Haste + Volley/Whirlwind

[ThermalSlapShot]

So since Volley and Whirlwind are one attack due to JC/Tweets/Errata... Does that allow Volley/Whirlwind to be used as the weapon attack via Haste?

I'm away from my books and may not get home till tomorrow and I would like to know if any wording in WW/Volley would go against this.

Thanks in advance!

[Z3ro]

Nope it totally works. Haste gives you an extra action that you can use to make one weapon attack. Whirlwind and presumably volley, since they're worded the same, apparently grant a single weapon attack, thus qualifying for haste. A decent combo, but not as good as a moving whirlwind.

[SharkForce]

huh. well, if you have a pair of hunter rangers in your party, i may have to retract my opinion that twinned haste is still not generally worth casting. heck, this might actually be worth using even as a regular haste.

better have everyone in the party loaded up with a ridiculous amount of ammo though.

[GiantOctopodes]

First, Whirlwind and Volley are definitely not just one attack, regardless of what any clarifications say. Considering them a single attack but still applying all the normal effects associated with an attack to each roll not only doesn't fit the letter or spirit of the rules, it also open up the ability to interpret it in such a way as to allow game breaking exploits like having Lightning Arrow trigger once per target hit or similar nonsense. If you make an attack roll, you're making an attack, and whirlwind and volley involve multiple attack rolls, and thus multiple attacks.

Second, it doesn't work regardless. The text of haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" Note that it does not allow one weapon attack, it allows you to take the attack action, which it specifically then limits to a single weapon attack. When using Volley or Whirlwind, you are not using the Attack action, even if they involve attack rolls.

[Easy_Lee]

Haha. Yeah, like Giant said, whirlwind and volley are multiple attacks. You can move between those attacks, as per the rules. So WotC is full of crap, basically.

Here's what they, apparently, intended with whirlwind: you may make one attack against any number of opponents who are within 5' of you when you activate this ability.

Was that hard? No. It's also weaker than it should be, so I just use the actual RAW text.

[ThermalSlapShot]

First, Whirlwind and Volley are definitely not just one attack, regardless of what any clarifications say. Considering them a single attack but still applying all the normal effects associated with an attack to each roll not only doesn't fit the letter or spirit of the rules, it also open up the ability to interpret it in such a way as to allow game breaking exploits like having Lightning Arrow trigger once per target hit or similar nonsense. If you make an attack roll, you're making an attack, and whirlwind and volley involve multiple attack rolls, and thus multiple attacks.

Second, it doesn't work regardless. The text of haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" Note that it does not allow one weapon attack, it allows you to take the attack action, which it specifically then limits to a single weapon attack. When using Volley or Whirlwind, you are not using the Attack action, even if they involve attack rolls.


Haha. Yeah, like Giant said, whirlwind and volley are multiple attacks. You can move between those attacks, as per the rules. So WotC is full of crap, basically.

Here's what they, apparently, intended with whirlwind: you may make one attack against any number of opponents who are within 5' of you when you activate this ability.

Was that hard? No. It's also weaker than it should be, so I just use the actual RAW text.

Regardless of your opinion, it is RAW that Whirlwind and Volley are both one attack as the wotc has said multiple times now that JC tweets do work as clarifying RAW. I don't like it anymore than you do.

This isn't about how silly that ruling is, but how them ruling in such a way and then using haste works.

You two are flat out wrong about Whirlwind and Volley. They are one attack. Homebrew your own games all you like but AL and RAW games (which is also what runs these forums) says otherwise.

This may or may not work due to wording of haste but Whirlwind and Volley are each one attack regardless of what the original PHB says.

You can not move between attacks with Whirlwind. I want to clarify this as JC has confirmed it already.

[Easy_Lee]

Regardless of your opinion, it is RAW that Whirlwind and Volley are both one attack as the wotc has said multiple times now that JC tweets do work as clarifying RAW. I don't like it anymore than you do.

I don't doubt what they meant, what I'm saying is that it takes errata for the text to reflect what they meant. I wasn't trying to insult you or anyone else in the thread; sorry if it came across that way.

[GiantOctopodes]

Regardless of your opinion, it is RAW that Whirlwind and Volley are both one attack as the wotc has said multiple times now that JC tweets do work as clarifying RAW. I don't like it anymore than you do.

This isn't about how silly that ruling is, but how them ruling in such a way and then using haste works.

You two are flat out wrong about Whirlwind and Volley. They are one attack. Homebrew your own games all you like but AL and RAW games (which is also what runs these forums) says otherwise.

This may or may not work due to wording of haste but Whirlwind and Volley are each one attack regardless of what the original PHB says.

You can not move between attacks with Whirlwind. I want to clarify this as JC has confirmed it already.

Suffice it to say I disagree. The Rules as Written do not set up Volley as one attack, and nowhere in the PHB or errata does it say that JC tweets work as clarifying RAW, thus it is not RAW that they would modify RAW. AL and RAW games may follow those all they want, that doesn't actually make it RAW. I am glad we agree how silly the ruling is. I also thoroughly disagree about moving between attacks with whirlwind, as the rules written in the book that was published and sold to me expressly allow you to do exactly that, an errata was released for that book, and that errata also does not change those existing rules.

However, there are other threads around that exact topic already, and it appears we agree about the subject matter at hand, that Haste does not allow you to use Whirlwind and Volley, in the same way you could not cast Shocking Grasp in lieu of an attack, despite the fact that it contains an attack roll and thus an attack within the spell, it's a different action. Thus, won't speak further on my thoughts regarding the multiple attack issue of whirlwind within this topic, as I do not wish to derail your thread. We've both said our piece regarding it, I understand and respect your opinion, though it differs from my own.

[Giant2005]

Second, it doesn't work regardless. The text of haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" Note that it does not allow one weapon attack, it allows you to take the attack action, which it specifically then limits to a single weapon attack. When using Volley or Whirlwind, you are not using the Attack action, even if they involve attack rolls.

This man speaks the truth.

[Easy_Lee]

When using Volley or Whirlwind, you are not using the Attack action, even if they involve attack rolls.

This is actually one more unfortunate thing about Whirlwind. If you're a two weapon fighter, you have to take the attack action in order to get your bonus attack. But whirlwind is not the attack action, so it technically doesn't work (even though I suspect most DMs would be okay with it).

[djreynolds]

I think its obvious that whirlwind and volley are "theater of the mind elements," that you are describing Drizzt killing a bunch of orcs with slashes and stabs, and he ducks here and parries there.

