do not go around corners and are limited by line of sight. Plus spells are a limited resource. They are balanced on the idea that they are a limited resource.
This is how D&D is. 4e tried to remove the whole finite vs infinite resource deal and it was rejected. If you make a version of it for 5e I'd be very interested, but that's not how 5e works.

I don't think the limited resource argument is a good defense. I'd point out that the Volley ability can hit more target's, from a greater range, with less danger, with easier positioning, and it's also an unlimited resource.

Personally, I feel that whirlwind should have allowed movement. Considering how many attacks of opportunity you'd provoke, you'd need to take a feat to make it worthwhile, and while the damage output would be high, it'd be spread throughout multiple enemies, which is almost always worse, then focus firing down a single enemy.

[Z3ro]

Man did my question/point go right over just about everyone's head. I'll see if I can clarify:

I don't care about movement during EB. At all; I honestly don't know where this came from.

I care about adding charisma modifier to damage to hit when firing multiple EB blasts.

Here's a second sum-up (if everyone whiffs on this I'll just leave it alone): EB is, per the clarification of whirlwind attack, a single ranged spell attack. There's nothing in the description that says to make multiple spell attacks; you make a single ranged spell attack with multiple beams, which each makes a separate attack roll. This same situation is exactly the wording used to justify not moving during whirlwind attack.

Now, in order to "hit", you have to make an attack. Since agonizing blast triggers off a "hit", and a hit can only happen when you make an attack, do you only add your charisma once during EB, since you are (per developer clarification) only making one ranged spell attack?

[GiantOctopodes]

Man did my question/point go right over just about everyone's head. I'll see if I can clarify:

I don't care about movement during EB. At all; I honestly don't know where this came from.

I care about adding charisma modifier to damage to hit when firing multiple EB blasts.

Here's a second sum-up (if everyone whiffs on this I'll just leave it alone): EB is, per the clarification of whirlwind attack, a single ranged spell attack. There's nothing in the description that says to make multiple spell attacks; you make a single ranged spell attack with multiple beams, which each makes a separate attack roll. This same situation is exactly the wording used to justify not moving during whirlwind attack.

Now, in order to "hit", you have to make an attack. Since agonizing blast triggers off a "hit", and a hit can only happen when you make an attack, do you only add your charisma once during EB, since you are (per developer clarification) only making one ranged spell attack?

Ignore the dev "clarification", it tries and fails to clarify something that did not need clarification, as it was and is already spelled out in the rules. All the things you need to reference are on page 194 of the PHB: "You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise." Also note, "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack." Then reference Agonizing Blast: "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit." So you cast Eldritch Blast with 4 beams. You make one attack roll. This is an attack. You either hit or you don't, if you do, you roll damage, and add your charisma modifier to the damage it deals. You then make another attack roll, against the same target or a different one. This is an attack. You either hit or you don't, if you do, roll damage, and add your charisma modifier to the damage it deals. Rinse and repeat.

So no, it's not one attack, whenever you roll the attack dice, that's an attack, which either hits or does not, and in this case that occurs 4 times, it can hit 4 times, if it does hit it can add the Charisma modifier to the damage of the attack up to 4 times. The exact same situation arises with for example Scorching Ray, when a Wizard is using Empowered Evocation, with the same results.

Just remember, the rule is simple- if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. With all the process and implications that carries with it.

[Giant2005]

Man did my question/point go right over just about everyone's head. I'll see if I can clarify:

I don't care about movement during EB. At all; I honestly don't know where this came from.

I care about adding charisma modifier to damage to hit when firing multiple EB blasts.

Here's a second sum-up (if everyone whiffs on this I'll just leave it alone): EB is, per the clarification of whirlwind attack, a single ranged spell attack. There's nothing in the description that says to make multiple spell attacks; you make a single ranged spell attack with multiple beams, which each makes a separate attack roll. This same situation is exactly the wording used to justify not moving during whirlwind attack.

Now, in order to "hit", you have to make an attack. Since agonizing blast triggers off a "hit", and a hit can only happen when you make an attack, do you only add your charisma once during EB, since you are (per developer clarification) only making one ranged spell attack?

You are pretending they are the same but they aren't. They are written fairly similarly but they aren't intended to be.
If you use Whirlwind Attack, you attack every enemy within 5'. This works in practice virtually the same as every other aoe attack.
You use Eldritch Blast and you can attack whatever you like, as many times as you like, within the parameters of the spell. This works in practice virtually the same as every other single target attack with an improved action economy.

You are essentially trying to mash the triangle-shaped block into the square hole and expecting it to fit simply because you already managed to get the square block in there.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Alright, so I'm trying to make sense of the different rulings by the WotC team on these abilities, specifically that agonizing blast works on each beam fired from EB, while you cannot move between attacks from Whirlwind attack.

Here is the problem.

You can't.

Wotc team doesn't work with the idea that all PC or all Players are treated as equals. If you are a PC or Player that uses magic, you are smarter and know better than a PC/Player that doesn't use magic.

So if you are ever expecting a martial ability to get the same treatment as a magical ability then you may be waiting until 6e comes out.

There is a glass ceiling in this game that someone on the inside needs to throw a rock at.

[Z3ro]

Just remember, the rule is simple- if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. With all the process and implications that carries with it.

Yes, but that's a problem when we get to whirlwind attack. I'm making multiple attack rolls against multiple opponents, but WotC says it's a single attack. That's the issue I'm having; they basically invented a new class of attacks that are single attacks with multiple rolls, to paper over a mistake they made.


Here is the problem.

You can't.

Wotc team doesn't work with the idea that all PC or all Players are treated as equals. If you are a PC or Player that uses magic, you are smarter and know better than a PC/Player that doesn't use magic.

So if you are ever expecting a martial ability to get the same treatment as a magical ability then you may be waiting until 6e comes out.

There is a glass ceiling in this game that someone on the inside needs to throw a rock at.

This is the conclusion I've reached as well, but the problem comes when different tables read rules differently due to these kind of "clarifications". I just want them to be consistent with the language they are using.

[ThermalSlapShot]

This is the conclusion I've reached as well, but the problem comes when different tables read rules differently due to these kind of "clarifications". I just want them to be consistent with the language they are using.

I would love that too, but I also want to own Magic of Incarnum and neither is going to happen anytime soon.

They don't want to be consistent because some people view consistency between martial and magic rules to be sameness... Which is stupid, but you know, people freak out about the sky falling and all that fun stuff.

The designers of this game have been so afraid of the vocal minority that they made a game that mocks them as professionals. Between all the hypocritical rule "clarifications" and the naive way in which they look at their own rules... I have to say that going to the dev team (or just Jeremy) is worst for the game than anything else.

JC has already defended the Ranger animal companion showing that he doesn't get what makes the Ranger bad or why people would have a problem with it. SUre he may say "we are keeping an eye on it" but if they don't know WHY they need to keep an eye on it, then there really is no point.

At this point I really hope that 6e has no one and I mean NO ONE from a previous D&D team on it. Each time they make a new edition they keep some of the same people around from the previous edition and we get a lot of the same problems. 4e Beast Master Ranger has many of the same problems as the 5e Beast Master Ranger after all. The same people may have not worked directly with both classes but taking crap and turning it into more crap is just bad design.

So if you want consistency my best advice would be to grab a few people on these or other forums and work together to make a Player's Basic Handbook Errata. Go through and make everything consistent and then when you have a new DM flop them down in front of a computer and have them read the PHBE.

Or just play casters since that is what wotc really wants.

[Once a Fool]

I outlined the exact situation that is likely to happen every encounter. Sure, a DM can create encounters to limit this OP trick. That doesn't really change anything.

The DM doesn't have to design encounters specifically to limit it. If the DM varies encounters at all it will be limited within the natural course of events.

To reiterate, a specific set of prerequisites need to be fulfilled in order for the ranger to be able to hit everyone in each turn:

1: All foes must be standing close to each other.

2: There must be no rough terrain, intervening terrain, traps, hazards, or grapplers that would otherwise limit or redirect movement.

3: Sufficient enemies need to have survived the previous round that point 1 remains true.


AoEs do not go around corners and are limited by line of sight. Plus spells are a limited resource. They are balanced on the idea that they are a limited resource.

Movement speed is a limited resource, refreshed every round, but still expended. And it doesn't go anywhere near as far in practical play as you seem to think it does.

I would hazard to guess that, at the levels we're talking about, here, a wizard or sorcerer could drop a fireball with more frequency than a ranger could (or would want to) pull off a (mobile) whirlwind that affected an equal number of foes. And the fireball would do a lot more damage to each of them. If the ranger has horde breaker, that damage gap is decreased, but, of course just having horde breaker comes with a steep opportunity cost.


Whirlwind is not niche. If you're complaining about Martials having nothing to do that would simply change from the Ranger auto attacking every round to Whirlwind Attacking every round. Likely 80% of rounds. It is the best option for nearly every situation if movement is allowed in between.

Maybe if you're running your adventurers through that timeless classic, "The Hordes of the White Rooms."

In other games, though, even if you could reach every enemy with whirlwind, spreading out your damage is only the most efficient use of your attacks when those opponents can be dropped because of it.

In all other cases, using whirlwind comes at the cost of actually making a difference in the combat for that round.

[Ardantis]

I don't know whether or not this will help to clarify, but can you move between attack rolls in an Eldritch Blast?

I'm guessing that because you use the Cast a Spell action, you are not able to move between actions.

Which means that Whirlwind Attack, which is a special action which doesn't use the Attack Action, also prohibits movement between attacks.

Am I right?

[Once a Fool]

The rules that allow for movement between attacks do not require an Attack Action.

[Easy_Lee]

The rules that allow for movement between attacks do not require an Attack Action.

Right. If you make multiple attack rolls, you can move between them. This is the general rule that must be specifically subverted for exceptions.

[Kryx]

Here's a second sum-up (if everyone whiffs on this I'll just leave it alone): EB is, per the clarification of whirlwind attack, a single ranged spell attack. There's nothing in the description that says to make multiple spell attacks; you make a single ranged spell attack with multiple beams, which each makes a separate attack roll.
A separate attack rolls means that they are 1-4 individual ranged spell attacks. 1 spell, 1-4 individual attacks. It's not 1 attack, but 1-4.



This same situation is exactly the wording used to justify not moving during whirlwind attack.
The justification of Whirlwind as RAI is that it is intended to attack every adjacent target. They should've worded it better, as is normally the case.
Strict RAW does not prevent it.

[Xetheral]

Thank you for putting into words how I feel every time I read rules discussions on this thread. The moment you start cross referencing rules (that don't already reference each other) you're overcomplicating things.

Out of curiousity, how do you suggest two people with incompatible plain english readings of the same rule resolve their disagreement without "overcomplicating" things?

[Kryx]

Out of curiousity, how do you suggest two people with incompatible plain english readings of the same rule resolve their disagreement without "overcomplicating" things?
One could, you know, read how the devs intended it.

Or people could just ignore RAI and live in a strict RAW land.

[MadBear]

One could, you know, read how the devs intended it.

Or people could just ignore RAI and live in a strict RAW land.

and how should two people communicate if neither is content to ignore RAI and/or RAW and both feel that they have legitimate RAW/RAI readings of the rule?

( mainly asked since you didn't answer the actual question).

[ThermalSlapShot]

One could, you know, read how the devs intended it.

Or people could just ignore RAI and live in a strict RAW land.

Of course when devs, time and time again, intended for certain classes to be weaker just because it isn't magic, then one should just ignore the devs.

They to operate under the idea of non-magic = badwrongfun.

[LordVonDerp]

To be fair 4e fixed this and the general populace hated that edition.

Some people hated it, though that was mostly for other reasons.


A finite resource vs an infinite resource. Who would've thought that the infinite one wasn't quite as good? /s

Again, finite vs infinite. AoE equivalent every round is not balanced. X times per day, sure.

So if martial characters had similarly powerful abilities that were similarly finite it would fine? Though I guess we could go the other way too.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Some people hated it, though that was mostly for other reasons.


So if martial characters had similarly powerful abilities that were similarly finite it would fine? Though I guess we could go the other way too.

For as much a people "hated" 4e it sold insanely well up until Essentials. Beat out Pathfinder which was the 3e successor.

Saying that people hated 4e is really easy but is usually a cop out when it comes to discussions.

Edit

And Essentials is what inspired 5e funny enough... At least it got them thinking of the next edition and how they wanted to make it.

[squiggit]

Personally I hate the "Well they tried that in 4e and people hated it!"

Yeah. There was a lot of criticism of 4e. But "Fighters are really good" was literally never something I heard anyone complain about ever.

It's a really ridiculous thing to say when there's so many other systemic changes involved.

[1Forge]

Here is the problem.

You can't.

Wotc team doesn't work with the idea that all PC or all Players are treated as equals. If you are a PC or Player that uses magic, you are smarter and know better than a PC/Player that doesn't use magic.

So if you are ever expecting a martial ability to get the same treatment as a magical ability then you may be waiting until 6e comes out.

There is a glass ceiling in this game that someone on the inside needs to throw a rock at.

??? where are you getting that from? That is so not true, if you play that way then cool but it really is up to the player, the DM, and a few ability scores. Also these rules are very balenced magic-wise, unlike in previous editions (and pathfinder) martials can pretty much keep up with spellcasters (till 9th level)

[Easy_Lee]

??? where are you getting that from? That is so not true, if you play that way then cool but it really is up to the player, the DM, and a few ability scores. Also these rules are very balenced magic-wise, unlike in previous editions (and pathfinder) martials can pretty much keep up with spellcasters (till 9th level)

More like till around level 12, when caster's "limited" resources cease to truly be limited. Consider invisibility vs. stealth with expertise. A rogue must have a high dexterity, a skill, and use expertise on that skill to have a reasonable chance of consistently avoiding detection. All of that is accomplished with the invisibility spell, so long as the caster does not make much noise. In some cases, hiding is impossible, while going invisible works just fine. Invisibility is a better version of stealth.

WotC is okay with this because spells are a limited resource, but are they really? At low levels, sure. At high levels, not so much. At any given point, a wizard could be expected to have spells like misty step, fly, and expeditious retreat ready to get himself out of a bad situation. You can always come back later, after all.

And that's the real issue. DCs scale, so a wizard with four level 1 slots is just as effective at mid levels as low levels, provided that he picks the right spells. The difference is that the higher level wizard has more spells, more variety, and more slots to play with. Fighter types, on the other hand, have their damage scale up and gain some new options, but not nearly as many as a caster. And again, the caster options are often superior versions of what a mundane can do, only because they are theoretically limited.

It's not a good system, and it makes the game's fundamental balance change by level. But the balance always works out in the casters' favor, in the long run. That's why many are convinced that wizards of the coast are biased in favor of wizards, and other magic users.

[LordVonDerp]

For as much a people "hated" 4e it sold insanely well up until Essentials. Beat out Pathfinder which was the 3e successor.

Saying that people hated 4e is really easy but is usually a cop out when it comes to discussions.

Edit

And Essentials is what inspired 5e funny enough... At least it got them thinking of the next edition and how they wanted to make it.

Exactly......

[MeeposFire]

They were entirely able to as per the normal rules. The errata changed monk weapons to not be weapons. That tweet was to clear up the confusion created by the errata.

That said I've tweeted him (https://twitter.com/MLenser/status/612546926085566464).





I think one of is misunderstanding the ramifications of Whirlwind attack. If it allowed movement between each attack the Ranger could move up to their speed (typically 30, but could be buffed) and attack every adjacent enemy. For simplification sake that's nearly every enemy within ~10-25 feet based on the situation. In a normal encounter that's ~3-6 enemies every round until some drop. Stack that with Ranger's level 3 ability Horde breaker and you have absolutely ridiculous sustainable DPR. Add on Escape the Horde for AC funzies.
This can be done every turn as an action.

How is that balanced?

Honestly I am not that impressed. 1 attack against any given enemy is not that powerful and horde breaker only lets you attack one enemy once more. Your typical ranger should be getting 3+ attacks on a normal round plus horde breaker (many classic rangers are two weapon and many optimizers will go for something that gives a bonus action attack). That means to even see more attacks than normal you need to have at least 4 (or more!) enemies within movement range. In addition this ability does not really allow you to focus fire as you normally would and that is often a less optimal strategy (unless you are in an AOE heavy group). On top of that your party blaster can do what you want to do but do it better. Generally you don't need weak AOE constantly you more often need a really good AOE and then excellent mop up actions. That fireball is typically a much better use of actions and then the ranger taking out the best target is usually the best option. Also yes the ranger can run around corners but at the same time he may not be able to get around creatures and what not in his way but an AOE will just blast through it.