But my issue is with a two weapon fighter (and even a polearm master) and more over the possible different bonuses of each weapon. Drizzt has two swords right, each with different properties. And one with a silly name... but I digress.

Its obvious that you're not just stabbing out with just one weapon whilst the other hangs limply at your side. Or are you. I know the dual wielder feat adds a +1 bonus to AC, so maybe with the off hand weapon you're parrying. But not striking out too with that off hand dagger. How does this work with a great weapon master feat and his bonus cleaves and whirlwind? Which end of the magical frost polearm gets the ice damage bonuses.

This is actually a problem with 5E, is that the feats and features need some re-writing. Or perhaps just break the feats back up into single elements again, such as power attack cleave and great cleave instead of great weapon master and then give more feat allowances. IMO crossbow expert has gotten out of hand, may as well have a wild west 6 shooter.

There is a lot going on with whirlwind. I questioned how a warlock or paladin ranger multiclass could use their hexes/ or smites. How does a weapon with reach affect whirlwind, because volley allows you to fire an arrow at everybody what says you can't stab multiple people with a spear at 10 feet or a quarterstaff. You know 3.5 came out because of mistakes in 3.0. I like 5E, I like two weapon fighting better in 5E because its simpler and not such a negative to the main hand attack as it was in previous editions but you did get multiple off hand attacks.

I need expert clarification.

[Citan]

Regardless of your opinion, it is RAW that Whirlwind and Volley are both one attack as the wotc has said multiple times now that JC tweets do work as clarifying RAW. I don't like it anymore than you do.

You two are flat out wrong about Whirlwind and Volley. They are one attack. Homebrew your own games all you like but AL and RAW games (which is also what runs these forums) says otherwise.

This may or may not work due to wording of haste but Whirlwind and Volley are each one attack regardless of what the original PHB says.

You can not move between attacks with Whirlwind. I want to clarify this as JC has confirmed it already.
Nope, you're as wrong as them. :smalltongue:
PHB regarding Ranger abilities says:

"MultiAttack: At 11th level, you gain one of the following features of your choice...
Volley: You can USE YOUR ACTION to make a ranged attack against any number etc.
Whirlwind Attack: you can USE YOUR ACTION to make a melee attack against any number etc."
So, whatever the errata says for the sake of interactions between Volley/Whirlwind and some bonus damage brought by feature/spell/feat, it clearly defines additional actions.
It's not saying "you can use your Attack action" or anything like it, so, it's not modifying the action "Attack" (such as Extra attack would do) but defining a distinct, new Action.

TL;DR: Volley and Whirlwind are actions in itselves, hence different and independant from Attack action.
Hence the total incompatibility with Haste which specifically allows a modified, dumbed down version of the Attack action.

Simple as that. :smallcool:

[ThermalSlapShot]

I don't doubt what they meant, what I'm saying is that it takes errata for the text to reflect what they meant. I wasn't trying to insult you or anyone else in the thread; sorry if it came across that way.

Not insult, do that all you want, I won't care if you insult me one bit.

But so many people use their houserules as RAW so when people see it online they think it is RAW which I've seen have a direct negative influence on real life games.

Anyways I was sleepy and probably came off more combatant than I should have.

The following is from wotc

"Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice."

So any rulings that JC makes via tweets as answers to 5e questions is the RAW and are essentially mini errata if the answer is not exactly what it says in the book.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/17/whirlwind-attack/


Whirlwind/Volley are single weapon attacks.
You can not move during Whirlwind.
Multiple damage rolls but suggested that it be one damage roll to speed up play.

The first two are RAW as JC has made a ruling clarification. The third is a suggestion for a single damage roll so you could say by RAW you get a damage roll for each target.

Don't get me wrong though. I think this is one clusterdump of an issue that they made for no reason other than "non-magic = badwrongfun" but the rules are the rules.

I do find the image of Volley to be like the following and I'm good with that...


http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/robinhoodmultishot_5559.jpg


Edit

Of course waiting 11 levels for the Legend of Zelda spin attack is my issue.

[coredump]

{scrubbed}



Its obvious that you're not just stabbing out with just one weapon whilst the other hangs limply at your side. Or are you. I know the dual wielder feat adds a +1 bonus to AC, so maybe with the off hand weapon you're parrying. But not striking out too with that off hand dagger. There is nothing stopping you from attacking with either weapon. Attack with the sword, or the dagger, or mix and match. The only time it matters is when utilizing the rules for two weapon fighting for a bonus attack.


How does this work with a great weapon master feat and his bonus cleaves and whirlwind? Just like it says. If you get a crit or a kill, you get one bonus attack... I don't see the confusion.


Which end of the magical frost polearm gets the ice damage bonuses. I believe the rules assume that you weild a weapon as intended to get the stated results. Using a +1 bow as a club would not give you +1 attk/dmg. Trying to slice someone with a mace, or poke someone with a club, will not get the damage result listed. Holding the blade of a scimitar and hitting with the hilt will not do the expected damage, even if it is a Flametongue sword.
I see no reason to expect an Ice Glaive to do any extra damage with the haft of the weapon. But hey, if you want to play that way.... have at it.



This is actually a problem with 5E, is that the feats and features need some re-writing. Or perhaps just break the feats back up into single elements again, such as power attack cleave and great cleave instead of great weapon master and then give more feat allowances. No thank you. I do not want to return to the days of multiple feat trees.... If you really want that, I hear Pathfinder still uses that system.


There is a lot going on with whirlwind. I questioned how a warlock or paladin ranger multiclass could use their hexes/ or smites. Just like it says... each melee attack gets an extra D6, or XD8 if you want to spend the spell slots.



How does a weapon with reach affect whirlwind, Why would it? The spell says 'within 5'", not "within range".

because volley allows you to fire an arrow at everybody what says you can't stab multiple people with a spear at 10 feet or a quarterstaff. No idea what you mean with this one... if this is a question I need more info.

[ThermalSlapShot]

{scrubbed}

[Psionic]

Okay, hold on tight, I'm actually going to take the time to debunk this before it hits one of MY tables because of misinformation:

1. Whirlwind is One Attack

This is misinformed, and misinformation. I will clearly define the wording used to elaborate the point.

"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"

I've underlined the important bits, so one can understand the logistics of the wording. First off, "Your action" states that you must expend an actual action, whether it's given to you by Action surge or otherwise. Whirlwind attack is a deceptive name, specifically on the basis that RAW and RAI, it's not even an attack action. It's JUST an action. The fact that it makes attacks does not make it an attack action. Actions grant attacks, they aren't attacks by force. When you use your action, you apply it specifically to any ability that is costed as an "action" and then your action is expended. This is why Action Surge is so good, it's one of the easiest and cheapest ways to gain a full action (which absolutely could be used for Volley or Whirlwind attack, by the way) as opposed to partial, or restricted actions, like Haste.

That being said, it is absolutely, ONE attack because of RAW and the sensibility any person born in the last ~5-40 years gains when envisioning a "whirlwind attack." It's a spin attack. You stand in place, and spin. Does that mean you can use it with haste? Absolutely not. You must use a full action to access this type of attack, as shown above. Haste grants an attack action:

"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."

See that underlined list? That is not a summary of what Haste allows you to do with the action. That is a RAW, and RAI action list, covering all of the actual game mechanics that can be performed using the action. You are allowed to make the "attack action" limited to one attack. You can take the "Dash Action," the "Disengage action," the "Hide action" or the "Use an Object" action, which are all clearly defined as their own actions in the game. That is the entirety of haste, you can do one of those things with the additional action it grants you.

Is the "Whirlwind Attack" action on the list? No? It's not usable then. Don't give me "But if they put down every action in the game the list would be too long and Haste would be a bore to read." This isn't a serious claim, considering the fact that casting a spell is it's own specific action that isn't covered by Haste, and outside of the spell list there are just a few actions belonging to classes that would have to be intentionally added or omitted to clarify for each case. In the end, none of them are available because it wasn't intended to be used in that manner.

So, to clarify point one:

Whirlwind is an Action that grants you one attack
Haste gives you an action that is allowed to take five specific action options: Attack, Dash, Disengage, Hide, Use an Object.
Whirlwind is not an attack action, RAW or RAI. It is an action, and specifically requires an action spent on it.
Haste cannot be used to activate Whirlwind Attack, because the mechanic itself is an action, not an option that can be taken when attacking

2. Moving between Attacks

Remember how I made a mention confirming that Whirlwind Attack is one attack, granted to you by your action? The reason for that is simple, it is. It's a single attack, made against multiple targets with a separate attack roll for each. From RAW again:

"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. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again."

First off, note that it specifically calls for an action taken by the PC (or NPC) that includes more than one attack. This obviously includes the basic attack action when taken by most combat classes, but it can also count for other options that make Multiple Attacks.

Whirlwind attack, as we have clearly defined, does Not make multiple attacks. It makes One attack against any number of enemies within 5 feet. The clarity is easy when you have it broken down correctly. Whirlwind Attack is an action which requires a lot of skill. You judge the distance of all the enemies around you, and manage to attack them all at once while sparing your allies and providing a reliable hit. But it's one single spin, one attack. Each enemy will react differently to being attacked with this maneuver, which is why the attack role is necessary for each (also counts for where you are aiming as the attacker against armor and such) but it in no way suggests that you can move to include more enemies in your attack spread.

This all goes back to the clause of it being "an action." When you take an action, you take it there and now, and you follow the process in the rules (or houserules) for the action. All of the rules for Whirlwind attack are pretty clear. You must spend your action to take ONE attack against the surrounding enemies within your range. The "Moving Between Attacks" rule states that you must make multiple attacks with an action to move in-between attacks. You make separate attack rolls, but it's all part of the same attack. This also doesn't count as a Multiattack, because it doesn't have multiple parts.

So, clarifying point 2:

Moving between attacks is allowed when making a single action involving multiple weapon attacks
Whirlwind Attack is an action that grants one attack against multiple targets
The "Moving Between Attacks" rule does not apply since you make one attack
Whirlwind attack, therefore requires you to stand in place.

Any other rules I need to clear up on this subject? I pray this is the last time and hope this becomes a reference guide for people who come looking for answers on this subject.

[Easy_Lee]

Strictly RAW:

There is no mainhand or offhand. If you hold two weapons, you may use either for each individual attack roll. If both are light, you may bonus attack with one after attacking with the other.
Whirlwind makes multiple attack rolls, thus is multiple attacks.
You may move between attacks.

errata: Whirlwind attack and volley are one attack.

Things like lightning arrow and smite apply to one attack.
Since volley and whirlwind are not the attack action, they do not allow bonus action attacks from things like TWF or crossbow expert.

You'll notice that the errata creates another problem, brought up in the OP. If whirlwind and volley are one attack, then you only roll once and can apply things like lightning arrow, ensnaring strike, or smite to the whole thing (not their intent, but a result of the wording).

What they meant: whirlwind and volley do not allow movement between attacks, overriding the general rule.

It's sad when we have to fix WotC's errata for them. It's even worse when rangers get an archetype feature which is inferior to most AoE spells, that one of their AoE options is superior to the other (larger AoE and longer range on volley), and that rangers don't even get this option until 11.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It's sad when we have to fix WotC's errata for them. It's even worse when rangers get an archetype feature which is inferior to most AoE spells, that one of their AoE options is superior to the other (larger AoE and longer range on volley), and that rangers don't even get this option until 11.

Do you not remember the 3e/4e errata issues? This isn't exactly new.

It isn't sad anymore, it is par for the course.

But all of this is what happens when you have an unbalanced game AND new ruling based on martial = badwrongfun.

[coredump]

You'll notice that the errata creates another problem, brought up in the OP. If whirlwind and volley are one attack, then you only roll once and can apply things like lightning arrow, ensnaring strike, or smite to the whole thing (not their intent, but a result of the wording).
.
No, you can't. The wording is not that lax, and what you are trying does not work.




But all of this is what happens when you have an unbalanced game AND new ruling based on martial = badwrongfun.
You keep making that claim, as if repetition will somehow make it become true. You have no basis for your mindreading, and most that you come up with turns out to be wrong.

[Kryx]

as if repetition will somehow make it become true.
Welcome to GiantITP as of late. The strict RAW adherents are out in force and the rules are being heavily manipulated.

[Easy_Lee]

No, you can't. The wording is not that lax, and what you are trying does not work.

Abilities like smite apply to one attack. If whirlwind is one attack...all I'm saying is that WotC should have thought this through. There were a lot of ways to errata the ability to be the way they wanted it to be.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Welcome to GiantITP as of late. The strict RAW adherents are out in force and the rules are being heavily manipulated.

Well to be fair, the only way to have a conversation about anything is if everyone is talking about the same thing.