You can make use of this ability in the right situation and party (and thus be very powerful) but honestly in general it is not THAT impressive. At its heart it allows you to deal 1 hits worth of damage to a number of targets (and with horde breaker one enemy will be hit twice) which is nice and very cool but not really a game breaking ability. It can give you a nice DPR total but it is to many targets and compare that to a spell casters AOE and how many of those they can use in a day by 11th level and does not require a feat to make it work (the ranger REALLY needs the mobile feat so you better play in a feat based game).

EDIT: As an example a bog standard ranger at level 11 has two attacks. That means in order for a WA to even grant a benefit you need to be able to position yourself so you can get 3 targets within 5 feet of you at the same time with the clarified version. This is possible though you really want more than that since spreading damage is generally less effective so getting that one extra attack against a tertiary foe may not be your best option.

Now what if you are a two weapon ranger or other bonus action attack using character? Now you need 4 targets adjacent to you at the time of attack. That is getting into the unlikely stage especially since rangers are not well suited for taking the damage afterwards (they are reasonably tough but they are not the best tanks out there).

That same ranger could attack 3 targets just using his attack action with full mobility but will probably choose not to since that is usually not the best idea.

Now if the ranger is hasted now you need 5 targets. That almost never happens and if it does your ranger probably has more problems than he can handle and will likely need much more than WA to get him out of it.

The only way this ability with movement gets crazy is if you use extreme hordes of enemies at once which is not that common (for one it can be a pain to run) and honestly gives the ranger a niche that no other martial really gets particularly in melee and if this ability is so effective against the enemies then they were likely not very effective individually in the first place. It allows for that recent common trope of one character dashing through a bunch of enemies and then they all fall down dead behind him after he finishes his move. Movement helps make WA useable. Without that it takes a lot of circumstances to even get it to the point where it offers you even a net gain in attacks and even more to where you can say for sure it was better than just focus firing a single target to death.

[Ashrym]

More like till around level 12, when caster's "limited" resources cease to truly be limited. Consider invisibility vs. stealth with expertise. A rogue must have a high dexterity, a skill, and use expertise on that skill to have a reasonable chance of consistently avoiding detection. All of that is accomplished with the invisibility spell, so long as the caster does not make much noise. In some cases, hiding is impossible, while going invisible works just fine. Invisibility is a better version of stealth.

Invisibilty is not a better version of stealth. Invisibility used the same mechanic as stealth. The difference in your example is less hiding places with high bonus vs more hiding places with poor bonus.

The ability to be discovered in more places isn't much of an improvement. You realize that just invisibilty means about. 50% chance of failing most passive perceptions and being discovered?

Flying out of trouble was just as bad an analogy because it's replicated by acquiring flying mounts and paralleled by kiting or fast movement that can be done with a regular mount, action surge, ki dash, or cunning action. None of which cost concentration or a spell slot, and don't cause you to fall after taking damage and failing a check.

Cunning action running away and hiding is great for getting out of trouble.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Invisibilty is not a better version of stealth. Invisibility used the same mechanic as stealth. The difference in your example is less hiding places with high bonus vs more hiding places with poor bonus.

The ability to be discovered in more places isn't much of an improvement. You realize that just invisibilty means about. 50% chance of failing most passive perceptions and being discovered?

Flying out of trouble was just as bad an analogy because it's replicated by acquiring flying mounts and paralleled by kiting or fast movement that can be done with a regular mount, action surge, ki dash, or cunning action. None of which cost concentration or a spell slot, and don't cause you to fall after taking damage and failing a check.

Cunning action running away and hiding is great for getting out of trouble.

If a wizard wants to be a sneak, training innstealth + invisibility makes them a monster and can do things even the rogue cnt get away with.

So the response to casters getting essentially at-will flight is that the others can buy a mount? So can the caster and then only use fly once the mount dies...

See the issue? Casters get the same options as martials AND a multitude of other options.

Casters can be self reliant whereas martials can not.

[Gwendol]

If a wizard wants to be a sneak, training innstealth + invisibility makes them a monster and can do things even the rogue cnt get away with.

So the response to casters getting essentially at-will flight is that the others can buy a mount? So can the caster and then only use fly once the mount dies...

See the issue? Casters get the same options as martials AND a multitude of other options.

Casters can be self reliant whereas martials can not.

What do you mean by "casters" exactly? Clerics, druids, bards, wizards, sorcerer, and what else?
The chassi matters after all.

[ThermalSlapShot]

What do you mean by "casters" exactly? Clerics, druids, bards, wizards, sorcerer, and what else?
The chassi matters after all.

Depends on what you want to do. Each of them are quite strong and each of them can be built more ways than martials can ever dream.

There are full casters (casters), half casters, and 1/3 casters. When someone uses the term "casters" they typically mean full casters.

At least in this sort of setting.

[tieren]

Rules lawyering doesn't work here because of the canon of statutory interpretation that statutory language shall not be construed as mere surplusage.

A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that courts should “give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed.”61 The modern variant is that statutes should be construed “so as to avoid rendering superfluous” any statutory language.62 A related principle applies to statutory amendments: there is a “general presumption” that, “when
Congress alters the words of a statute, it must intend to change the statute’s meaning.”63

60 United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 68 (1994). Justice Scalia, dissenting, insisted that the language was perfectly clear, and that the rejected interpretation was “the only grammatical reading.” Id. at 81.
61 Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883).
62 Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 112 (1991); Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 63 (2003) (interpreting word “law” broadly could render word “regulation” superfluous in preemption clause applicable to a state “law or regulation”). See also Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 146 (1995) (“we assume that Congress used two terms because it intended each term to have a particular, nonsuperfluous meaning”) (rejecting interpretation that would have made “uses” and “carries” redundant in statute penalizing using or carrying a firearm in commission of offense). The presumption also guides interpretation of “redundancies across statutes.” Two overlapping statutes may be given effect so long as there is no “positive repugnance” between them. Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992) (finding that, in spite of considerable overlap between two provisions, each addressed matters that the other did not).
63 United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 333, 336 (1992) (nonetheless attributing no significance to deletion of a reference to the Attorney General; the reference “was simply lost in the shuffle” of a comprehensive statutory revision that had various unrelated purposes); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995) (“When Congress acts to amend a statute, we presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect.”). There is an exception for minor, unexplained changes in phraseology made during recodification — changes that
courts generally assume are “not intended to alter the statute’s scope.” Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 318 (1985).

In the whirlwind description the limitation of another target within 5 feet would be meaningless if you could move between the attacks. For example, suppose 2 target are standing 15 feet apart. The ranger decides to use Whirlwind attack to hit both, the DM objects and says the targets don't meet the condition, and the ranger says he moves the distance between them using his normal movement. If interpreted the Ranger's way the rule language requiring the 5 feet proximity are completely rendered moot as surplussage.

[MadBear]

Rules lawyering doesn't work here because of the canon of statutory interpretation that statutory language shall not be construed as mere surplusage.

A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that courts should “give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed.”61 The modern variant is that statutes should be construed “so as to avoid rendering superfluous” any statutory language.62 A related principle applies to statutory amendments: there is a “general presumption” that, “when
Congress alters the words of a statute, it must intend to change the statute’s meaning.”63

60 United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 68 (1994). Justice Scalia, dissenting, insisted that the language was perfectly clear, and that the rejected interpretation was “the only grammatical reading.” Id. at 81.
61 Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883).
62 Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 112 (1991); Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 63 (2003) (interpreting word “law” broadly could render word “regulation” superfluous in preemption clause applicable to a state “law or regulation”). See also Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 146 (1995) (“we assume that Congress used two terms because it intended each term to have a particular, nonsuperfluous meaning”) (rejecting interpretation that would have made “uses” and “carries” redundant in statute penalizing using or carrying a firearm in commission of offense). The presumption also guides interpretation of “redundancies across statutes.” Two overlapping statutes may be given effect so long as there is no “positive repugnance” between them. Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992) (finding that, in spite of considerable overlap between two provisions, each addressed matters that the other did not).
63 United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 333, 336 (1992) (nonetheless attributing no significance to deletion of a reference to the Attorney General; the reference “was simply lost in the shuffle” of a comprehensive statutory revision that had various unrelated purposes); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995) (“When Congress acts to amend a statute, we presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect.”). There is an exception for minor, unexplained changes in phraseology made during recodification — changes that
courts generally assume are “not intended to alter the statute’s scope.” Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 318 (1985).

In the whirlwind description the limitation of another target within 5 feet would be meaningless if you could move between the attacks. For example, suppose 2 target are standing 15 feet apart. The ranger decides to use Whirlwind attack to hit both, the DM objects and says the targets don't meet the condition, and the ranger says he moves the distance between them using his normal movement. If interpreted the Ranger's way the rule language requiring the 5 feet proximity are completely rendered moot as surplussage.

What you said would be true if this were a law written by a government, but it's a rule book from WOTC.

(also the 5' wouldn't be meaningless since if you moved 30 ft, and another target was still 10' away, you still couldn't attack it).

[tieren]

What you said would be true if this were a law written by a government, but it's a rule book from WOTC.

(also the 5' wouldn't be meaningless since if you moved 30 ft, and another target was still 10' away, you still couldn't attack it).

Same principles of construction should apply, or at the very least form the basis of evaluating interpretations (an interpretation that does not render a phrase meaningless would be preferable to one that did).

If the limitation was "another target within melee range" I think that movement would be okay, moving between attacks and multiple melees being well within established rules, but the specific choice of a 5 foot limitation means something different to me and I agree with those that take the position that it means within 5 feet of where you were when you used the ability.

Out of curiousity, would you say a Ranger with a polearm can or cannot whirlwind creatures 10 feet away?

[Once a Fool]

In the whirlwind description the limitation of another target within 5 feet would be meaningless if you could move between the attacks. For example, suppose 2 target are standing 15 feet apart. The ranger decides to use Whirlwind attack to hit both, the DM objects and says the targets don't meet the condition, and the ranger says he moves the distance between them using his normal movement. If interpreted the Ranger's way the rule language requiring the 5 feet proximity are completely rendered moot as surplussage.

Not necessarily. The phrasing can be grammatically interpreted as a requirement that the attacks be made at melee range, but without reach--in much the same way that Mage Slayer uses the same language to exclude the use of reach, but not movement.

[GiantOctopodes]

Rules lawyering doesn't work here because of the canon of statutory interpretation that statutory language shall not be construed as mere surplusage.

A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that courts should “give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed.”61 The modern variant is that statutes should be construed “so as to avoid rendering superfluous” any statutory language.62 A related principle applies to statutory amendments: there is a “general presumption” that, “when
Congress alters the words of a statute, it must intend to change the statute’s meaning.”63

60 United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 68 (1994). Justice Scalia, dissenting, insisted that the language was perfectly clear, and that the rejected interpretation was “the only grammatical reading.” Id. at 81.
61 Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883).
62 Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 112 (1991); Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 63 (2003) (interpreting word “law” broadly could render word “regulation” superfluous in preemption clause applicable to a state “law or regulation”). See also Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 146 (1995) (“we assume that Congress used two terms because it intended each term to have a particular, nonsuperfluous meaning”) (rejecting interpretation that would have made “uses” and “carries” redundant in statute penalizing using or carrying a firearm in commission of offense). The presumption also guides interpretation of “redundancies across statutes.” Two overlapping statutes may be given effect so long as there is no “positive repugnance” between them. Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992) (finding that, in spite of considerable overlap between two provisions, each addressed matters that the other did not).
63 United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 333, 336 (1992) (nonetheless attributing no significance to deletion of a reference to the Attorney General; the reference “was simply lost in the shuffle” of a comprehensive statutory revision that had various unrelated purposes); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995) (“When Congress acts to amend a statute, we presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect.”). There is an exception for minor, unexplained changes in phraseology made during recodification — changes that
courts generally assume are “not intended to alter the statute’s scope.” Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 318 (1985).

In the whirlwind description the limitation of another target within 5 feet would be meaningless if you could move between the attacks. For example, suppose 2 target are standing 15 feet apart. The ranger decides to use Whirlwind attack to hit both, the DM objects and says the targets don't meet the condition, and the ranger says he moves the distance between them using his normal movement. If interpreted the Ranger's way the rule language requiring the 5 feet proximity are completely rendered moot as surplussage.

Not true at all. You are ignoring the interpretation that you can only hit targets within 5' of you at the time at which you use the ability, but can still move between attacks.

Example: the ranger has 3 targets within 5' of him, and 5 more scattered at various distances from 10-50' away. The Ranger executes the first attack as part of whirlwind, killing his target. He moves 5' forward to take its place, moving him into flanking position with one of the targets, and within 5' of two new targets. He then has two more attacks he can make- one on each of the remaining original targets he has not yet hit. After those attacks are made, the action is completed, and he can use his bonus action or object interaction normally.

Using this interpretation, no language is rendered superfluous whatsoever.

[Easy_Lee]

Not true at all. You are ignoring the interpretation that you can only hit targets within 5' of you at the time at which you use the ability, but can still move between attacks.

Example: the ranger has 3 targets within 5' of him, and 5 more scattered at various distances from 10-50' away. The Ranger executes the first attack as part of whirlwind, killing his target. He moves 5' forward to take its place, moving him into flanking position with one of the targets, and within 5' of two new targets. He then has two more attacks he can make- one on each of the remaining original targets he has not yet hit. After those attacks are made, the action is completed, and he can use his bonus action or object interaction normally.

Using this interpretation, no language is rendered superfluous whatsoever.

That's the only interpretation which would prevent the ranger from adding targets by moving while still keeping all other rules intact. The ability reads, "targets within 5 feet," as opposed to, "targets within 5 feet when you use the ability." The developers apparently meant the latter.

[MadBear]

I still don't see the problem at all with letting the ranger move while using this ability. Considering at this point the Wizard can use a 4th level spell slot to turn the BSF into a young red dragon (or other high CR creature), I'm not seeing how it's broken to allow the ranger to move and attack multiple enemes.

Pros:
- Can make 1 attack against multiple enemies (unless your campaign is happening in a war zone, I'm not seeing how this will break the game).

Cons:
- You'll provoke Opportunity attacks like crazy
*OR- you'll need to take the mobile feat
- you spread your damage which is usually far less effective then taking down a single target (2 dead orcs + 2 full hp ors will do less damage then 4 half damaged orcs)
- you'll need at least 4 targets for this to start to be worth it (a typical dual wielder can already single target a powerful foe 3 times).
- If you don't position yourself right, at the end of it you'll be completely surrounded by enemies (unless you move to safety, which if you do, you're not using your movement to reach new targets).
- Volley is generally safer and synergies's better with your abilities (lightning arrow + horde breaker for insane AOE damage in 1 turn).

[Ashrym]

If a wizard wants to be a sneak, training innstealth + invisibility makes them a monster and can do things even the rogue cnt get away with.

So a wizard trained in stealth is now the upgrade to stealth?

The stealth mechanic still works the same and less effectively than expertise plus a class with DEX as a primary stat. Invisibility doesn't replace stealth in the slightest. It situationally enables stealth. Big difference.


So the response to casters getting essentially at-will flight is that the others can buy a mount? So can the caster and then only use fly once the mount dies...

Well that was the part you responded to but sure, it one option. An option that works with the mounted combatant feat to keep the mount from dying. Buying was something you added but that's a DM choice on whether it's for sale or for a source of an adventure.

Try playing a wizard. The don't usually have fly because it's been replaced by an offensive combat spell and / or the slots get used before the desire to get out of harms way occurs, typically, it's more limited than the mount you just dismissed that was a viable solution, cost the wizard concentration and therefore other potential spell options, and 1-3 ranged attacks usually means the wizard falls and takes more damage. Great solution.


See the issue? Casters get the same options as martials AND a multitude of other options.

Casters can be self reliant whereas martials can not.

I do see the issue. Posters hold on to biased opinions, look for things to complain about just to complain, ignore or dismiss what suits them in order to argue, and make claims that don't match the mechanics or hold up in play just to keep doing so.