Abilities like smite apply to one attack. If whirlwind is one attack...all I'm saying is that WotC should have thought this through. There were a lot of ways to errata the ability to be the way they wanted it to be.

Hmmm

Whirlwind Smite/Sneak Attack now applies sneak attack/Smite damage to all hit by the Whirlwind.

Nice

[Inglorin]

Abilities like smite apply to one attack. If whirlwind is one attack...all I'm saying is that WotC should have thought this through. There were a lot of ways to errata the ability to be the way they wanted it to be.

No, they don't. They apply to the next hit. Only one of the hits you do with the single attack can be your next. You may still decide which of those it is, but still ... only the next.

[PoeticDwarf]

So since Volley and Whirlwind are one attack due to JC/Tweets/Errata... Does that allow Volley/Whirlwind to be used as the weapon attack via Haste?

I'm away from my books and may not get home till tomorrow and I would like to know if any wording in WW/Volley would go against this.

Thanks in advance!

I don't think you can do it multiple times.

[coredump]

Abilities like smite apply to one attack. If whirlwind is one attack...all I'm saying is that WotC should have thought this through. There were a lot of ways to errata the ability to be the way they wanted it to be.
{scrubbed}

The damage triggers not on "one attack" but when you "hit a creature...with an attack"
Please note the singular of *a* creature, and that 'an' attack denotes a specific attack...ie not 'any' attack, not 'all' attacks.
Then you can expend a slot to deal extra damage to "the target" Please again note *the* (singular) target; not 'all', not 'any'.
And the damage is "the weapon's damage". Once again, singular... and also refers to the damage done. Damage done is unique to each different target, and inherently tied to each different attack roll.

So your attempt to apply extra damage to any and all damage rolls of any and all targets.... doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. The rules say it applies to one target, which via context is obviously referencing the *a* creature that you hit.

[Easy_Lee]

Lazy reading is not the fault of WotC.

The damage triggers not on "one attack" but when you "hit a creature...with an attack"
Please note the singular of *a* creature, and that 'an' attack denotes a specific attack...ie not 'any' attack, not 'all' attacks.
Then you can expend a slot to deal extra damage to "the target" Please again note *the* (singular) target; not 'all', not 'any'.
And the damage is "the weapon's damage". Once again, singular... and also refers to the damage done. Damage done is unique to each different target, and inherently tied to each different attack roll.

So your attempt to apply extra damage to any and all damage rolls of any and all targets.... doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. The rules say it applies to one target, which via context is obviously referencing the *a* creature that you hit.

First off, why in the nine hells are you being so aggressive?

Second, usage if the word "an attack" means sneak attack and the like apply to one attack. That's basic English, and you'd have to be some kind of rules lawyer to try to argue against that. If Whirlwind is one attack with multiple targets, then it's very easy to argue that the abilities that apply to one attack apply to all targets hit, functioning like a twinned attack (see metamagic). The first time I read Whirlwind, I assumed that ensnaring strike could be used with it to ensnare a group. I had to reread Whirlwind and realize that it was actually several attacks, not one, to confirm that this didn't work. But now the errata has made it work, by RAW.

Third, and this is important, do you honestly believe that any of us are going to try to use this in game? You're wrong if you do. The point of this thread is simple: WotC fails to understand their own rules, or consider the implications of those things they write, when it comes to D&D.

Part of me suspects this is deliberate. Maybe WotC believes that arguing over rules is part of the fun of the game. But I don't like it, and I'm not alone. Rules should be clear and unambiguous.

[Vogonjeltz]

First, Whirlwind and Volley are definitely not just one attack, regardless of what any clarifications say. Considering them a single attack but still applying all the normal effects associated with an attack to each roll not only doesn't fit the letter or spirit of the rules, it also open up the ability to interpret it in such a way as to allow game breaking exploits like having Lightning Arrow trigger once per target hit or similar nonsense. If you make an attack roll, you're making an attack, and whirlwind and volley involve multiple attack rolls, and thus multiple attacks.

Second, it doesn't work regardless. The text of haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" Note that it does not allow one weapon attack, it allows you to take the attack action, which it specifically then limits to a single weapon attack. When using Volley or Whirlwind, you are not using the Attack action, even if they involve attack rolls.

One attack, multiple rolls, the text itself is clear on this point already ("a" ranged attack; "a" melee attack; singular in both cases.). But you're correct that it wouldn't apply with haste because they aren't the Attack action.

[Easy_Lee]

One attack, multiple rolls, the text itself is clear on this point already ("a" ranged attack; "a" melee attack; singular in both cases.). But you're correct that it wouldn't apply with haste because they aren't the Attack action.

If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. The phrase "an attack against any number of targets" can be read as one attack with multiple targets (one attack roll) or one attack against each target (multiple rolls). As I've said before, neither of these is what WotC actually meant.

Don't try to defend WotC. They screwed up on this one, that much us obvious.

[Yagyujubei]

I would absolutely try to use this in game easy_lee lol. I know it's super strong, but doing super strong stuff is awesome, and feeling like an epic hero is why you play DnD right? if it's ruining the game/other peoples fun I would obviously hold it back 90% of the time, but every now and then it's fun to go full nova, and it's not like other classes cant pull off similarly large amounts of dmg

[Easy_Lee]

I would absolutely try to use this in game easy_lee lol. I know it's super strong, but doing super strong stuff is awesome, and feeling like an epic hero is why you play DnD right? if it's ruining the game/other peoples fun I would obviously hold it back 90% of the time, but every now and then it's fun to go full nova, and it's not like other classes cant pull off similarly large amounts of dmg

I stand corrected. More power to ya. I don't feel as though it'd be broken regardless, since it's just an extra attack's worth of damage. See how your DM feels.

[Yagyujubei]

I stand corrected. More power to ya. I don't feel as though it'd be broken regardless, since it's just an extra attack's worth of damage. See how your DM feels.

honestly, my group has been experimenting with a system that does away with all the mechanics and just lets you do whatever you want as long as; due to your characters background and history, it's something you "should" be able to do.

it mainly runs of the assumptions off the group as to what a certain type of character should be able to do, like for instance if someone wan't to play a ninja they can do ninja things, if someone wants to play a champion wrestler they can do wrestler things.

as long as noone in the group tries to be a douche and break the game it's totally fun to take more liberties and get way more cinematic with it. it's basically 99% rp with a simple d100 system for combat, but it's so freaking fun to play.

[Vogonjeltz]

If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. The phrase "an attack against any number of targets" can be read as one attack with multiple targets (one attack roll) or one attack against each target (multiple rolls). As I've said before, neither of these is what WotC actually meant.

Don't try to defend WotC. They screwed up on this one, that much us obvious.

That text answers of the categorization question of whether an action is an attack or not.

What it does not answer is the quantitative question which this is reliant on. For that we look to the plain english reading.

And I'm not defending WOTC, I'm defending against attempts to butcher the english language.

The exact phrase is "make a melee attack" (singular) "against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

So it's more than clear, they're saying one attack, but provide the exception that each target has its own roll against it. One attack, several rolls.

[Easy_Lee]

So it's more than clear, they're saying one attack, but provide the exception that each target has its own roll against it. One attack, several rolls.

First, no it isn't. If it were clear, we wouldn't have had any confused readers (we did). Second, a separate page specifically says that multiple rolls means multiple attacks. Do you believe the intent was clear? If so, you and I do not speak the same dialect.

And you don't roll "against" an attack; the attacker rolls against your AC.

[Vogonjeltz]

First, no it isn't. If it were clear, we wouldn't have had any confused readers (we did). Second, a separate page specifically says that multiple rolls means multiple attacks. Do you believe the intent was clear? If so, you and I do not speak the same dialect.

And you don't roll "against" an attack; the attacker rolls against your AC.

First off, yes it is. You're applying fragmentary and unrelated information in a pastiche to try and make this case. The determination on whirlwind attack being an attack has already been made, the number of attacks is clearly defined within the ability as 1.

And this isn't a matter of dialects, the word "a" has never and will never be plural.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_and_an#Indefinite_article

[Easy_Lee]

First off, yes it is. You're applying fragmentary and unrelated information in a pastiche to try and make this case. The determination on whirlwind attack being an attack has already been made, the number of attacks is clearly defined within the ability as 1.

And this isn't a matter of dialects, the word "a" has never and will never be plural.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_and_an#Indefinite_article

You may eat a treat at any number of tables within a 10 foot radius. Am I telling you that you can only have one treat, or only one per table?

And I must emphasize again, just because you interpreted it one way does not mean that everyone did. You assume that everyone who did not reach the same conclusion as you is bad, is rules lawyering, or is otherwise trying to obfuscate things. That's extremely rude. It's also false.

[Vogonjeltz]

You may eat a treat at any number of tables within a 10 foot radius. Am I telling you that you can only have one treat, or only one per table?

And I must emphasize again, just because you interpreted it one way does not mean that everyone did. You assume that everyone who did not reach the same conclusion as you is bad, is rules lawyering, or is otherwise trying to obfuscate things. That's extremely rude. It's also false.

Your example isn't comparable, it automatically necessitates multiple treats. It also leaves out the important qualifier that the actual class ability text in question has which makes it clear that multiple rolls are required for the single attack.

You misused a word and claimed it was valid when it was not. You're entitled to your own opinions, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

[Easy_Lee]

Your example isn't comparable, it automatically necessitates multiple treats. It also leaves out the important qualifier that the actual class ability text in question has which makes it clear that multiple rolls are required for the single attack.

You misused a word and claimed it was valid when it was not. You're entitled to your own opinions, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Au contraire, the way I wrote it could have been taken either way. The way they wrote it specified that multiple rolls (thus attacks, as per the rules) are made. Your argument supports my point. Just for that, I'll let you have a treat from any number of tables within 15 feet.

[Giant2005]

And I must emphasize again, just because you interpreted it one way does not mean that everyone did. You assume that everyone who did not reach the same conclusion as you is bad, is rules lawyering, or is otherwise trying to obfuscate things. That's extremely rude. It's also false.

Keep in mind that it wasn't until this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389292-5e-Whirlwind-Attack-Misunderstood&p=18562587&) thread that anyone realized that the rules may have enough wiggle room in them to allow Whirlwind Attack to be turned into a Berserker Barrage X. Up until that point, there was no confusion - it was commonly accepted that the default interpretation of Whirlwind Attack was the only interpretation of Whirlwind Attack. It was literally months after everyone had been playing the game when it was noticed that you could rule it any other way.
It isn't a case of people not reaching the same conclusion as someone else being bad, it is a case of someone reaching the same conclusion as someone else and then trying to obfuscate things by changing their own conclusion by rules lawyering.

[Easy_Lee]

Keep in mind that it wasn't until this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389292-5e-Whirlwind-Attack-Misunderstood&p=18562587&) thread that anyone realized that the rules may have enough wiggle room in them to allow Whirlwind Attack to be turned into a Berserker Barrage X. Up until that point, there was no confusion - it was commonly accepted that the default interpretation of Whirlwind Attack was the only interpretation of Whirlwind Attack. It was literally months after everyone had been playing the game when it was noticed that you could rule it any other way.
It isn't a case of people not reaching the same conclusion as someone else being bad, it is a case of someone reaching the same conclusion as someone else and then trying to obfuscate things by changing their own conclusion by rules lawyering.

I remember some posters talking about spreading ensnaring strike via Whirlwind attack, before someone pointed out that it was multiple attacks, and it was then realized that one could technically move during it. In both cases, the interpretation was wrong according to WotC.

But the real surprise was movement between attacks. That wasn't a thing in many people's minds who came from 3.5, so it took time to sink in.

There are a lot of assumptions we as players made that have been challenged by recent twitter posts and errata. WotC could have been more clear on many things.

[GiantOctopodes]

Keep in mind that it wasn't until this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389292-5e-Whirlwind-Attack-Misunderstood&p=18562587&) thread that anyone realized that the rules may have enough wiggle room in them to allow Whirlwind Attack to be turned into a Berserker Barrage X. Up until that point, there was no confusion - it was commonly accepted that the default interpretation of Whirlwind Attack was the only interpretation of Whirlwind Attack. It was literally months after everyone had been playing the game when it was noticed that you could rule it any other way.
It isn't a case of people not reaching the same conclusion as someone else being bad, it is a case of someone reaching the same conclusion as someone else and then trying to obfuscate things by changing their own conclusion by rules lawyering.

Me, I think about THIS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385629-Why-do-People-Hate-on-Crossbow-Expert/page5&p=18466611#post18466611) thread when I think about rules lawyering, where constant and insulting statements were made about how "OF COURSE", "CLEARLY", "OBVIOUSLY", "THE INTENT" was for you to not be able to use the same crossbow to make a bonus attack with crossbow expert. It's meant to be a ranged dual wielding after all! I as well as others argued that the rules did not state this, and were constantly told how badwrongfun we were trying to "manipulate" and "rules lawyer" it into something so obviously false and in violation of the intent of the rules.