It's just more unsubstantiated anti-caster BS. Any spell that relies on or can easily be replaced by a skill checks doesn't favor spell casters. Any spell that focuses on running away fails compared to just running away with mundane means of increasing speed, with the possible exception of seldom used extremely high level spell options.

The only reasonable argument for "caster superiority" is liberal rules interpretation by the DM in some cases while restrictive interpretations of nonmagical options is occurring.

This is one of the best balanced versions of D&D and it's too bad caster bias is still occuring when it's clearly not the case.

/outofyetanothercasterdebate

[Vogonjeltz]

Alright, so I'm trying to make sense of the different rulings by the WotC team on these abilities, specifically that agonizing blast works on each beam fired from EB, while you cannot move between attacks from Whirlwind attack. If I understand the arguments correctly, they go like this:

Eldritch Blast is a single spell that generates multiple spell attacks; since each spell attack is capable of hitting, and agonizing blast triggers on a hit, you get to add your charisma modifier to each successful attack.

Whirlwind Attack (according to WotC) is an ability that grants a single melee attack, which is simply resolved with multiple rolls; since you are only making a single attack, there is no chance to move between rolls, which would normally require multiple attacks.

Here's where I'm having an issue; almost everyone, including the design team, agrees that agonizing blast triggers off each blast in EB because, despite being a single spell, the warlock in question is making multiple attacks and thus can hit multiple times. We know this because the rules tells us if there's ever a question, if you're making an attack roll, it's an attack. I'm on board with this.

But then we run into Whirlwind Attack. Now we have a circumstance were a single ability is granting us multiple attack rolls, which somehow are not multiple attacks. This does not follow from the rules telling us if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

And I know what some people are going to say; specific (in this case, whirlwind attack) overrides general. However, if that's the case, why do we get multiple agonizing blast bonuses, but not be able to move between attacks for whirlwind? Both use nearly identical language, stating you make a single attack (ranged and melee), then stating you make a roll for each additional attack. If the ranger had some sort of ability that, say, added their wisdom modifier to each attack, would they only get to add it once per whirlwind? How are we supposed to square these abilities?

First, It's a single spell that has multiple rays. If Alice and Bob are hit by 1 ray each, it wouldn't make any sense for only one of them to receive full damage while the other gets some kind of discounted damage.

Whirlwind attack is (note the use of the singular here) "a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you". It's a single act despite the multiple roles. Specific trumps General.

Second, the guideline (not rule) is that if there's actual confusion on if what you're doing is an attack, then to clarify if you're making an attack roll, there's an attack going on.

And furthermore, no, it isn't RAW that you can move between attack rolls. Here is what the rule on Moving Between Attacks states:

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."

Note the bolded portion requiring attacks, plural.

And the Whirlwind Attack (note, singular) is written as:

"You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

Note the bolded portion indicating that this is a single attack, which necessitates the language after the comma, without which we would naturally make a single attack roll.

Now, the bit that's being shoehorned to try and allow movement in between is on page 194: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

Because Whirlwind Attacks status as an attack is not in question, this bit offers no value.


Right. If you make multiple attack rolls, you can move between them. This is the general rule that must be specifically subverted for exceptions.

Wrong, if you have multiple attacks you can move between them. Multiple attack rolls do not necessarily indicate multiple attacks, as shown above.


Out of curiousity, how do you suggest two people with incompatible plain english readings of the same rule resolve their disagreement without "overcomplicating" things?

At the end of the day, the DM can overrule anything, ergo you listen to whomever the DM is. If you're the DM, and confused and you have two players advocating two mutually exclusive outcomes, pick the one you can stomach best. You might be wrong, but at least you'll be happy.

[Easy_Lee]

Wrong, if you have multiple attacks you can move between them. Multiple attack rolls do not necessarily indicate multiple attacks, as shown above.

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." - PHB on attacks, also in the free PDF.

How embarrassing.

[ThermalSlapShot]

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." - PHB on attacks, also in the free PDF.

How embarrassing.

To bad the devs don't read their own rules.

[Gwendol]

Depends on what you want to do. Each of them are quite strong and each of them can be built more ways than martials can ever dream.

There are full casters (casters), half casters, and 1/3 casters. When someone uses the term "casters" they typically mean full casters.

At least in this sort of setting.

Many of those classes offer not much advantage in terms of stealth. To say that invisibility obsoleted stealth is ignoring the rules in question.

[Z3ro]

And the Whirlwind Attack (note, singular) is written as:

"You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

Note the bolded portion indicating that this is a single attack, which necessitates the language after the comma, without which we would naturally make a single attack roll.


If whirlwind is a single attack, using this language, how do you reach the conclusion that


First, It's a single spell that has multiple rays. If Alice and Bob are hit by 1 ray each, it wouldn't make any sense for only one of them to receive full damage while the other gets some kind of discounted damage.


Is multiple attacks, when the wording for EB is "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage. The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam."

It's literally the exact same; "A ranged spell attack", singular. Notice it doesn't say to make more attacks, it says more beams. Before the whirlwind clarification I'd be right there with you, but the language is the same as whirlwind, which is apparently a singular attack with multiple (non) attack rolls.

[Once a Fool]

And the Whirlwind Attack (note, singular) is written as:

"You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

Note the bolded portion indicating that this is a single attack, which necessitates the language after the comma, without which we would naturally make a single attack roll.

The other, equally common, gramatically inferred, and totally valid way to read that description is: "You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target, because each such attack roll is generated by a seperate attack." The reason that last clause can be tacked on and the sentence can still make sense, is because the phrasing of the first part allows for the possibility that "a melee attack against any number of targets" might mean one against each.


Now, the bit that's being shoehorned to try and allow movement in between is on page 194: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

Given the actual ambiguity of the phrasing of Whirlwind Attack (as adressed above), this seems to be exactly the kind of situation where this guideline would apply.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Many of those classes offer not much advantage in terms of stealth. To say that invisibility obsoleted stealth is ignoring the rules in question.

Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric all get Spells that once you hit 8-12 level (around the time you gain enough resources to nt care about blowing spells) makes them great at infiltration and Stealth.

All of them can easily be Dex/con/casting stat focused.

All of them can grab Stealth.

Disguise Self makes Stealth obsolete. Why hide when you can walk right past a few people. Need to know what who to look like? There are spells for that.

Plus when you specialize as a caster it doesn't stop you from fulfilling other roles quite well. A Stealth specialist Dragon Sorcerer still can firebolt+firebolt.

It isn't just one spell that obsoletes Stealth, its all the spells and OPTIONS that invalidate a rogue using Stealth.

Hmmm, send the Rogue into an area to see if there is a magic user or magic traps? Nah, Arcane Eye is safer, quicker, and not traceable. Hell the Arcane Eye can fit through 1" openings, let's see the rogue do that. Oh and the eye is invisible.

[Ashrym]

Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric all get Spells that once you hit 8-12 level (around the time you gain enough resources to nt care about blowing spells) makes them great at infiltration and Stealth.

All of them can easily be Dex/con/casting stat focused.

2-3 ASI's doesn't focus in 3 ability scores plus any other desired feats. Generally the 2 ASI's go to casting stat as well as initial top ability score. On a standard spread that might get a 16 at 12th or 16th level but I wouldn't count on it. Especially a cleric who usually wears armor. There's a lot to be said for class synergy in the appropriate ability score focus and skills.

All is also a pretty strong word when only one cleric domain has the spells and it doesn't have invisibilty. Sorcerers and bards with 2 2nd-level spells known have a tight fit adding invisibilty but might have it.


All of them can grab Stealth.

But each has less room for it due to less skills available, generally run 2 or 3 points behind DEX modifier, lack expertise bonus, and/or lack of reliable talent. The closest is the bard because the class does have expertise and extra skill options, but lack of reliable talent is a drawback bards don't have free advantage like thieves do.

A 10th level rogue with 20 DEX, expertise, and reliable talent will have a minimum stealth check of 23 and autosucceed most passive perception scores, and a thief does the roll with advantage. Your 14 DEX examples with proficiency have a minimum stealth check of 7 with increased risk for every passive perception above it. That kind of really sucks in comparison.

There is competition in DEX valor bards with expertise and the pass without trace spell (available on trickery domain and druids for full casters).

The DEX valor bard with expertise has a minimum stealth check of 14 and would be very risky trying what the rogue can but also is getting into a range of perception scores that are uncommon. The 14 DEX trickery domain cleric with proficiency has a minimum of 16including pass without trace and is in similar shape to the bard.

It takes a bard with DEX prioritized, expertise, and having added pass without trace and cast it to match that minimum score. Then the thief is still better off because of advantage on the roll. The spell options don't cover the risk like the rogue abilities. An arcane trickster would just take all that benefit and cast his own invisibilty, and another caster who casts invisibilty on anyone but the rogue is foolish because the rogue is better.

You are also back to stating spells are better than the skill and then stating the casters are taking the skill to make the spell better.


Disguise Self makes Stealth obsolete. Why hide when you can walk right past a few people. Need to know what who to look like? There are spells for that.

As opposed to donning a basic disguise or proficiency with a disguise kit? It's using a spell slot that's covered by proficiency. The spell uses a DC for the investigation (and passive investigation) checks that starts at 8 (DC 17 at 10th level) because it's a spell DC while the reliable talent starts at a minimum 10 plus proficiency so 14 plus ability modifier up to DC 24 plus ability modifier. The spell isn't a stellar improvement.

The help action on the ability check with a disguise kit tends to be superior to that spell. An assassin with a disguise kit, infiltration, and imposter abilities walks all over disguise self. Plus he has better stealth when needed.


Plus when you specialize as a caster it doesn't stop you from fulfilling other roles quite well. A Stealth specialist Dragon Sorcerer still can firebolt+firebolt.

Specializing in stealth didn't stop the rogue from continuing to have more available skills in which to be better, lose sneak attack, or lose cunning action either. Not hurting in comparison.


It isn't just one spell that obsoletes Stealth, its all the spells and OPTIONS that invalidate a rogue using Stealth.

All those spells that replicate abilities rogues do better without the spells because of how the mechanics work.


Hmmm, send the Rogue into an area to see if there is a magic user or magic traps? Nah, Arcane Eye is safer, quicker, and not traceable. Hell the Arcane Eye can fit through 1" openings, let's see the rogue do that. Oh and the eye is invisible.

Gathering information (an ability check) and persuasion or intimidation or deception (more skill / ability checks) can give important information without even needing to be close enough to cast arcane eye. Interrogation and information gathering overlap arcane eye and can cover more.

The disadvantage of arcane eye is it gas no physical presence to do anything where physical scouting can take actions.

Magic can do a lot and can win out against several classes in the skill department. Rogues aren't one of those classes.

[Gwendol]

In general it's better to have the skills (and reliable talent) than try to scrounge by using a valuable resource like a spell. Spells do typically not replace skills, but they can enhance the skills or make for a passable replacement. To say that the rogue is obsolete however, is ignoring what the game actually look like in favor of an idea.

[Safety Sword]

Welcome to Shocking Grasp vs Mage Slayer 2: Revenge of the Rules Lawyers.

This need for every ability to be compared to another to see whether it is "fair" or "right" or "consistent" is getting quite tedious.

Each ability is different. It's supposed to be like that. I don't want to play 4th Edition where every ability is the same thing reskinned. I like the abilities and the classes to have things that work differently so that I can have a unique experience with them.

You'll all sleep better if you stop this endless need to compare apples with oranges and just enjoy the fruit salad.

[Magic Myrmidon]

But the fruit salad is much better if you remove the tomatoes. Gotta make sure that the actual ingredients make the dish as enjoyable as possible.

[Once a Fool]

What? The tomatoes are the best part!

[Magic Myrmidon]

What? The tomatoes are the best part!

Which just proves that every salad will have parts that some people hate, and some people love. :p

[ThermalSlapShot]

In general it's better to have the skills (and reliable talent) than try to scrounge by using a valuable resource like a spell. Spells do typically not replace skills, but they can enhance the skills or make for a passable replacement. To say that the rogue is obsolete however, is ignoring what the game actually look like in favor of an idea.

The issue is that Rogues are limited with what they can do. There is a glass ceiling.

Once spell casters can start blowing through spells, their "limited resource", it no longer is a limited resource.

A Stealth based caster can use a disguise kit and take 10 minutes or whatever it takes or just use an action. With a scaling DC (even if the caster doesn't specialize in stealth) that caster has a better than not chance of walking right past things.

Any use of mundane skills can be used by casters or completely duplicated by spells. Reliable Talent is nice, but not having to make a roll is nicer. Having a scaling DC that eventually hits 19 (no magic items) is like always rolling 8 on a contest. And that's versus a save not a skill check.

A rogue can ave a good Stealth check all they want but they can't hide if there is no where to hide. Without specific environmental conditions that Stealth check could be +100 and it wouldn't matter as the enemies would just be all like " dude, stop trying to hide under that box, I can totally see you". Seriously use all the Talent you want you still need to break line of sight, if LoS is restored then no Stealth check is going to help you.

Arcane eye however? You need detect magic to find it and even then you have no clue who cast it.

Once the rogue is found, even if it is by accident, the enemy can find out who is after them and retaliate against them.

In order to stay relavent the resident party caster kinda needs to allow the player playing the rogue to stay relavent. If a caster wants to invalidate the rogue (or Fighter), then they can. The rogue is a fun class to play at low levela but that doesn't mean the game doesn't screw it over once 8-12 level comes around.

Make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change anything. Casters can, even if by accident, make the rogue obsolete. Magic stops being such a limited resource and bumps the game from low fantasy to high fantasy, a realm in which the rogue has no answer for.

It isn't as sharp of an incline as it was in 3e sure, but it is still there.

[Z3ro]

Welcome to Shocking Grasp vs Mage Slayer 2: Revenge of the Rules Lawyers.

This need for every ability to be compared to another to see whether it is "fair" or "right" or "consistent" is getting quite tedious.

Each ability is different. It's supposed to be like that. I don't want to play 4th Edition where every ability is the same thing reskinned. I like the abilities and the classes to have things that work differently so that I can have a unique experience with them.

You'll all sleep better if you stop this endless need to compare apples with oranges and just enjoy the fruit salad.

It's not about consistent abilities and making them all the same. It's about consistent language and two people being able to read the same ability and reasonably make the same judgement about what it does.

When one ability says and does one thing, but a different ability with the same language does another, there's a major problem.

[Easy_Lee]

Welcome to Shocking Grasp vs Mage Slayer 2: Revenge of the Rules Lawyers.

This need for every ability to be compared to another to see whether it is "fair" or "right" or "consistent" is getting quite tedious.

Each ability is different. It's supposed to be like that. I don't want to play 4th Edition where every ability is the same thing reskinned. I like the abilities and the classes to have things that work differently so that I can have a unique experience with them.

You'll all sleep better if you stop this endless need to compare apples with oranges and just enjoy the fruit salad.

There's a video called Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) that you need to see.

[MadBear]

There's a video called Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) that you need to see.

That is the best thing I've seen all day.

That said, it leaves out some very important points:
1. BMX Bandit is way better at riding a BMX then Angel Summoner w/o angel help
2. It never addresses the situation where Angel's are blocked from helping. In that scenario obviously BMX bandit is WAY better
3. The scenario's are obviously contrived, and obviously both are totally equal. I mean assuming Angel summoner runs out of summoning angels, he'd be totally screwed, while the BMX Bandit can go all day.

[Kryx]

I love the BMX Bandit.

But I agree. This thread is very much in the same vain as the other. If there are concerns of balance then feel free to houserule to have better balance. The issue is when RAI is entirely ignored to try to balance the issue.

As a matter of fact please put together a list of things you homebrew to create a better balance between Martials and Casters. I'd likely use some of it.

[Safety Sword]

There's a video called Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) that you need to see.

Oldie but a goodie.

I want to play D&D. D&D has classes. Classes have differing abilities.

I also don't usually want to compete with my party members. It's a cooperative game after all.


It's not about consistent abilities and making them all the same. It's about consistent language and two people being able to read the same ability and reasonably make the same judgement about what it does.

When one ability says and does one thing, but a different ability with the same language does another, there's a major problem.

I guess this is where we differ on it. I find it annoying, but it's not a problem. I don't need to compare abilities with similar language. I actually read what each ability does and just do what it says it can, not everything that it "should" do because something else is worded with some of the same words.