Go figure, what's the intent? Why, not only that it's the same crossbow, but that it MUST be the same crossbow, and that anyone trying to dual wield was completely wrong. Why? Because you need a hand free, something no one expected to have issues with (constant remarks were made about how easy it is to reload without a hand free throughout, from parties on both sides of the debate).

It seems to me that all someone needs to accuse someone of being a "rules lawyer" is for them to disagree and have support in the rules for their disagreement. Sadly, they could argue intent all day long with no support whatsoever and that's fine, since that's apparently what 5e is all about is RAI. But bring up what the rules actually say? Man, what a manipulative rules lawyer. Maybe, in terms of conclusions, the best thing to do is not leap directly to them, especially when it comes to other posters.

[Easy_Lee]

Me, I think about THIS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385629-Why-do-People-Hate-on-Crossbow-Expert/page5&p=18466611#post18466611) thread when I think about rules lawyering, where constant and insulting statements were made about how "OF COURSE", "CLEARLY", "OBVIOUSLY", "THE INTENT" was for you to not be able to use the same crossbow to make a bonus attack with crossbow expert. It's meant to be a ranged dual wielding after all! I as well as others argued that the rules did not state this, and were constantly told how badwrongfun we were trying to "manipulate" and "rules lawyer" it into something so obviously false and in violation of the intent of the rules.

Go figure, what's the intent? Why, not only that it's the same crossbow, but that it MUST be the same crossbow, and that anyone trying to dual wield was completely wrong. Why? Because you need a hand free, something no one expected to have issues with (constant remarks were made about how easy it is to reload without a hand free throughout, from parties on both sides of the debate).

It seems to me that all someone needs to accuse someone of being a "rules lawyer" is for them to disagree and have support in the rules for their disagreement. Sadly, they could argue intent all day long with no support whatsoever and that's fine, since that's apparently what 5e is all about is RAI. But bring up what the rules actually say? Man, what a manipulative rules lawyer. Maybe, in terms of conclusions, the best thing to do is not leap directly to them, especially when it comes to other posters.

Good post.

[Giant2005]

Me, I think about THIS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385629-Why-do-People-Hate-on-Crossbow-Expert/page5&p=18466611#post18466611) thread when I think about rules lawyering, where constant and insulting statements were made about how "OF COURSE", "CLEARLY", "OBVIOUSLY", "THE INTENT" was for you to not be able to use the same crossbow to make a bonus attack with crossbow expert. It's meant to be a ranged dual wielding after all! I as well as others argued that the rules did not state this, and were constantly told how badwrongfun we were trying to "manipulate" and "rules lawyer" it into something so obviously false and in violation of the intent of the rules.

Go figure, what's the intent? Why, not only that it's the same crossbow, but that it MUST be the same crossbow, and that anyone trying to dual wield was completely wrong. Why? Because you need a hand free, something no one expected to have issues with (constant remarks were made about how easy it is to reload without a hand free throughout, from parties on both sides of the debate).

It seems to me that all someone needs to accuse someone of being a "rules lawyer" is for them to disagree and have support in the rules for their disagreement. Sadly, they could argue intent all day long with no support whatsoever and that's fine, since that's apparently what 5e is all about is RAI. But bring up what the rules actually say? Man, what a manipulative rules lawyer. Maybe, in terms of conclusions, the best thing to do is not leap directly to them, especially when it comes to other posters.

The point is that upon reading the ability, everyone understood it to work one way. Then months later, by comparing multiple un-intuitive rules together, they managed to find a second possible interpretation. Rather than going with the interpretation that their instincts first led them down, they chose the more powerful interpretation, one which the writers have since debunked while insisting that their first instinctive interpretation was the correct one.
This entire thread isn't about the game, it is about people defying not only the intended message the creator was trying to convey, but their own instinctive interpretation and doing it purely to try and mock the game.
I don't like to deal in absolutes either but when there is initially a consensus and the provided information doesn't change, then the consensus shouldn't change.

[Easy_Lee]

The point is that upon reading the ability, everyone understood it to work one way. Then months later, by comparing multiple un-intuitive rules together, they managed to find a second possible interpretation. Rather than going with the interpretation that their instincts first led them down, they chose the more powerful interpretation, one which the writers have since debunked while insisting that their first instinctive interpretation was the correct one.
This entire thread isn't about the game, it is about people defying not only the intended message the creator was trying to convey, but their own instinctive interpretation and doing it purely to try and mock the game.
I don't like to deal in absolutes either but when there is initially a consensus and the provided information doesn't change, then the consensus shouldn't change.

Like I said, I initially thought it worked one way (which was incorrect). The reason why that way was incorrect made me think that the move during option was correct. I even made a post saying how volley had a greater range and spread, but whirlwind allowed movement, so I was fairly convinced that it was intentional. Oh, how naive I was regarding WotC's horrendous sense of balance when it comes to D&D. How can this be the same company that produces MTG?

[Giant2005]

Like I said, I initially thought it worked one way (which was incorrect). The reason why that way was incorrect made me think that the move during option was correct. I even made a post saying how volley had a greater range and spread, but whirlwind allowed movement, so I was fairly convinced that it was intentional. Oh, how naive I was regarding WotC's horrendous sense of balance when it comes to D&D. How can this be the same company that produces MTG?

You read the ability and understood it the first time. It was only after combing the books for possible interactions that the level of confusion was added. When you quite literally went out of your way to add that confusion yourself, it is hard to justify a negative response when the developers tell you that you shouldn't have added that layer of confusion.

[Easy_Lee]

You read the ability and understood it the first time. It was only after combing the books for possible interactions that the level of confusion was added. When you quite literally went out of your way to add that confusion yourself, it is hard to justify a negative response when the developers tell you that you shouldn't have added that layer of confusion.

Excuse me, Giant, but did you just tell me how I understood the ability to work the first time? Who do you think you are?

I read the ability to be one cohesive attack at first, meaning it would be able to utilize effects that worked on the next attack. Then I realized it was multiple attacks, which is what indisputably lead to the movement possibility. That second bit, movement during whirlwind attacks, is what WotC should have errata'd away if they didn't want it allowed. Though again, I have no idea why that bothers them.

[GiantOctopodes]

The point is that upon reading the ability, everyone understood it to work one way. Then months later, by comparing multiple un-intuitive rules together, they managed to find a second possible interpretation. Rather than going with the interpretation that their instincts first led them down, they chose the more powerful interpretation, one which the writers have since debunked while insisting that their first instinctive interpretation was the correct one.
This entire thread isn't about the game, it is about people defying not only the intended message the creator was trying to convey, but their own instinctive interpretation and doing it purely to try and mock the game.
I don't like to deal in absolutes either but when there is initially a consensus and the provided information doesn't change, then the consensus shouldn't change.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

There is nothing in there that I can provide a further response towards.

[Giant2005]

Excuse me, Giant, but did you just tell me how I understood the ability to work the first time?

No? I just quoted how you mentioned you thought the ability to work. I'll do it again if you need the clarification: "Like I said, I initially thought it worked one way (which was incorrect). The reason why that way was incorrect made me think that the move during option was correct."


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

There is nothing in there that I can provide a further response towards.
Cool? Not sure why you think quoting the rules is relevant but I do know that this board has rules and I know how to find them too (There is a stickied link on the root page). Thanks for the assist though, even if it was quite unnecessary.

[Gwendol]

For the record, I've never understood this ability (or volley) to be a single attack. It's called multiattack, just as the monster ability, and in my mind, that means they are related.
If they want to limit movement between attacks just say that instead of making this strange special case.

[Psionic]

First, no it isn't. If it were clear, we wouldn't have had any confused readers (we did). Second, a separate page specifically says that multiple rolls means multiple attacks. Do you believe the intent was clear? If so, you and I do not speak the same dialect.

I really wasn't planning on dragging this into this thread again:

Scorching Ray has multiple attacks. It specifically says so.
Flurry of Blows has multiple attacks. It specifically says so.
Whirlwind attack doesn't have multiple attacks because any other mechanic or operation in the game, when including the possibility to hit many times, states specifically that each attack is either a separate attack each, a separate ROLL each, or not at all. Whirlwind attack, unlike Scorching ray (and much like Eldritch Blast, which I'm also calling into question here) both specifically says that each additional target is a separate roll, whereas Scorching ray specifically states that each individual ray is it's own ranged spell attack. No roll included.

Volley is the exact same way.

Last, the "separate page" quote is specifically made to clear up rules not conventionally or commonly reached in standard play that the books cover. For example, If you were throwing a flask of alchemist's fire at an enemy specifically, you would probably make an attack roll, which would clarify the situation as a ranged attack (which then follows all the rules of attacks and any triggers involved). However, say you were using the alchemist's fire just to create a fire to draw attention while you sneak through under the cover of a diversion. This would specifically be handled as a dexterity check (maybe strength too, if going for distance) and since not attempting to make contact with an enemy, it wouldn't be an "attack" since it's a check, not an attack roll.

This can handle situations that are even more convoluted and outside the realm of the PHB's control. Say you were fighting in a long abandoned, very weathered temple with statues all around. A fight breaks out and you get the wise idea to topple a statue to deal with the threat. Toppling the statue would probably take some kind of strength check (and possibly an investigation check to determine how would be the best way) but it would become an attack if your check should succeed, assuming you are aiming to crush someone with it. If you were just trying to block off a path or scare off some more easily frightened foe (like kobolds or something similar) than you could probably just make the check to have it crash down in a general area and avoid your allies.

It is not an end-all-be-all RAW answer to obviously combat oriented rolls as to whether or not they are separate attacks. If the rule said "if you're making more than one attack roll, you're making more than one attack" then it would certainly fit the bill. It doesn't, and that's intentional.

[GiantOctopodes]

I really wasn't planning on dragging this into this thread again:

Scorching Ray has multiple attacks. It specifically says so.
Flurry of Blows has multiple attacks. It specifically says so.
Whirlwind attack doesn't have multiple attacks because any other mechanic or operation in the game, when including the possibility to hit many times, states specifically that each attack is either a separate attack each, a separate ROLL each, or not at all. Whirlwind attack, unlike Scorching ray (and much like Eldritch Blast, which I'm also calling into question here) both specifically says that each additional target is a separate roll, whereas Scorching ray specifically states that each individual ray is it's own ranged spell attack. No roll included.

Volley is the exact same way.

Last, the "separate page" quote is specifically made to clear up rules not conventionally or commonly reached in standard play that the books cover. For example, If you were throwing a flask of alchemist's fire at an enemy specifically, you would probably make an attack roll, which would clarify the situation as a ranged attack (which then follows all the rules of attacks and any triggers involved). However, say you were using the alchemist's fire just to create a fire to draw attention while you sneak through under the cover of a diversion. This would specifically be handled as a dexterity check (maybe strength too, if going for distance) and since not attempting to make contact with an enemy, it wouldn't be an "attack" since it's a check, not an attack roll.

This can handle situations that are even more convoluted and outside the realm of the PHB's control. Say you were fighting in a long abandoned, very weathered temple with statues all around. A fight breaks out and you get the wise idea to topple a statue to deal with the threat. Toppling the statue would probably take some kind of strength check (and possibly an investigation check to determine how would be the best way) but it would become an attack if your check should succeed, assuming you are aiming to crush someone with it. If you were just trying to block off a path or scare off some more easily frightened foe (like kobolds or something similar) than you could probably just make the check to have it crash down in a general area and avoid your allies.

It is not an end-all-be-all RAW answer to obviously combat oriented rolls as to whether or not they are separate attacks. If the rule said "if you're making more than one attack roll, you're making more than one attack" then it would certainly fit the bill. It doesn't, and that's intentional.

So, it's well documented that I don't care whatsoever about the Dev's off the cuff twitter rulings. Yet, one of the fundamental principles of debate is that you don't argue with what you find convincing, you argue with what your opponent finds convincing. So, as it relates to Eldritch Blast"

"@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. "

So, not only is Eldritch Blast multiple attacks, but it's so obviously so that it acts not as the conclusion of his answer but as the premise. Why? Well, it shares the same verbiage as whirlwind and volley, that's why- you make a separate attack roll for each beam. And what is an attack roll? Why, it's the 3rd step in making an attack. What are steps 1 and 2? 1) Choose a target (singular), and 2) determine modifiers for your attack roll (singular), before 3), making the attack roll (singular).