As has already been pointed out, the book wasn't written by one person, so I expect some inconsistencies.

Simply put, and I have said it multiple times in the other thread: Read each ability and apply what it does separately.

If two rules interact in an unexpected way and it is getting in the way of it being fun, then change it at your table.

I am still yet to come up against 2 rules interacting where I couldn't make a reasonable judgement call in less than 30 seconds and keep the action moving along.

[Z3ro]

I guess this is where we differ on it. I find it annoying, but it's not a problem. I don't need to compare abilities with similar language. I actually read what each ability does and just do what it says it can, not everything that it "should" do because something else is worded with some of the same words.

As has already been pointed out, the book wasn't written by one person, so I expect some inconsistencies.

Simply put, and I have said it multiple times in the other thread: Read each ability and apply what it does separately.

If two rules interact in an unexpected way and it is getting in the way of it being fun, then change it at your table.

I am still yet to come up against 2 rules interacting where I couldn't make a reasonable judgement call in less than 30 seconds and keep the action moving along.

As many people like to point out on these forums, having a solid understanding of RAW is important for people to have a common understanding point when referring to the game. At table it's totally different; these issues rarely come up, and when they do, they are usually resolved quickly, as you point out.

But here is where we differ; I try to read things consistently, for the sake of consistency. I'll demonstrate, using the two abilities I started the thread with; when I read whirlwind, at first glance, I assumed it was multiple attacks, and you could move between them (not to power game or anything, that was just an attempt to understand the ability). Using the same reading (consistency), I read EB to be multiple attacks, each of which would apply agonizing blast on hit, for multiple instances of charisma damage.

But now WotC has told me I read whirlwind wrong; it's one attack, with multiple (non) rolls. But that means that, for consistency, I read EB wrong too, as they use the same wording.

The part you are missing is that, in order to read each ability and apply what it does, we need to understand what each word and phrasing used in the book means. In a game system, by necessity, words will be used in certain combinations to mean things. We need to make sure we use consistent readings so we actually know what abilities do, not what we want them to do (of course, houserule till your heart's content).

And it's not my fault if WotC didn't hire a good copy-editor to iron out inconsistent language. I assume that, as a large company, it would be both within their means and in their interests to do so. With that assumption, until they tell me otherwise, I'm going to assume each word means what they want it to mean. It's not my fault if they don't live up to that.

[Safety Sword]

As many people like to point out on these forums, having a solid understanding of RAW is important for people to have a common understanding point when referring to the game. At table it's totally different; these issues rarely come up, and when they do, they are usually resolved quickly, as you point out.

But here is where we differ; I try to read things consistently, for the sake of consistency. I'll demonstrate, using the two abilities I started the thread with; when I read whirlwind, at first glance, I assumed it was multiple attacks, and you could move between them (not to power game or anything, that was just an attempt to understand the ability). Using the same reading (consistency), I read EB to be multiple attacks, each of which would apply agonizing blast on hit, for multiple instances of charisma damage.

But now WotC has told me I read whirlwind wrong; it's one attack, with multiple (non) rolls. But that means that, for consistency, I read EB wrong too, as they use the same wording.

The part you are missing is that, in order to read each ability and apply what it does, we need to understand what each word and phrasing used in the book means. In a game system, by necessity, words will be used in certain combinations to mean things. We need to make sure we use consistent readings so we actually know what abilities do, not what we want them to do (of course, houserule till your heart's content).

And it's not my fault if WotC didn't hire a good copy-editor to iron out inconsistent language. I assume that, as a large company, it would be both within their means and in their interests to do so. With that assumption, until they tell me otherwise, I'm going to assume each word means what they want it to mean. It's not my fault if they don't live up to that.

All that being said, you seem to be having more issues with the system than I am.

I read an ability that a character has and I take it in isolation and I know how it works. I don't need to know how the other character's ability works to use the one I am reading.

You are unnecessarily complicating and analysing the language of the abilities. You are putting more effort into consistency than the developers thought was needed. I would suggest that means you've gone passed the point where you should have stopped.

[Easy_Lee]

We should release a GitPG errata, where we fix WotC's text to say what they meant it to say. I'd volunteer Whirlwind Attack and Mage Slayer to that list. And I'm still waiting on them to explain what they meant with poisons...

[Ashrym]

The issue is that Rogues are limited with what they can do. There is a glass ceiling.There is. Spellcasters are looking up at it wishing they could be as effective at skills as rogues. ;-)


Once spell casters can start blowing through spells, their "limited resource", it no longer is a limited resource.It's always a limited resource. It's less restricting than having fewer slots but the slots clearly aren't all 1st-level spells and all continue to run on a shared resource so every slot spent is a slot lost to something else. Covering skills so that a spellcaster might cast arcane eye twice, invisibilty three times, charm person twice, knock three times, spiderclimb twice, and disguise person once doesn't exactly leave opportunity to do anything else.

The restrictions include number of slots and spells known in addition to weaker checks in many cases where rogues do hit autosucceed often and there is never a level where spell slots can casually blown. That's claiming a statement is true because it's true instead of demonstrating how it's true, which is faulty reasoning because the bulk of spells are reserved for combat.

Rogue skills, on the other hand, truly are unlimited.


Stealth based caster can use a disguise kit and take 10 minutes or whatever it takes or just use an action. With a scaling DC (even if the caster doesn't specialize in stealth) that caster has a better than not chance of walking right past things.That's not an improvement over a scaling proficiency. It's faster to use but not a better check and it's definitely not superior. If the caster would just walk in so would the rogue.


Any use of mundane skills can be used by casters or completely duplicated by spells. Reliable Talent is nice, but not having to make a roll is nicer. Having a scaling DC that eventually hits 19 (no magic items) is like always rolling 8 on a contest. And that's versus a save not a skill check.A scaling DC that hits 19 is meaningless because that isn't what dictates the success of almost any spells which might replicate a skill and a rogue's opposed check is normally higher for the enemy to hit.

A 19 DC won't make the spell caster less at risk of being discovered while invisible or spot a hiding guard any better. Sometimes it's just an additional fail point before the actual check, like with charm person, or even less relevant like a warning alarm knock spell (way to be srealthy there).


A rogue can ave a good Stealth check all they want but they can't hide if there is no where to hide. Without specific environmental conditions that Stealth check could be +100 and it wouldn't matter as the enemies would just be all like " dude, stop trying to hide under that box, I can totally see you". Seriously use all the Talent you want you still need to break line of sight, if LoS is restored then no Stealth check is going to help you.That would be when to use a disguise or deception. Still not a problem, and more likely to get the rest of the party through too. Or the arcane trickster could have the same invisibilty spell. Or they could use an alternate route like climbing the wall and entering through a window or sewer. Not a challenge to overcome for a rogue.


Arcane eye however? You need detect magic to find it and even then you have no clue who cast it.That's not listed under the arcane eye description. It's listed as invisible, but not undetectable. Blindsight or blindsense, for example, will pick it right up and it can be blocked by closed doors and windows. It also doesn't add to the caster's perception in anyway, or investigation, and will miss more than most rogues. Arcane eye let's the caster see and not hear, which can be important.

It might not let someone who discovers it an indication of who is spying on them but it's more restricted in many ways and still lets those enemies know someone is spying on them, triggering countermeasures and counter investigation to find out whom.

[/QUOTE]Once the rogue is found, even if it is by accident, the enemy can find out who is after them and retaliate against them.[/QUOTE]How? Finding the rogue and recognizing him are two different things. That's and opportunity for deception again.

What is likely, if the party is known to the opponent, is that the opponent is aware of possible spellcasters and would have an idea who might be spying.


In order to stay relavent the resident party caster kinda needs to allow the player playing the rogue to stay relavent. If a caster wants to invalidate the rogue (or Fighter), then they can. The rogue is a fun class to play at low levela but that doesn't mean the game doesn't screw it over once 8-12 level comes around.Utter nonsense. Spellcasters don't have the array of spells known and spell slots available to cover all the skills, and when they do the spell is either inferior (like knock) or requires the same ability check but with less skill (like invisibilty).

Where are these spell casters getting perception, investigation, stealth, deception, persuasion, insight, disguise, opening locks, increased mobility, and disabling traps from? You mentioned clerics, sorcerers, bards, and wizards earlier but not one of them covers all of that in spells and in some cases (sorcerer and cleric) not even close. Those are 6 skills, 2 toolkits, and cunning action on a rogue.

After failing to match the rogue in number of skills or ability with those skills, the spell caster doesn't have enough slots typical of scouting and such to cover the number of associated ability checks. Casting arcane eye twice and running out of the spellcaster's highest level slots at 8th level as per the lower end of your listed range and spending most of the other slots covering additional checks leaves much to be desired.


Make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change anything. Casters can, even if by accident, make the rogue obsolete. Magic stops being such a limited resource and bumps the game from low fantasy to high fantasy, a realm in which the rogue has no answer for.

It isn't as sharp of an incline as it was in 3e sure, but it is still there.

That's still not true. Casters cannot make rogues obsolete because casters don't have the variety of options and spell slots are always a shared finite resource, and because casters are not as effective in the rolls required.

[Z3ro]

All that being said, you seem to be having more issues with the system than I am.

I read an ability that a character has and I take it in isolation and I know how it works. I don't need to know how the other character's ability works to use the one I am reading.

You are unnecessarily complicating and analysing the language of the abilities. You are putting more effort into consistency than the developers thought was needed. I would suggest that means you've gone passed the point where you should have stopped.

Then we lack any ability to meaningfully communicate. If you can read and just know what something does, without any other reference, then you have no basis for backing up your arguments, besides "I said so", and communication is impossible. Sorry we cannot come to common ground.

[Safety Sword]

Then we lack any ability to meaningfully communicate. If you can read and just know what something does, without any other reference, then you have no basis for backing up your arguments, besides "I said so", and communication is impossible. Sorry we cannot come to common ground.

The reference I use are the rules of D&D 5E. Not every other edition of the game. I also don't assume that I know what the ability does before I read it.

Protection Fighting Style say I can force disadvantage on an incoming attack roll. Awesome. BAM! Roll another dice.

Mage Slayer says I can use my reaction to attack a spell caster when he casts within 5' of me. Awesome. BAM!

Why should I care if the words for the two abilities are similar? The meaning of each is clear to me. I don't see the need to deeply analyse every word when I can take a simple two step reading and the game plays fine.

When someone asks you "How are you today?", most people can respond without deeply analysing each word, going back to the root meaning of the word "how" and reflecting on the thoughts and feeling of other people who are in the next building over before knowing what the intent of the other person is.

I think you guys are really getting hung up on the words and totally missing the intent of the rules and the intent of the entire system. Simplicity.

[Z3ro]

The reference I use are the rules of D&D 5E. Not every other edition of the game. I also don't assume that I know what the ability does before I read it.

Protection Fighting Style say I can force disadvantage on an incoming attack roll. Awesome. BAM! Roll another dice.

Mage Slayer says I can use my reaction to attack a spell caster when he casts within 5' of me. Awesome. BAM!

Why should I care if the words for the two abilities are similar? The meaning of each is clear to me. I don't see the need to deeply analyse every word when I can take a simple two step reading and the game plays fine.

When someone asks you "How are you today?", most people can respond without deeply analysing each word, going back to the root meaning of the word "how" and reflecting on the thoughts and feeling of other people who are in the next building over before knowing what the intent of the other person is.

I think you guys are really getting hung up on the words and totally missing the intent of the rules and the intent of the entire system. Simplicity.

As I said, we lack any ability to meaningfully communicate. I would bring up other rules, and ask you questions on how they interact directly with mage slayer, but it would be pointless. Again, my apologies for the failure to reach an understanding.

[Safety Sword]

As I said, we lack any ability to meaningfully communicate. I would bring up other rules, and ask you questions on how they interact directly with mage slayer, but it would be pointless. Again, my apologies for the failure to reach an understanding.

Communication is a tricky thing, but you're not all to blame. When people fail to reach an understanding it's usually because they have already made up their minds and aren't open to new ideas.

I'm usually open to new ideas, but I am closed to stupid ideas (this isn't directed at you Z3ro).

I am also quite amazed by people who make errors and then construct justifications and corrections to their justifications (but not the original error). Pride is a real thing. It's the core that bad management is built on, compounding errors and swaying people to join bad causes because people value the opinion of the original bad idea maker.

Anyway, I too apologise that I can't get you to see the value of my approach.

[Vogonjeltz]

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." - PHB on attacks, also in the free PDF.

How embarrassing.

Was this too confusing the first time?


Now, the bit that's being shoehorned to try and allow movement in between is on page 194: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

Because Whirlwind Attacks status as an attack is not in question, this bit offers no value.


If whirlwind is a single attack, using this language, how do you reach the conclusion that

Is multiple attacks, when the wording for EB is "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage. The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam."

It's literally the exact same; "A ranged spell attack", singular. Notice it doesn't say to make more attacks, it says more beams. Before the whirlwind clarification I'd be right there with you, but the language is the same as whirlwind, which is apparently a singular attack with multiple (non) attack rolls.

Multiple ranged spell attacks from one spell casting, it even says so where you quoted "two beams at 5th level" etc...

The distinction is that Eldritch Blast is one beam, one target; whereas Whirlwind Attack is one attack, many targets.


because each such attack roll is generated by a seperate attack

It seems to me that if that was intended it would have been included in the text, instead of by you. As actually written that interpretation has no validity anymore than any other arbitrary insertion of additional text.


Given the actual ambiguity of the phrasing of Whirlwind Attack (as adressed above), this seems to be exactly the kind of situation where this guideline would apply.

Is anyone claiming they're not sure if Whirlwind Attack is an ...attack? Because that's the only application of that rule. It's just not multiple attacks, but a singular one with multiple targets.


Disguise Self makes Stealth obsolete. Why hide when you can walk right past a few people. Need to know what who to look like? There are spells for that.

This rather overstates the capabilities of Disguise Self. (For example, stealth is important when not being detected at all is more important).


Your 14 DEX examples with proficiency have a minimum stealth check of 7 with increased risk for every passive perception above it. That kind of really sucks in comparison.

Given how passive perception works, a roll that bad is basically an automatic failure.


Once spell casters can start blowing through spells, their "limited resource", it no longer is a limited resource.

When is this ever a thing?

[Easy_Lee]

Was this too confusing the first time?

Multiple ranged spell attacks from one spell casting, it even says so where you quoted "two beams at 5th level" etc...

The distinction is that Eldritch Blast is one beam, one target; whereas Whirlwind Attack is one attack, many targets.

You're rules lawyering to try to make the game fit the intent. In fact, the wording WotC chose only allows for two possible interpretations:

Whirlwind is one attack, and thus you can apply things like ensnaring strike and smite to the whole thing.
Whirlwind is multiple attacks, thus you can move between them.

By the mechanics we have, these are the only two possibilities. And yet neither of them is RAI. What they meant was: multiple attacks, but you cannot move between them (exception to the general rule). This is how most of us are going to play it, regardless of the RAW. But it does not change the rules interactions on paper.

Others have said that if the intent is clear, then there is no problem. WotC's staff are not rules lawyers, just players. Frankly, I don't care. WotC releases a written product in the form of D&D. Failure to write what they actually mean, unambiguously, is failure to deliver a competent product. Incompetence in the writing suggests general Incompetence. It's unprofessional, and leads to confusion and misunderstanding for many.

I am not the only one who, upon first reading of Whirlwind Attack, assumed that it did something other than what WotC intended. That should not happen at all.

[Ashrym]

Given how passive perception works, a roll that bad is basically an automatic failure.

That's the point.

The way passive perception works creates large failure rates regardless of invisibilty. Passive perception 13 when a person has a +6 bonus is a rather large fail rate that a rogue would have autosucceeded.

Reliable talent wipes the risk right out of passive perception.

[Easy_Lee]

That's the point.

The way passive perception works creates large failure rates regardless of invisibilty. Passive perception 13 when a person has a +6 bonus is a rather large fail rate that a rogue would have autosucceeded.

Reliable talent wipes the risk right out of passive perception.

Indeed, reliable talent is a good feature. Martials should have more features like it.

[Once a Fool]

because each such attack roll is generated by a seperate attack


It seems to me that if that was intended it would have been included in the text, instead of by you. As actually written that interpretation has no validity anymore than any other arbitrary insertion of additional text.

I included that phrase in order to clarify how the sentence can be interpreted the same way without it. The added phrase doesn't turn the sentence into nonsense, precisely because the sentence already could be interpreted that way.

I am not claiming this was the designers' intent. I don't care if it was, or not; their intent is not relevant to me. I was merely refuting the absurd claim that the sentence, as written in the rules, can only be correctly interpreted differently.



Given the actual ambiguity of the phrasing of Whirlwind Attack (as adressed above), this seems to be exactly the kind of situation where this guideline would apply.


Is anyone claiming they're not sure if Whirlwind Attack is an ...attack? Because that's the only application of that rule. It's just not multiple attacks, but a singular one with multiple targets.

Yes. That is the crux of the entire conversation. Does Whirlwind Attack constitute a single attack that hits multiple foes or a single attack for each? (Whether or not it should is a seperate question.)

As written, the description of Whirlwind Attack is ambiguous to some people and unambiguous to others. For the former group, the previously quoted rule (that attack rolls = attacks) is there to set things straight. For the latter group, it doesn't matter.

[MeeposFire]

You're rules lawyering to try to make the game fit the intent. In fact, the wording WotC chose only allows for two possible interpretations:

Whirlwind is one attack, and thus you can apply things like ensnaring strike and smite to the whole thing.
Whirlwind is multiple attacks, thus you can move between them.

By the mechanics we have, these are the only two possibilities. And yet neither of them is RAI. What they meant was: multiple attacks, but you cannot move between them (exception to the general rule). This is how most of us are going to play it, regardless of the RAW. But it does not change the rules interactions on paper.

Others have said that if the intent is clear, then there is no problem. WotC's staff are not rules lawyers, just players. Frankly, I don't care. WotC releases a written product in the form of D&D. Failure to write what they actually mean, unambiguously, is failure to deliver a competent product. Incompetence in the writing suggests general Incompetence. It's unprofessional, and leads to confusion and misunderstanding for many.

I am not the only one who, upon first reading of Whirlwind Attack, assumed that it did something other than what WotC intended. That should not happen at all.

Careful I understand what you are saying in light o the new ruling but remember not every ability you are trying to use involves attacks, some like smite are based off of hits and as far as I know the new ruling has nothing that changes the definition of hits as we know it. So smite would only affect one target since WA may be only one attack but it is still a higher number of potential hits and so you would have to spend a spell slot on each hit that you get.

Your greater point may still stand but we would have to find abilities that rely on attack rather than hit.

[Vogonjeltz]

You're rules lawyering to try to make the game fit the intent. In fact, the wording WotC chose only allows for two possible interpretations:
•Whirlwind is one attack, and thus you can apply things like ensnaring strike and smite to the whole thing.
•Whirlwind is multiple attacks, thus you can move between them.

By the mechanics we have, these are the only two possibilities. And yet neither of them is RAI. What they meant was: multiple attacks, but you cannot move between them (exception to the general rule). This is how most of us are going to play it, regardless of the RAW. But it does not change the rules interactions on paper.

Others have said that if the intent is clear, then there is no problem. WotC's staff are not rules lawyers, just players. Frankly, I don't care. WotC releases a written product in the form of D&D. Failure to write what they actually mean, unambiguously, is failure to deliver a competent product. Incompetence in the writing suggests general Incompetence. It's unprofessional, and leads to confusion and misunderstanding for many.

I am not the only one who, upon first reading of Whirlwind Attack, assumed that it did something other than what WotC intended. That should not happen at all.

First, Whirlwind is one attack. Second, Ensnaring Strike is "the next time you hit a creature". So it can only apply to one creature, even if you end up hitting several. So your first bullet is only half-correct (the first half of the sentence).

The rest of your post relies on your bullets being correct (which they are not).


That's the point.

The way passive perception works creates large failure rates regardless of invisibilty. Passive perception 13 when a person has a +6 bonus is a rather large fail rate that a rogue would have autosucceeded.

Reliable talent wipes the risk right out of passive perception.

Right, I was just trying to point that out :)


I included that phrase in order to clarify how the sentence can be interpreted the same way without it. The added phrase doesn't turn the sentence into nonsense, precisely because the sentence already could be interpreted that way.

I am not claiming this was the designers' intent. I don't care if it was, or not; their intent is not relevant to me. I was merely refuting the absurd claim that the sentence, as written in the rules, can only be correctly interpreted differently.

If it's not written, then it can't be read that way, because it wasn't written. It's tautological. I can't read the phrase: "I like apples" to mean "I like apples....dunked in syrup!" if the latter part weren't actually included.


Yes. That is the crux of the entire conversation. Does Whirlwind Attack constitute a single attack that hits multiple foes or a single attack for each? (Whether or not it should is a seperate question.)

As written, the description of Whirlwind Attack is ambiguous to some people and unambiguous to others. For the former group, the previously quoted rule (that attack rolls = attacks) is there to set things straight. For the latter group, it doesn't matter.

And the evidence being used to claim that it's multiple attacks is a flawed cobbling together of unrelated information. The passage on "Making an Attack" is about answering the question of categorization not quantity.

It answers: Is this activity an attack?
It does not answer: How many weapon attacks does this activity constitute?

The difference is actually important, and papering over it does no one any favors.

[GiantOctopodes]

First, Whirlwind is one attack. Second, Ensnaring Strike is "the next time you hit a creature". So it can only apply to one creature, even if you end up hitting several. So your first bullet is only half-correct (the first half of the sentence).

The rest of your post relies on your bullets being correct (which they are not).



Right, I was just trying to point that out :)



If it's not written, then it can't be read that way, because it wasn't written. It's tautological. I can't read the phrase: "I like apples" to mean "I like apples....dunked in syrup!" if the latter part weren't actually included.



And the evidence being used to claim that it's multiple attacks is a flawed cobbling together of unrelated information. The passage on "Making an Attack" is about answering the question of categorization not quantity.

It answers: Is this activity an attack?
It does not answer: How many weapon attacks does this activity constitute?

The difference is actually important, and papering over it does no one any favors.

Making A attack specifies, in its "simple structure", choosing A target (singular), determining what modifiers apply to THE target (singular), and / or your attack roll (singular), then making THE attack roll (also singular), to determine if you have made A hit (also singular). Tell me, in what way does this NOT translate to one attack = one target, one attack roll? Since, after all, the plurality or lack thereof is exactly what's in question.

Edit:
On the same token, since a single attack (should) only hit a single target with a single hit, and you're allowing this single attack to hit "all creatures within 5'" as the target of this single attack, the hit (singular still) that results is on all of them. The specific phrasing of Ensnaring Strike is "The next time you hit (singular) a creature (singular) with a weapon attack (singular)". Since the hit (singular) from the attack (singular) is being applied to the target (singular) of the attack, the effect is applied to that self same target, which is apparently all creatures within 5'. Otherwise, you can argue that it doesn't apply at all, which is a fine and logical conclusion to draw. Or, you can argue it's not just one attack (my stance). Not having it able to take effect whatsoever because the target is invalid makes far, far more sense than saying that some of the creatures are MORE "next" than others, on the single hit.

[Easy_Lee]

Making A attack specifies, in its "simple structure", choosing A target (singular), determining what modifiers apply to THE target (singular), and / or your attack roll (singular), then making THE attack roll (also singular), to determine if you have made A hit (also singular). Tell me, in what way does this NOT translate to one attack = one target, one attack roll? Since, after all, the plurality or lack thereof is exactly what's in question.

Edit:
On the same token, since a single attack (should) only hit a single target with a single hit, and you're allowing this single attack to hit "all creatures within 5'" as the target of this single attack, the hit (singular still) that results is on all of them. The specific phrasing of Ensnaring Strike is "The next time you hit (singular) a creature (singular) with a weapon attack (singular)". Since the hit (singular) from the attack (singular) is being applied to the target (singular) of the attack, the effect is applied to that self same target, which is apparently all creatures within 5'. Otherwise, you can argue that it doesn't apply at all, which is a fine and logical conclusion to draw. Or, you can argue it's not just one attack (my stance). Not having it able to take effect whatsoever because the target is invalid makes far, far more sense than saying that some of the creatures are MORE "next" than others, on the single hit.

Right, and the easy way around it is to just subvert the general rule that one can move between attacks. Specify in the ability that one may not move between these attacks, and everything works as apparently intended. Not sure why WotC didn't opt for that.

[Once a Fool]

If it's not written, then it can't be read that way, because it wasn't written. It's tautological.

If that were true, half the people reading it would not disagree with you. But we do, because English is a beautifully (yes, I say beautifully!) sloppy language that often changes the meaning of phrases based on context--and part of that context is the perspective of the reader/listener. Such is the case with the description of Whirlwind Attack. And, I, for one, am thankful for that, as it leaves room for both of us to be correct.

[Psionic]

Short answer:

Whirlwind attack is one attack due to the fact that it specifically states additional to-hit rolls, not just attacks like other abilities that strictly state the additional attacks (like scorching ray).

Eldritch Blast is Ambiguous, but RAW, is one attack, because it specifically states that the additional beams at higher levels are attack rolls, not attacks, same as whirlwind. If you were twinning a spell that had an spell attack with the target of one enemy, however, the twinned spell would have duplicated the entire spell (and thus the attack itself). If the additional beams are ruled to be copies, somewhat like a twinned cast spell, then they'd be multiple attacks because the spell itself is being copied (thus the attack copies over as well).

However, as of now, the RAW wording is unambiguous. It is one attack, multiple to-hit rolls. This, of course changes nothing significant about Eldritch Blast (because you apply your warlock's agonizing blast on a "hit") but it clarifies all the wording with no loose ends. The reason nobody defined this up until this point? Because it literally makes no difference at all, outside of clearing up the used vocabulary in the rules in use of spells.

And yes, that's the short answer. .-.

[GiantOctopodes]

Short answer:

Whirlwind attack is one attack due to the fact that it specifically states additional to-hit rolls, not just attacks like other abilities that strictly state the additional attacks (like scorching ray).

Eldritch Blast is Ambiguous, but RAW, is one attack, because it specifically states that the additional beams at higher levels are attack rolls, not attacks, same as whirlwind. If you were twinning a spell that had an spell attack with the target of one enemy, however, the twinned spell would have duplicated the entire spell (and thus the attack itself). If the additional beams are ruled to be copies, somewhat like a twinned cast spell, then they'd be multiple attacks because the spell itself is being copied (thus the attack copies over as well).

However, as of now, the RAW wording is unambiguous. It is one attack, multiple to-hit rolls. This, of course changes nothing significant about Eldritch Blast (because you apply your warlock's agonizing blast on a "hit") but it clarifies all the wording with no loose ends. The reason nobody defined this up until this point? Because it literally makes no difference at all, outside of clearing up the used vocabulary in the rules in use of spells.

And yes, that's the short answer. .-.


"@JeremyECrawford Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling?"
"@JeremyECrawford 2h2 hours ago

Jeremy Crawford retweeted Jeremy Soard

Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise. "

Eldritch Blast IS multiple attacks, because it has multiple attack rolls. The 3rd step in an attack is to make the (singular) attack roll. If you're making multiple attack rolls, it's because you're making multiple attacks.
The reasoning behind WHY it's multiple attacks doesn't really matter though, because the verbiage is indeed identical to Whirlwind, it's good of you to note that.

[Psionic]

"@JeremyECrawford Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling?"
"@JeremyECrawford 2h2 hours ago

Jeremy Crawford retweeted Jeremy Soard

Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise. "

Eldritch Blast IS multiple attacks, because it has multiple attack rolls. The 3rd step in an attack is to make the (singular) attack roll. If you're making multiple attack rolls, it's because you're making multiple attacks.
The reasoning behind WHY it's multiple attacks doesn't really matter though, because the verbiage is indeed identical to Whirlwind, it's good of you to note that.

I've underlined the parts of your statement that are flat-out wrong and have zero justification. As a result, I don't have to explain the same exact thing to you for the fortieth time and have you ignore the facts again. I'll just let Vogonjeitz answer it again...

"It answers: Is this activity an attack?
It does not answer: How many weapon attacks does this activity constitute?"

which is representing the passage you intentionally misquote to represent your views. You know the one.

The bolded section is important for you to understand, because it is. Notice that he doesn't add "roll" afterwords, noting that you very well can have one attack action result in two separate to-hit rolls. Which is something you continuously ignore, and continuously dodge on. All you asked him was how Eldritch blast resolves (which has nothing to do with my statement you quoted and acted like you countered) and anyone in the forums could have told you to take them one at a time, in sequence, as you should. And if he actually intended that to state that Eldritch blast had Multiple attacks, in and of itself despite the various wording issues with the spell, I'd like to know if it's intended to be twinned in that way, or possible that he slipped up. Like I said, if there's any level of leeway, it's in the intended result of adding extra beams, to work as a multi-twinned copy of the spell or otherwise.

Finally, on the effect of the spells when applied to a Volley or Whirlwind Strike, Nothing happens. The spell specifically states "The Next time you hit A creature with A (melee/ranged) Weapon attack...

Both Whirlwind and volley target a location: Either the 5' around you, or a 10' radius. You have the ability to ignore targets (essentially safe casting pockets from evocation) and you hit every targeted enemy with one, singular attack, total. Since your "Next" attack is with a "melee/ranged weapon" but NOT against "A (singular plurality) creature" you miss the three requirements for activating the effects, and it simply doesn't trigger. No exception, short of ignoring all but one target with the aforementioned (or only having one to hit) and the wording on this is pretty cleanly intended to work this way. The lighting arrow spell is the only situation where "A creature" is replaced by "The target" and the original idea behind why that doesn't work, is you only imbue one arrow. One creature, or no creatures. No "One target, target location" dialogue, so that's unfeasible.

Had to clarify on the topic, and I would have let it lie had you not jumped ship to another thread to muddle the mixture yet again with misleading, misworded, misunderstood concepts. Stop trying to find a problem where there isn't one.

[Gwendol]

These abilities don't target an area, they target enemies within an area. It's an important difference.

[coredump]

You're rules lawyering to try to make the game fit the intent. In fact, the wording WotC chose only allows for two possible interpretations:

Whirlwind is one attack, and thus you can apply things like ensnaring strike and smite to the whole thing.
Whirlwind is multiple attacks, thus you can move between them.

By the mechanics we have, these are the only two possibilities. And yet neither of them is RAI. What they meant was: multiple attacks, but you cannot move between them (exception to the general rule). This is how most of us are going to play it, regardless of the RAW. But it does not change the rules interactions on paper.
These are *not* the only possible interpretations. In fact, those require one to first ignore or paraphrase the actual rules.
And then accuse people of being 'rules lawyers' if they dare point out that you have ignored the actual rules when making your assertions.

poor form.


You conveniently ignore the actual wording of Smite and such because you need to be fast and loose with the rules in order to 'prove' that WotC is wrong and you are right.

[Easy_Lee]

These are *not* the only possible interpretations. In fact, those require one to first ignore or paraphrase the actual rules.
And then accuse people of being 'rules lawyers' if they dare point out that you have ignored the actual rules when making your assertions.

poor form.


You conveniently ignore the actual wording of Smite and such because you need to be fast and loose with the rules in order to 'prove' that WotC is wrong and you are right.

Easy to say, more difficult to prove. Abilities like smite apply to the target of your attack. If your attack has multiple targets, then it would spread those effects. You could rule that it should only apply to one, and I wouldn't disagree with you. But this is why clear language is important.

I'm not trying to prove WotC wrong. What I'm trying to do is get a point across: make your language clear, or this kind of crap happens. If they want this kind of thing to happen, want for all of their rules to have multiple interpretations, then they'll carry on.

[GiantOctopodes]

I've underlined the parts of your statement that are flat-out wrong and have zero justification. As a result, I don't have to explain the same exact thing to you for the fortieth time and have you ignore the facts again. I'll just let Vogonjeitz answer it again...

"It answers: Is this activity an attack?
It does not answer: How many weapon attacks does this activity constitute?"

which is representing the passage you intentionally misquote to represent your views. You know the one.

The bolded section is important for you to understand, because it is. Notice that he doesn't add "roll" afterwords, noting that you very well can have one attack action result in two separate to-hit rolls. Which is something you continuously ignore, and continuously dodge on. All you asked him was how Eldritch blast resolves (which has nothing to do with my statement you quoted and acted like you countered) and anyone in the forums could have told you to take them one at a time, in sequence, as you should. And if he actually intended that to state that Eldritch blast had Multiple attacks, in and of itself despite the various wording issues with the spell, I'd like to know if it's intended to be twinned in that way, or possible that he slipped up. Like I said, if there's any level of leeway, it's in the intended result of adding extra beams, to work as a multi-twinned copy of the spell or otherwise.

Finally, on the effect of the spells when applied to a Volley or Whirlwind Strike, Nothing happens. The spell specifically states "The Next time you hit A creature with A (melee/ranged) Weapon attack...

Both Whirlwind and volley target a location: Either the 5' around you, or a 10' radius. You have the ability to ignore targets (essentially safe casting pockets from evocation) and you hit every targeted enemy with one, singular attack, total. Since your "Next" attack is with a "melee/ranged weapon" but NOT against "A (singular plurality) creature" you miss the three requirements for activating the effects, and it simply doesn't trigger. No exception, short of ignoring all but one target with the aforementioned (or only having one to hit) and the wording on this is pretty cleanly intended to work this way. The lighting arrow spell is the only situation where "A creature" is replaced by "The target" and the original idea behind why that doesn't work, is you only imbue one arrow. One creature, or no creatures. No "One target, target location" dialogue, so that's unfeasible.

Had to clarify on the topic, and I would have let it lie had you not jumped ship to another thread to muddle the mixture yet again with misleading, misworded, misunderstood concepts. Stop trying to find a problem where there isn't one.

Indeed, note how he does not add the word roll! He could have, but did not! Thus, he is referring specifically to Eldritch Blast and how it makes multiple attacks (that is the subject of the tweet after all). Of course you can have one attack action result in multiple to-hit rolls. Extra attack is a prime example of that. You likely intended to say one attack, and in that case, the only support for such a stance is also from a tweet. So which is it, are dev tweets flawless modifications of RAW, or is it possible they slipped up?

In terms of the multiple beams, it's weird, because that's another thing that is shared between Eldritch Blast and Volley. One attack (singular) which is then applied to multiple targets (plural) which is then multiple attacks. Volley, one attack (singular) applied to multiple targets (plural). I'll let you draw your own conclusion there, but here's a hint, they're not different.

Finally, Volley is specifically NOT targeting a location. "make a separate attack roll for each target." There's just one location, right? The multiple attack rolls are not for the locations, they're for the creatures. Because the creatures are the targets. Note, targets, multiple. Attack rolls, multiple. A reminder for those who have forgotten the process of making an attack:
1. Choose a target (singular)
2. Determine modifiers (against the target, singular, which apply to the attack roll, singular)
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll (singular) to determine whether or not there is a hit (singular).

Strange, it's almost like the verbiage fits cleanly when used as you are making your singular attack rolls against your singular targets one by one, meaning, making an attack against each, while providing no support whatsoever for your stance of making multiple attack rolls against multiple targets as part of the singular attack. Nice effort, though.

[Psionic]

Indeed, note how he does not add the word roll! He could have, but did not! Thus, he is referring specifically to Eldritch Blast and how it makes multiple attacks (that is the subject of the tweet after all). Of course you can have one attack action result in multiple to-hit rolls. Extra attack is a prime example of that. You likely intended to say one attack, and in that case, the only support for such a stance is also from a tweet. So which is it, are dev tweets flawless modifications of RAW, or is it possible they slipped up?

In terms of the multiple beams, it's weird, because that's another thing that is shared between Eldritch Blast and Volley. One attack (singular) which is then applied to multiple targets (plural) which is then multiple attacks. Volley, one attack (singular) applied to multiple targets (plural). I'll let you draw your own conclusion there, but here's a hint, they're not different.

Finally, Volley is specifically NOT targeting a location. "make a separate attack roll for each target." There's just one location, right? The multiple attack rolls are not for the locations, they're for the creatures. Because the creatures are the targets. Note, targets, multiple. Attack rolls, multiple. A reminder for those who have forgotten the process of making an attack:
1. Choose a target (singular)
2. Determine modifiers (against the target, singular, which apply to the attack roll, singular)
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll (singular) to determine whether or not there is a hit (singular).

Strange, it's almost like the verbiage fits cleanly when used as you are making your singular attack rolls against your singular targets one by one, meaning, making an attack against each, while providing no support whatsoever for your stance of making multiple attack rolls against multiple targets as part of the singular attack. Nice effort, though.

Please read Scorching ray and see how it specifically designates multiple attacks, and how none of the abilities you are arguing for do. He never mentioned Eldritch blast in his tweet, so you have no grounds for assuming that whatsoever. Like normal, you're reading a line of text and attempting to stretch it into a paragraph to fit your needs, regardless of how wrong you are. As per normal, I've underlines the parts of your statement that are completely incorrect, and then I've italicized the statements in which you've doctored or clipped the rules in order to fit your strange, strange fantasies.

Whirlwind Attack is one attack, Volley is one attack, and as far as RAW is concerned, Eldritch blast is one attack. They ruled on Whirlwind attack, and since they all follow the same verbiage, there's no exception. Stop acting like you have any merit to what you are saying. Volley is most definitely targeting a location, because it specifically tells you to (unlike telling you to make multiple attacks). You are making the attack rolls for the single location because one location, in itself, can have multiple targets (see: Any AOE spell) and on that premise your entire argument is based off a false idea that "1 attack roll = 1 attack" because of a rule you intentionally misinterpret, forcibly reword, and ignore the clear interpretation that plenty of people have cleared up for you.

Worse yet, is you've jumped ship onto yet another rule that has specific text for your anti-dumb. The rules for targeting DO include locations, and since Volley targets an area, it's a location targeting scheme. The rules specified for "Attack rolls" also covers the fact that some abilities have specific rules to follow that can change the format of attacking (like, I don't know, attacking everyone within an aoe instead of punching someone who looked at you funny).

Sorry. There's no evidence suggesting you are even a little bit right, and plenty of evidence suggesting otherwise. You haven't had an argument for two and a half days now, and I can't imagine you can ignore any more text in the book without forgetting how to play.

[MeeposFire]

Easy to say, more difficult to prove. Abilities like smite apply to the target of your attack. If your attack has multiple targets, then it would spread those effects. You could rule that it should only apply to one, and I wouldn't disagree with you. But this is why clear language is important.

I'm not trying to prove WotC wrong. What I'm trying to do is get a point across: make your language clear, or this kind of crap happens. If they want this kind of thing to happen, want for all of their rules to have multiple interpretations, then they'll carry on.

Careful you keep using smite as if it applies to attacks which it does not. It applies to hits which means it would not apply to an entire attack only to an individual hit. That rule has not in any way I have seen been changed since these "new" rules came out. WA apparently is now one attack but it still makes many rolls and will have a variable number of hits which means you will have that variable number of opportunities to apply smite.

[Z3ro]

Careful you keep using smite as if it applies to attacks which it does not. It applies to hits which means it would not apply to an entire attack only to an individual hit. That rule has not in any way I have seen been changed since these "new" rules came out. WA apparently is now one attack but it still makes many rolls and will have a variable number of hits which means you will have that variable number of opportunities to apply smite.

It doesn't apply to hits; it is trigger by a hit, but its effects are clearly applied to "target".

[Easy_Lee]

It doesn't apply to hits; it is trigger by a hit, but its effects are clearly applied to "target".

Right. As to all of these abilities, they're triggered by an attack hitting, and apply to the target.

Again, it should only apply to one target, but then individual attacks should only have one target as well. If "an attack" from whirlwind attack hits multiple foes, then it only stands to reason.

[GiantOctopodes]

Please read Scorching ray and see how it specifically designates multiple attacks, and how none of the abilities you are arguing for do. He never mentioned Eldritch blast in his tweet, so you have no grounds for assuming that whatsoever. Like normal, you're reading a line of text and attempting to stretch it into a paragraph to fit your needs, regardless of how wrong you are. As per normal, I've underlines the parts of your statement that are completely incorrect, and then I've italicized the statements in which you've doctored or clipped the rules in order to fit your strange, strange fantasies.

Whirlwind Attack is one attack, Volley is one attack, and as far as RAW is concerned, Eldritch blast is one attack. They ruled on Whirlwind attack, and since they all follow the same verbiage, there's no exception. Stop acting like you have any merit to what you are saying. Volley is most definitely targeting a location, because it specifically tells you to (unlike telling you to make multiple attacks). You are making the attack rolls for the single location because one location, in itself, can have multiple targets (see: Any AOE spell) and on that premise your entire argument is based off a false idea that "1 attack roll = 1 attack" because of a rule you intentionally misinterpret, forcibly reword, and ignore the clear interpretation that plenty of people have cleared up for you.

Worse yet, is you've jumped ship onto yet another rule that has specific text for your anti-dumb. The rules for targeting DO include locations, and since Volley targets an area, it's a location targeting scheme. The rules specified for "Attack rolls" also covers the fact that some abilities have specific rules to follow that can change the format of attacking (like, I don't know, attacking everyone within an aoe instead of punching someone who looked at you funny).

Sorry. There's no evidence suggesting you are even a little bit right, and plenty of evidence suggesting otherwise. You haven't had an argument for two and a half days now, and I can't imagine you can ignore any more text in the book without forgetting how to play.

Seriously?

His tweet was in response to a question regarding eldritch blast. Are you accusing him of such gross incompetence that you are saying his reply had nothing to do with the question? Come on now. They ruled on Eldritch Blast, and since they all follow the same verbiage, there is indeed no exception.



Stop acting like you have any merit to what you are saying.

You first? I mean, I would, but my stance is supported by the rules text and the developers, so... no?

Volley's target is most definitely a location, eh? That's why it says "any number of creatures", I see. And that's why you choose which creatures are and are not affected. I get it. I mean, and this is just me personally, I look at those AOE spells and effects you are referring to like Arms of Hadar, Aura of Life, Aura of Purity, Aura of Vitality, Blade Barrier, Burning Hands, Call Lightning, Calm Emotions, Chain Lightning, Circle of Death, Circle of Power, Cloud of Daggers, Cloudkill, Color Spray, Cone of Cold, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley, and so on, and they all have similarities. Namely, that you specify the point of origin for the area of effect, or the direction of it if the point of origin is yourself, and it affects all creatures within that area, since they are creatures within the area of effect. When targeting a location, you do not also choose creatures. Weird how that works. It's almost like the rules are anti-dumb, and avoid any discrepancies wherein the target you are choosing for the effect is multiple things. I mean, even Sleep- you pick a point, it affects creatures within 20' of that point, very similar, right? Except again, you don't choose the creatures. If you're targeting an area, the area is affected, if you're targeting creatures, you choose which creatures are affected. It's clean, it's consistent, it's what's in the rules. You keep trying to create exceptions to the clean and easy rules (despite plainly making a hit on a creature, whirlwind does not make on hit effects occur? Despite choosing what creatures are being attacked, you're targeting a location?), in a seemingly neverending backwards dance trying to justify your position.

The only thing being ignored is the fact that in the structure of making an attack, it includes "make the attack roll", in singular tense. I know, it's hard when your entire premise is that one attack roll does not equal one attack, and it's spelled out in black and white in the structure of making an attack that it includes an attack roll (singular), to address that point plainly, but it would be great if you did. In fact, if there is such great support for the idea of multiple attack rolls arising in a single attack, present other than the "ruling" on whirlwind, which relies on a 9 month old tweet that somehow never made its way into the errata or sage advice compendium, I'd love to see that too. So far, all I've seen is circular logic arguing that 'because whirlwind and volley are one attack with multiple attack rolls, of course you can have one attack with multiple attack rolls' using the conclusion to justify itself. If you want the full text, here it is:

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target (singular). Pick a target (singular) within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target (singular) has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target (singular). In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll (singular)
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll (singular). On a hit (singular), you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

Yep, I know, I really clipped and bastardized those rules to fit my point, eh? The biggest thing I wish to point out is that you have provided NONE of the support you claim exists for your position! If there is "plenty" of it, where is it? Just saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

[coredump]

Easy to say, more difficult to prove. Abilities like smite apply to the target of your attack. If your attack has multiple targets, then it would spread those effects. You could rule that it should only apply to one, and I wouldn't disagree with you. But this is why clear language is important.

I'm not trying to prove WotC wrong. What I'm trying to do is get a point across: make your language clear, or this kind of crap happens. If they want this kind of thing to happen, want for all of their rules to have multiple interpretations, then they'll carry on.
I think their language is clear. And when I used *their* language to demonstrate, it was clear. The confusion only comes when you paraphrase and abbreviate what the rules actually say. Your 'translation' is unclear....the rules are not.

[Vogonjeltz]

Making A attack specifies, in its "simple structure", choosing A target (singular), determining what modifiers apply to THE target (singular), and / or your attack roll (singular), then making THE attack roll (also singular), to determine if you have made A hit (also singular). Tell me, in what way does this NOT translate to one attack = one target, one attack roll? Since, after all, the plurality or lack thereof is exactly what's in question.

Edit:
On the same token, since a single attack (should) only hit a single target with a single hit, and you're allowing this single attack to hit "all creatures within 5'" as the target of this single attack, the hit (singular still) that results is on all of them. The specific phrasing of Ensnaring Strike is "The next time you hit (singular) a creature (singular) with a weapon attack (singular)". Since the hit (singular) from the attack (singular) is being applied to the target (singular) of the attack, the effect is applied to that self same target, which is apparently all creatures within 5'. Otherwise, you can argue that it doesn't apply at all, which is a fine and logical conclusion to draw. Or, you can argue it's not just one attack (my stance). Not having it able to take effect whatsoever because the target is invalid makes far, far more sense than saying that some of the creatures are MORE "next" than others, on the single hit.

First, the section is titled "Making An Attack". It's speaking in the singular because that is to teach the reader how the game mechanics for attacking work. The alternative (speaking in plurals and whatnot) would be needlessly complicated and serve only to create confusion. It's important to note that this is the general rule. Whirlwind Attack is a specific and clear exception, it is "a melee attack" (singular) against "any number of creatures within 5 feet of you" (multiple targets) and "with a separate attack roll for each target" (exception to the general rule).

One attack, many targets, many rolls. You can only move between multiple weapon attacks, which this is not (very specifically not).

And no, there are separate hits defined by those separate rolls (one may be hit, but the next not, and so forth). So, for abilities that only work on the next hit like Ensnaring Strike, it's important to determine who you roll to hit first.


Right, and the easy way around it is to just subvert the general rule that one can move between attacks. Specify in the ability that one may not move between these attacks, and everything works as apparently intended. Not sure why WotC didn't opt for that.

The easy way is to follow the rules.


If that were true, half the people reading it would not disagree with you.

Popularity is not a measurement of truth.
And having established that your statement was meaningless, you also have no means for knowing how many readers agree/disagree with any given statement.


But we do, because English is a beautifully (yes, I say beautifully!) sloppy language that often changes the meaning of phrases based on context--and part of that context is the perspective of the reader/listener. Such is the case with the description of Whirlwind Attack. And, I, for one, am thankful for that, as it leaves room for both of us to be correct.

If you were looking to advance the theory that there's a perspective in which the indefinite article (a/an in English) is not singular (hint: It always, in every circumstance, without exception, singular) then I would be certainly intrigued.

Before starting down such a path, however, a good primer would be this wikipedia page on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_article#Indefinite_article


Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise. "

Eldritch Blast IS multiple attacks, because it has multiple attack rolls. The 3rd step in an attack is to make the (singular) attack roll. If you're making multiple attack rolls, it's because you're making multiple attacks.
The reasoning behind WHY it's multiple attacks doesn't really matter though, because the verbiage is indeed identical to Whirlwind, it's good of you to note that.

Good thing Whirlwind Attack is a singular attack.
Eldritch Blast is not a weapon attack, but a spell attack, hence even if you were correct, you couldn't move between the (simultaneously fired) beams.


Easy to say, more difficult to prove. Abilities like smite apply to the target of your attack. If your attack has multiple targets, then it would spread those effects. You could rule that it should only apply to one, and I wouldn't disagree with you. But this is why clear language is important.

I'm not trying to prove WotC wrong. What I'm trying to do is get a point across: make your language clear, or this kind of crap happens. If they want this kind of thing to happen, want for all of their rules to have multiple interpretations, then they'll carry on.

Actually, Divine Smite is triggered off a "hit". So there can only be one target for that. Searing Smite, same deal, it's on the next hit, whomever that may be.


It doesn't apply to hits; it is trigger by a hit, but its effects are clearly applied to "target".

The hit is the triggering condition for determining whom the target is. No hit, no target. MeeposFire is entirely correct.


His tweet was in response to a question regarding eldritch blast. Are you accusing him of such gross incompetence that you are saying his reply had nothing to do with the question? Come on now. They ruled on Eldritch Blast, and since they all follow the same verbiage, there is indeed no exception.

I think the suggestion might be more likely that he was creating a broadly applicable statement. If you're making multiple attacks, then they only occur simultaneously if they occur simultaneously. You know, like if you are shooting multiple beams, but they can target different people if you want. That would be simultaneous (occurring at the same time).

[Z3ro]

The hit is the triggering condition for determining whom the target is. No hit, no target. MeeposFire is entirely correct.


That's a fine houserule, but it's not RAW. Divine smite clearly states "to the target", not something like "to the target of this ability". Since it doesn't specify, we look to the "making an attack" section which specifies you declare the target before the attack, not after the hit. Nothing in divine smite indicates the target changes between the beginning of the attack and the divine smite triggering.

[Soular]

This whole thing should have been resolved by the first page, but this being the internet, probably not.

I am too lazy to read through three more pages of this.

PHB 93
You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target.

Done.

Whirlwind Attack is a singular action. It allows you to make an attack on any choad within 5 feet of you when you make the attack. See that guy 10 feet away? Suck it Aragorn, you can't attack him.

It doesn't say that you get to move around to get within 5 feet of enemies No, it clearly states that you get to attack anyone within 5 feet of where you are. You moved? Then Whirlwind Attack is over. The wording is absolutely clear. So crystal clear that I suspect that some people have spent their lives using INT as their dump stat. If they wanted you to fly around the field like a Tasmanian devil, they would have baked that into the description instead of gimping it to 5 feet. Otherwise why even mention that restriction?

That's why Extra Attack works; there is no caveat on how far your opponent can be. Wanna hit that guy 10 feet away, no problemo. Just walk up to him.

But that's not how Whirlwind Attack works, no matter how badly you want it to.

[Easy_Lee]

This whole thing should have been resolved by the first page, but this being the internet, probably not.

I am too lazy to read through three more pages of this.

PHB 93
You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target.

Done.

Whirlwind Attack is a singular action. It allows you to make an attack on any choad within 5 feet of you when you make the attack. See that guy 10 feet away? Suck it Aragorn, you can't attack him.

It doesn't say that you get to move around to get within 5 feet of enemies No, it clearly states that you get to attack anyone within 5 feet of where you are. You moved? Then Whirlwind Attack is over. The wording is absolutely clear. So crystal clear that I suspect that some people have spent their lives using INT as their dump stat. If they wanted you to fly around the field like a Tasmanian devil, they would have baked that into the description instead of gimping it to 5 feet. Otherwise why even mention that restriction?

That's why Extra Attack works; there is no caveat on how far your opponent can be. Wanna hit that guy 10 feet away, no problemo. Just walk up to him.

But that's not how Whirlwind Attack works, no matter how badly you want it to.

I dont doubt that your interpretation is rhe intent. But, to be fair, you did add the clause "when you make the attack." The other interpretation, treating separate attack rolls as separate attacks, is just as RAW. WotC ought to release errata clarifying exactly what they mean, none of that single attack business.

[MeeposFire]

That's a fine houserule, but it's not RAW. Divine smite clearly states "to the target", not something like "to the target of this ability". Since it doesn't specify, we look to the "making an attack" section which specifies you declare the target before the attack, not after the hit. Nothing in divine smite indicates the target changes between the beginning of the attack and the divine smite triggering.

The language used in divine smite is all used in singular language not plural. It says "hit a creature", "the target", and "a melee weapon attack". Note that if we are going to be pedantic about this whole thing that the only part that agrees with your assertion is that this is "a melee attack", however having it apply to multiple creatures would violate the clauses that say hit a creature (you need "hit creatures") and the target (you would need targets).

As written divine smite only applies to one hit target due to its own wording. The fact that your singular attack may end up hitting multiple targets does not change the rules for divine smite.


Of course I am of the opinion that whirlwind attack should be considered multiple attacks for many reasons (of which none have anything to do with being able to move or not) which removes any need for this conversation at all but I do think the rules still allow enforcement of one spell slot per hit with WA and paladins even with the one attack WA.

[GiantOctopodes]

First, the section is titled "Making An Attack". It's speaking in the singular because that is to teach the reader how the game mechanics for attacking work. The alternative (speaking in plurals and whatnot) would be needlessly complicated and serve only to create confusion. It's important to note that this is the general rule. Whirlwind Attack is a specific and clear exception, it is "a melee attack" (singular) against "any number of creatures within 5 feet of you" (multiple targets) and "with a separate attack roll for each target" (exception to the general rule).


I think it is important to make something clear here- this is not just general guidelines. This is *all we have* in the rules regarding the structure of an attack. There is nowhere in the rules text that supports the concept of multiple attack rolls being part of the same attack as being *possible*. In the ONLY part of the rules that talks about attacks, it talks exclusively in the singular tense. You say that Whirlwind attack is a specific and clear exception, but it's not. There is an equally valid reading of that sentence from a grammatical standpoint which reads it the same way you yourself read Eldritch Blast. One attack per target. Multiple targets. Multiple attacks. That reading is consistent with these rules, the only rules we have. The interpretation that it is a single attack with multiple targets is being used to justify your stance here that the rules are speaking generally and failing to support your position as a matter of convenience and clarity. Thus, you are using the conclusion to justify itself, which is circular logic. It also muddies up the rules not once but twice, and assumes failings on the behalf of the rules. So, given two equally valid grammatical interpretations, if one is consistent with the text of the rules and the other is not, why, other than a presupposition that the one that is inconsistent with the rules is correct, would one choose it? Put another way, why would someone who does not already share your conclusion start to believe it to be true?



One attack, many targets, many rolls. You can only move between multiple weapon attacks, which this is not (very specifically not).


I've already spoken on why I disagree with the first sentence. In terms of the second sentence, I absolutely agree 100%, that is the rules as written, there can be no debate because it specifies, on both ends.



And no, there are separate hits defined by those separate rolls (one may be hit, but the next not, and so forth). So, for abilities that only work on the next hit like Ensnaring Strike, it's important to determine who you roll to hit first.


But that's just the thing- there shouldn't be a "first" if it's simultaneous. In the same way that you were arguing for Eldritch Blast being a max of 10' with repelling blast, because the riders are resolved simultaneously, the same thing applies here, were we to accept your logic of it being a singular attack. Just like there is no "first" target with a fireball. You may roll all dice simultaneously if you wish, determine all modifiers simultaneously, and apply the hit (including applicable riders) simultaneously, as it is all part of the same attack. This is part of why I'm saying it's muddying up the rules. This is part of why it's important that attacks are separate, because based on the structure of making an attack, it allows rider effects to be resolved before moving on to the next target. If they are discrete attacks, there can be no debate over who is "first" when you're applying the riders, because it's whomever the first attack was against. Saying that "you may pick one target" to have something occur to and "the next" target are two very different things, with distinct implications.

Think of it this way- someone uses whirlwind. They hit all creatures around them, applying all modifiers and rolling all hit dice simultaneously. They see they hit 3 targets. They roll damage, and the result kills the target. They then say "well obviously I'm not applying that one first" and proceed to roll damage for the next target. Since the damage does not kill the creature, they choose to make that creature the "first" one hit amongst the simultaneous hits, thus applying ensnaring strike to that attack. Now, you may well say that since he rolled damage for that one first, that one is the first one to which rider effects apply. However, you would find no support for that determination, because the rules for how simultaneous attacks against multiple targets are resolved are not written anywhere. No rule discusses that as a possibility whatsoever. Since, as you correctly state, which one is first *is* an important determination, that would be a glaring oversight, were such a thing possible. Yet if, as the structure of the rules as written states, an attack is a singular attack roll, and thus whirlwind attack is multiple attacks, there is no oversight, the rules are whole and complete as written. Given that, I find it more likely that such is the case.



If you were looking to advance the theory that there's a perspective in which the indefinite article (a/an in English) is not singular (hint: It always, in every circumstance, without exception, singular) then I would be certainly intrigued.

Before starting down such a path, however, a good primer would be this wikipedia page on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_article#Indefinite_article


Such is a valid reading, when there are multiple targets. And, if each target has its own attack roll (as the singular tense of the rules indicate, as you yourself are making clear here), then there are indeed multiple targets for Volley and Whirlwind (they state as much), and if each target and attack roll pairing comprised an attack (as is stated directly in the only rules that exist on the structure of making an attack), then one attack per target with multiple targets would lead to multiple attacks.

So yes, there is indeed a valid circumstance where "a/an", paired with "each" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/each) results in not being singular. However, you have not provided the same support for violating the singular tense of the attack roll, instead indicating the rules merely failed to cover it.



Good thing Whirlwind Attack is a singular attack.
Eldritch Blast is not a weapon attack, but a spell attack, hence even if you were correct, you couldn't move between the (simultaneously fired) beams.


You are absolutely correct in second sentence, except for where you add the "simultaneously fired" bit, as it has been clarified for Eldritch Blast in particular that such is not the case. But, as noted, for this purpose it does not matter, as you can't move between the attacks anyway. I've covered why I disagree about Whirlwind being a singular attack above.



Actually, Divine Smite is triggered off a "hit". So there can only be one target for that. Searing Smite, same deal, it's on the next hit, whomever that may be.


There can also only be one target for an attack, per the tense of the rules on targets in regards to attacks (the only rules on that subject). And only one hit, for that matter.



The hit is the triggering condition for determining whom the target is. No hit, no target. MeeposFire is entirely correct.



I think the suggestion might be more likely that he was creating a broadly applicable statement. If you're making multiple attacks, then they only occur simultaneously if they occur simultaneously. You know, like if you are shooting multiple beams, but they can target different people if you want. That would be simultaneous (occurring at the same time).

Yes, except the effect you're describing, which is indeed much like Whirlwind, has been clarified as *not* being Simultaneous. The whole point of that ruling was that multiple attacks are not simultaneous unless they are Expressly Stated as being so. You are arguing that Eldritch Blast and Whirlwind Imply they are simultaneous through their verbiage. Implication is not the same as expressly stating something, and your implication fails to follow the rules as written, so I'm disinclined to agree with it.

[Z3ro]

The language used in divine smite is all used in singular language not plural. It says "hit a creature", "the target", and "a melee weapon attack". Note that if we are going to be pedantic about this whole thing that the only part that agrees with your assertion is that this is "a melee attack", however having it apply to multiple creatures would violate the clauses that say hit a creature (you need "hit creatures") and the target (you would need targets).

As written divine smite only applies to one hit target due to its own wording. The fact that your singular attack may end up hitting multiple targets does not change the rules for divine smite.

Except that, due to the a quirk of the English language, you can have multiple creatures be "the target". Who's the target? Every creature within five feet of me. Thus you fulfill all the requirements of divine smite; attacking a singular creature, hitting said singular creature, and having the effects apply to the singular target (every creature within five feet). Preposterous yes, but a grammatically valid way of reading WotC's inconsistent rulings.



Of course I am of the opinion that whirlwind attack should be considered multiple attacks for many reasons (of which none have anything to do with being able to move or not) which removes any need for this conversation at all

On this we agree.


but I do think the rules still allow enforcement of one spell slot per hit with WA and paladins even with the one attack WA.

Yes, they do. But they also support the multi-target, single smite interpretation. That's the whole problem.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's a fine houserule, but it's not RAW. Divine smite clearly states "to the target", not something like "to the target of this ability". Since it doesn't specify, we look to the "making an attack" section which specifies you declare the target before the attack, not after the hit. Nothing in divine smite indicates the target changes between the beginning of the attack and the divine smite triggering.

I don't understand why there's this tendency of posters to call anything they don't like a house rule.

You are however, completely wrong. Your target is whomever you hit, ergo hitting someone is a necessary triggering condition. Instead of cherry picking the phrase "to the target", let's read the whole sentence.

Divine Smite says: "Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature witha melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target."

In this statement, "to the target" is directly referencing the creature you just hit with a melee weapon attack. The smite is declared after the hit, and the spell slot is only ever expended upon use.


I think it is important to make something clear here- this is not just general guidelines. This is *all we have* in the rules regarding the structure of an attack. There is nowhere in the rules text that supports the concept of multiple attack rolls being part of the same attack as being *possible*. In the ONLY part of the rules that talks about attacks, it talks exclusively in the singular tense. You say that Whirlwind attack is a specific and clear exception, but it's not. There is an equally valid reading of that sentence from a grammatical standpoint which reads it the same way you yourself read Eldritch Blast. One attack per target. Multiple targets. Multiple attacks. That reading is consistent with these rules, the only rules we have. The interpretation that it is a single attack with multiple targets is being used to justify your stance here that the rules are speaking generally and failing to support your position as a matter of convenience and clarity. Thus, you are using the conclusion to justify itself, which is circular logic. It also muddies up the rules not once but twice, and assumes failings on the behalf of the rules. So, given two equally valid grammatical interpretations, if one is consistent with the text of the rules and the other is not, why, other than a presupposition that the one that is inconsistent with the rules is correct, would one choose it? Put another way, why would someone who does not already share your conclusion start to believe it to be true?

That's why it's the general guidelines. And it is in the rules, it's in the entry on the Ranger. Whirlwind Attack is providing a specific exception to them by changing the standard of one attack, one target, one attack roll to one attack, many targets, many attack rolls.

That reading is not grammatically accurate because the attack is singular, not attacks plural.


I've already spoken on why I disagree with the first sentence. In terms of the second sentence, I absolutely agree 100%, that is the rules as written, there can be no debate because it specifies, on both ends.

Nowhere does it says that the character is making multiple attacks, or only attacks one target, or makes 1 roll. I think the problem is the improper conflation of melee weapon attacks and attack rolls. Making multiple attack rolls does not necessitate multiple melee attacks.


But that's just the thing- there shouldn't be a "first" if it's simultaneous. In the same way that you were arguing for Eldritch Blast being a max of 10' with repelling blast, because the riders are resolved simultaneously, the same thing applies here, were we to accept your logic of it being a singular attack. Just like there is no "first" target with a fireball. You may roll all dice simultaneously if you wish, determine all modifiers simultaneously, and apply the hit (including applicable riders) simultaneously, as it is all part of the same attack. This is part of why I'm saying it's muddying up the rules. This is part of why it's important that attacks are separate, because based on the structure of making an attack, it allows rider effects to be resolved before moving on to the next target. If they are discrete attacks, there can be no debate over who is "first" when you're applying the riders, because it's whomever the first attack was against. Saying that "you may pick one target" to have something occur to and "the next" target are two very different things, with distinct implications.

Think of it this way- someone uses whirlwind. They hit all creatures around them, applying all modifiers and rolling all hit dice simultaneously. They see they hit 3 targets. They roll damage, and the result kills the target. They then say "well obviously I'm not applying that one first" and proceed to roll damage for the next target. Since the damage does not kill the creature, they choose to make that creature the "first" one hit amongst the simultaneous hits, thus applying ensnaring strike to that attack. Now, you may well say that since he rolled damage for that one first, that one is the first one to which rider effects apply. However, you would find no support for that determination, because the rules for how simultaneous attacks against multiple targets are resolved are not written anywhere. No rule discusses that as a possibility whatsoever. Since, as you correctly state, which one is first *is* an important determination, that would be a glaring oversight, were such a thing possible. Yet if, as the structure of the rules as written states, an attack is a singular attack roll, and thus whirlwind attack is multiple attacks, there is no oversight, the rules are whole and complete as written. Given that, I find it more likely that such is the case.

Well, in a literal sense you start spinning somewhere. So, when the character spins in an attack, they'll hit someone first. That first person hit would be the target in question. The difference is that, attacking the same target, the 4 beams which are generated at the same time would hit at the same time (imagine someone shooting lasers out of their eyes at the same person...there's no reason one eye would land before the other, they'd hit simultaneously). Someone spinning around to hit everyone around them? They'd hit in some order, by necessity.

When you roll the dice for each target, you're picking the order. It's not like you say: Well there are 8 targets around me, so I roll 8 dice and then apply them as I see fit.

Again, this isn't simultaneous attacks plural, it's one attack that has several targets. If you want advice on determining order, I'd suggest you pick a target and then proceeed clockwise or counterclockwise from there. I don't think the order really matters so long as you make one roll per target.


Such is a valid reading, when there are multiple targets. And, if each target has its own attack roll (as the singular tense of the rules indicate, as you yourself are making clear here), then there are indeed multiple targets for Volley and Whirlwind (they state as much), and if each target and attack roll pairing comprised an attack (as is stated directly in the only rules that exist on the structure of making an attack), then one attack per target with multiple targets would lead to multiple attacks.

So yes, there is indeed a valid circumstance where "a/an", paired with "each" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/each) results in not being singular. However, you have not provided the same support for violating the singular tense of the attack roll, instead indicating the rules merely failed to cover it.

The pairing of target and attack roll is not what indicates if there are multiple attacks being made. The use of the phrase: "make a melee attack" is what determines the singular nature. If you want to indicate plural with indefinite articles you want to use the word "some", or better, drop the indefinite article and say "make melee attacks" which would be plural. They didn't do either here.

Whirlwind Attack provides a specific exception to the standard rules on how to make an attack. In this case we're doing one attack, many rolls. They specify that in the ability itself.


You are absolutely correct in second sentence, except for where you add the "simultaneously fired" bit, as it has been clarified for Eldritch Blast in particular that such is not the case. But, as noted, for this purpose it does not matter, as you can't move between the attacks anyway. I've covered why I disagree about Whirlwind being a singular attack above.

Where, and by whom, has it been said that the beams are specifically NOT simultaneous?


There can also only be one target for an attack, per the tense of the rules on targets in regards to attacks (the only rules on that subject). And only one hit, for that matter.

Specific Exception is specific.


Yes, except the effect you're describing, which is indeed much like Whirlwind, has been clarified as *not* being Simultaneous. The whole point of that ruling was that multiple attacks are not simultaneous unless they are Expressly Stated as being so. You are arguing that Eldritch Blast and Whirlwind Imply they are simultaneous through their verbiage. Implication is not the same as expressly stating something, and your implication fails to follow the rules as written, so I'm disinclined to agree with it.

That tweet, if it's what is referred to above, doesn't actually answer the question directly, it provides a general guideline that you've interpreted to answer the way you want it to. Eldritch Blast specifically says when cast it generates multiple beams at higher levels. The beams are generated at the same time, therefore they happen simultaneously, per the Jeremy Crawford tweet that explains when multiple attacks are simultaneous.

(Note: He does NOT specifically say that Eldritch Blast specifically is or isn't simultaneous, but instead he provides the general guideline on how to ascertain when multiple attacks are or aren't simultaneous).

[Z3ro]

I don't understand why there's this tendency of posters to call anything they don't like a house rule.

Seems to be popular on this forum for some reason. Thought I'd join in and be popular for once.



You are however, completely wrong.

Well, not completely. Let's see.

Your target is whomever you hit,

In a RAW debate, you're going to need a reference for this. There is exactly one reference in the PHB to how a target is selected, and it's done before an attack, not after a hit. If you have some other reference, please provide it.


ergo hitting someone is a necessary triggering condition.

This part I don't dispute


Instead of cherry picking the phrase "to the target", let's read the whole sentence.

Let's try that, as I've never made it a point to cut apart the sentence, except to clarify.


Divine Smite says: "Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature witha melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target."

In this statement, "to the target" is directly referencing the creature you just hit with a melee weapon attack. The smite is declared after the hit, and the spell slot is only ever expended upon use.


Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Nothing in that description suggests you chose your target any differently for a smite than you do for any other attack. Therefore, your target is still selected before the attack, not after the smite. If you can point to something that says you can change targets, please do.

For the record, if you think this is ridiculous, so do I. I'm merely pointing that ridiculousness out, given the WotC clarification.

[Vogonjeltz]

In a RAW debate, you're going to need a reference for this. There is exactly one reference in the PHB to how a target is selected, and it's done before an attack, not after a hit. If you have some other reference, please provide it.

The ability itself: "When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack". The ability can't activate till after a hit has landed, so the list of potential targets is a universe of 1: something that has just been hit with a melee weapon attack.

I 'think' we're saying more or less the same thing. I agree, you choose who you're attacking which occurs sometime before divine smite can even be activated, but you can't activate divine smite unless you hit, and when you do, you only have one target option.

(reviewing the rest of the post, it appears to me that we are more or less saying the same thing.)

[GiantOctopodes]

That's why it's the general guidelines. And it is in the rules, it's in the entry on the Ranger. Whirlwind Attack is providing a specific exception to them by changing the standard of one attack, one target, one attack roll to one attack, many targets, many attack rolls.

That reading is not grammatically accurate because the attack is singular, not attacks plural.

So you are using your conclusion to justify itself. That is circular logic.




Nowhere does it says that the character is making multiple attacks, or only attacks one target, or makes 1 roll. I think the problem is the improper conflation of melee weapon attacks and attack rolls. Making multiple attack rolls does not necessitate multiple melee attacks.

Here there is something I've been meaning to ask you. What is the grammatically superior way it should have been written? I'm genuinely curious, you apparently have at least some knowledge on this topic, how *should* it have been written to be how I claim it to be, where it indicates you are making one attack per target, with multiple possible targets (and thus multiple attacks)? My argument is not that Whirlwind says it makes multiple attacks, or only attacks one target, or only makes one roll. I argue the opposite, that it indicates specifically it is multiple rolls. I further posit that based on the rules as written in the section on making an attack, one attack *must* include a singular roll, and thus, the inclusion of multiple targets necessitates multiple attacks. Even if they didn't quite write it correctly there, it is one thing to ignore one potential grammatical error (I after all still read it as I posit was intended), it is another thing entirely to ignore the tense on an entire section of the rules.



Well, in a literal sense you start spinning somewhere. So, when the character spins in an attack, they'll hit someone first. That first person hit would be the target in question. The difference is that, attacking the same target, the 4 beams which are generated at the same time would hit at the same time (imagine someone shooting lasers out of their eyes at the same person...there's no reason one eye would land before the other, they'd hit simultaneously). Someone spinning around to hit everyone around them? They'd hit in some order, by necessity.


I am well aware that in a literal sense when you execute the maneuver as you describe it occurring to justify your position, by necessity the attacks do not actually occur simultaneously, but rather are sequential assaults on targets in a circular order, which is exactly how I describe the mechanics working based upon the rules as written in the section on making attacks.



When you roll the dice for each target, you're picking the order. It's not like you say: Well there are 8 targets around me, so I roll 8 dice and then apply them as I see fit.

When you roll what dice? The attack roll dice? The damage dice? It's not like you can fault someone for rolling damage dice in a different order from to hit dice, after all, right? It's all part of the same step, step 3, resolving the attack. There's nothing in there that describes choosing the order in which to resolve for multiple targets. And since it's all the same attack, how is it wrong, at all, to just roll different colored dice for all targets and do it all at once?



Again, this isn't simultaneous attacks plural, it's one attack that has several targets. If you want advice on determining order, I'd suggest you pick a target and then proceeed clockwise or counterclockwise from there. I don't think the order really matters so long as you make one roll per target.

Exactly. You're resolving one attack. You don't, according to you, need to finish resolving one attack before moving on to the next because they're all the same attack. So if it's not wrong to roll all dice simultaneously (you are, according to you, attacking simultaneously), which set of colored device is affected by the spell, and how did you make that arbitrary distinction?



The pairing of target and attack roll is not what indicates if there are multiple attacks being made. The use of the phrase: "make a melee attack" is what determines the singular nature. If you want to indicate plural with indefinite articles you want to use the word "some", or better, drop the indefinite article and say "make melee attacks" which would be plural. They didn't do either here.


You get that it is one attack if there's only one target, right? It is conditionally singular, depending on the tense of target(s). How do they properly express that for you? You can make some attack(s) against any number of creatures within 5' of you? That doesn't in any way indicate it's a single attack per target. Make melee attacks against any number of creatures within 5' of you? That's definitely plural! There seems to be no question that you get more than one attack per target with that tense, just a question of how many. Neither of those adequately writes that you make a single attack per target, which is what I'm arguing. So how is that written correctly?



Whirlwind Attack provides a specific exception to the standard rules on how to make an attack. In this case we're doing one attack, many rolls. They specify that in the ability itself.

I'm arguing they don't.




Where, and by whom, has it been said that the beams are specifically NOT simultaneous?

Jeremy Crawford, twice in two different tweets in the last week, since he's been asked on this very topic. But even disregarding that, are you truly arguing that everything in the book is simultaneous unless written otherwise? That the "default state" is simultaneous? That's exactly the opposite of what he specified! He indicated "Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise." That means that it doesn't NEED to say it's not simultaneous, that the DEFAULT STATE is sequential or non-simultaneous, which is exactly what I am indicating also applies to Whirlwind Attack.



That tweet, if it's what is referred to above, doesn't actually answer the question directly, it provides a general guideline that you've interpreted to answer the way you want it to. Eldritch Blast specifically says when cast it generates multiple beams at higher levels. The beams are generated at the same time, therefore they happen simultaneously, per the Jeremy Crawford tweet that explains when multiple attacks are simultaneous.

(Note: He does NOT specifically say that Eldritch Blast specifically is or isn't simultaneous, but instead he provides the general guideline on how to ascertain when multiple attacks are or aren't simultaneous)

If you don't like that one, how about the one where he is asked this
"If you get 3 attacks with Eldritch Blast, can the first attack push the target out of range of the next two attacks?"
And responded with this:
"Yes, Repelling Blast can push a target out of the range of subsequent beams from eldritch blast."
If there is a first, and next, attacks, and subsequent beams, explain to me how Eldritch Blast is supposed to still be simultaneous?

[Xetheral]

Out of curiosity, where does the idea that whirlwind attack somehow involves spinning come from? I've never thought of it that way.

Is it from the definition of whirlwind? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/whirlwind Because I think that's relying on the wrong sense of the word: to me, "whirlwind attack" refers to a tumultuous or energetic process rather than a cylindrical column of air.

Also, how would a spinning attack even work? To function, you'd need to only deal surface wounds or else cleave entirely through each target. Normal "hits" would completely stop the momentum of the blade. Obviously real world physics need not apply, but for those of you who think of it as spinning, how do you describe it? Does the blade teleport through the enemies after hitting them so that the circle can be completed?

[Kryx]

A spinning attack is common in rpgs. Take Diablo for instance where one of the barbarian's main schticks was to spin (and move very slowly). 3.5 and PF both use spinning for whirlwind.

There are hundreds of things in D&D that don't make sense when you apply real world physics.

[Xetheral]

A spinning attack is common in rpgs. Take Diablo for instance where one of the barbarian's main schticks was to spin (and move very slowly). 3.5 and PF both use spinning for whirlwind.

While it is a common visual animation for a concept otherwise challenging to depict, I've never imagined that in tabletop RPGs it would be interpreted as a literal spin (with a possible exception for games such as Exalted). Good catch on 3.5 though: I've never noticed that wording in the description of the feat before.


There are hundreds of things in D&D that don't make sense when you apply real world physics.

True, but when there are two available thematic interpretations and one creates a physics problem and the other doesn't, I'm inclined to go with the less problematic one.

In any case, it seems a little strange to base the mechanical interpretation of "one attack or many attacks" on a particular thematic interpretation of that mechanical ability without extrinsic evidence that the designers were deliberately trying to model that interpretation.

[Kryx]

I'm not sure if they chose the mechanics based on thematics or not. It likely was historical and thematical.

If Whirlwind allowed movement the name should change - PersonMan gave 2 suggestions in one these threads for abilities in D&D that have historically allowed you to move + attack everything on the way.
I, personally, wouldn't choose to do so. I think the thematics are fine.

[Soular]

Also, how would a spinning attack even work? To function, you'd need to only deal surface wounds or else cleave entirely through each target. Normal "hits" would completely stop the momentum of the blade. Obviously real world physics need not apply, but for those of you who think of it as spinning, how do you describe it? Does the blade teleport through the enemies after hitting them so that the circle can be completed?

There are movies where this is done. Kill Bill and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon had this, IIRC. There were moments where the heroine(s) spins around with her sword and multiple baddies fall down maimed or dead. Surface wounds with a slashing sword like a katana can easily disembowel a human.

Anyway, I think that is what they were going for with WWA.

It makes sense given the type of swords used, I guess. But I can't see how it would work with something like an ax or hammer.

________________EDIT_________________

This is pretty much exactly how I would expect WWA to work. Look at what she does at 0:36. She takes one swing and wrecks three guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWqnZTTRkm4

[Once a Fool]

There are movies where this is done. Kill Bill and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon had this, IIRC. There were moments where the heroine(s) spins around with her sword and multiple baddies fall down maimed or dead. Surface wounds with a slashing sword like a katana can easily disembowel a human.

Anyway, I think that is what they were going for with WWA.

It makes sense given the type of swords used, I guess. But I can't see how it would work with something like an ax or hammer.

________________EDIT_________________

This is pretty much exactly how I would expect WWA to work. Look at what she does at 0:36. She takes one swing and wrecks three guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWqnZTTRkm4

A few points:

1: Thank you for getting me to rewatch those movies. As it happens, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is only available on Netflix through tomorrow.

2: In both movies, the sword (and note that, in both cases, it is a slashing weapon that is used) used for such maneuvers is legendary and specifically sharp enough to cleave through pretty much anything. Without that quality, the ability to pull off the maneuver is questionable.

3: In the case of Kill Bill, the maneuver is also used while moving between foes on more than one occasion (once while prone--swinging in an arc while essentially breakdancing; pretty sweet). If we are taking these examples as inspiration, this suggests that Whirlwind Attack should allow movements between targets, even if it is only one attack.

4: Volume 1 of Kill Bill is a (mostly) live-action anime with lots of wuxia elements. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is straight-up wuxia. These are great, and it's great that 5e can support the style, but not everyone actually wants to play D&D in that style. No class feature should enforce it. Fortunately, there is a perfectly valid reading of Whirlwind Attack which, while still perhaps over the top, narratively, doesn't require as much bending of the laws of physics.



But, again, thanks for getting me to rewatch those movies!

[Soular]

3: In the case of Kill Bill, the maneuver is also used while moving between foes on more than one occasion (once while prone--swinging in an arc while essentially breakdancing; pretty sweet). If we are taking these examples as inspiration, this suggests that Whirlwind Attack should allow movements between targets, even if it is only one attack.

A counterpoint:

When Uma Thurman does the sweeping attack I specified, it is one strike. So essentially she wrecks three guys with one attack. That is why I chose it as a great example of WWA.

However, as you pointed out, she also moves through many opponents, slashing her way through them. But when she does this she is using individual strikes, almost one or two per opponent. This is NOT Whirlwind Attack. This is a separate attack per enemy.

_____EDIT_____

Of course this is just my opinion. I just put forth these examples to illustrate how WWA could work.

[Easy_Lee]

Just to be clear on Whirlwind Attack, the text doesn't actually say how it should be imagined. I imagine that its specifics are personal to the user.

Someone wants to play a Diablo 2 inspired ranger: it's a whirlwind.
Someone wants to play a LOTR inspired ranger: it's a cleaving attack.
Someone wants to play a weeaboo ranger: he sticks his sword in the ground and it does some kind of lightshow explosion (or whatever the plot requires).

I don't think there's a right way.

[Once a Fool]

A counterpoint:

When Uma Thurman does the sweeping attack I specified, it is one strike. So essentially she wrecks three guys with one attack. That is why I chose it as a great example of WWA.

However, as you pointed out, she also moves through many opponents, slashing her way through them. But when she does this she is using individual strikes, almost one or two per opponent. This is NOT Whirlwind Attack. This is a separate attack per enemy.

_____EDIT_____

Of course this is just my opinion. I just put forth these examples to illustrate how WWA could work.

Oh, I agree that the example you posted illustrates what you were talking about. The ones I'm referring to (in the same extended fight scene, no less) are also single slashes that each get more than one foe. While she is on the move. Obviously, there are many more individual attacks throughout, as well.