[Psionic]

So, it's well documented that I don't care whatsoever about the Dev's off the cuff twitter rulings. Yet, one of the fundamental principles of debate is that you don't argue with what you find convincing, you argue with what your opponent finds convincing. So, as it relates to Eldritch Blast"

"@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. "

So, not only is Eldritch Blast multiple attacks, but it's so obviously so that it acts not as the conclusion of his answer but as the premise. Why? Well, it shares the same verbiage as whirlwind and volley, that's why- you make a separate attack roll for each beam. And what is an attack roll? Why, it's the 3rd step in making an attack. What are steps 1 and 2? 1) Choose a target (singular), and 2) determine modifiers for your attack roll (singular), before 3), making the attack roll (singular).

So. For the billionth time, I have to explain the exact same thing to you again because you're still spreading this across every thread that will listen to you.

Fine.

"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."

Realize also he may have just been correcting you on a general premise, that when you suggested that separate attacks could resolve in parallel, he had to clear that up immediately. His statement clearly didn't specifically apply to eldritch blast (as your legendary powers of miscomprehension took as fact regardless) but was a general rule on handling combat: You deal with any type of rolls; saves, to-hit, damage, checks, in sequence.

Now, so I can clarify you YET again on the exact same subject for about the fourth time:

You choose a target: Targets can be LOCATIONS. You pick a Location when you choose either of these actions. When you make an attack on a location, it is ONE attack in essentially any case, because that's your (singular) attack target (see what I did there?). So you determine your modifiers for your one attack, and roll it against the (singular) location. Since your target is one single location, the enemies within that area are all affected by the same attack. Each have a chance to dodge/block/etc so for each individual creature in the effect (since there's no rolling defenses) you roll it against their static defense, representing each of their (singular) chances to avoid the hit or reduce it.

The fact that you just made seven attack rolls does indeed mean you've made an attack, as you don't make attack rolls outside of attacking in essentially any case. But they all belong to one, SINGULAR attack, that encompasses it. Just like you said it did. See how this all comes around, almost like I've done this before?

[Gwendol]

Psionic, that's not how an attack vs AC works, please supply any kind of rules support for this.

[GiantOctopodes]

So. For the billionth time, I have to explain the exact same thing to you again because you're still spreading this across every thread that will listen to you.

Fine.

"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."

Realize also he may have just been correcting you on a general premise, that when you suggested that separate attacks could resolve in parallel, he had to clear that up immediately. His statement clearly didn't specifically apply to eldritch blast (as your legendary powers of miscomprehension took as fact regardless) but was a general rule on handling combat: You deal with any type of rolls; saves, to-hit, damage, checks, in sequence.

Now, so I can clarify you YET again on the exact same subject for about the fourth time:

You choose a target: Targets can be LOCATIONS. You pick a Location when you choose either of these actions. When you make an attack on a location, it is ONE attack in essentially any case, because that's your (singular) attack target (see what I did there?). So you determine your modifiers for your one attack, and roll it against the (singular) location. Since your target is one single location, the enemies within that area are all affected by the same attack. Each have a chance to dodge/block/etc so for each individual creature in the effect (since there's no rolling defenses) you roll it against their static defense, representing each of their (singular) chances to avoid the hit or reduce it.

The fact that you just made seven attack rolls does indeed mean you've made an attack, as you don't make attack rolls outside of attacking in essentially any case. But they all belong to one, SINGULAR attack, that encompasses it. Just like you said it did. See how this all comes around, almost like I've done this before?

I love it, everything about your post is delicious, please keep them up.

Note that he does not state that you *can* have one attack with multiple attack rolls either. In fact, the *only* support for that premise is a tweet from him. So, if it's "possible he slipped up", it's possible he slipped up on the original tweet. Tweets cannot simultaneously be flawless modifications of RAW AND possible slip ups. It is also quite clear he was discussing Eldritch Blast, because he was replying to a tweeted question regarding Eldritch Blast. It wasn't my question, for what it's worth. But you both clearly state and then ignore the exact point- he did not, in fact, say that multiple attack rolls are taken in sequence, not resolved simultaneously. He said multiple ATTACKS are resolved in sequence, not simultaneously. Thus, Eldritch Blast has multiple attacks. Your specific statement that is in reply to, in case it is not clear:



Whirlwind attack doesn't have multiple attacks because any other mechanic or operation in the game, when including the possibility to hit many times, states specifically that each attack is either a separate attack each, a separate ROLL each, or not at all. Whirlwind attack, unlike Scorching ray (and much like Eldritch Blast, which I'm also calling into question here) both specifically says that each additional target is a separate roll, whereas Scorching ray specifically states that each individual ray is it's own ranged spell attack. No roll included.

Volley is the exact same way
So, if whirlwind and Volley don't have multiple attacks because they don't specifically state that each attack is indeed a separate attack, but rather ask for a separate attack roll, and if Eldritch Blast uses the same verbiabe, but is in fact multiple attacks, it calls into question your premise, which is that if it has multiple attacks it will state as such directly, and if it uses attack roll its a singular attack. In fact, it does more than call it into question, it proves it outright wrong for Eldritch Blast, and if it's wrong there, you have not clearly delineated the ability from Whirlwind and Volley to show why it would not be wrong for those abilities as well.



His statement clearly didn't specifically apply to eldritch blast (as your legendary powers of miscomprehension took as fact regardless) but was a general rule on handling combat: You deal with any type of rolls; saves, to-hit, damage, checks, in sequence

Note that his statement both does deal with eldritch blast, as covered above, but is NOT a general rule on handling combat. If you were rolling saves for a single ability, it would not be wrong in any way to be using multiple dice, with different colors representing the different creatures, and rolling them simultaneously. To indicate otherwise is to apply the practices of your table as though they are RAW without any support for doing so. The only time when it is not acceptable to roll things simultaneously, and when it is required to perform them in sequence, is when they are separate and discrete events, such as if they are separate and discrete attacks.

oh, and before I move too far along, I did want to deal with this:


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."

How strange, the logic there. You "Make a ranged spell attack against the target ... You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam.", so a singular attack, directed at multiple targets, which then becomes multiple attacks, which is kinda like Volley, where you "make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet ... make a separate attack roll for each target". It's almost like the same logic would apply to both abilities, since they share nearly identical verbiage regarding this. Who would have thought.



You choose a target: Targets can be LOCATIONS. You pick a Location when you choose either of these actions. When you make an attack on a location, it is ONE attack in essentially any case,

Now you're just flat out wrong. Not about targets being able to be locations, but in this case, it's just not. Note that Volley says "make a separate attack roll for each target". Were the target the location, the only target, you would be making only one attack roll. Which would fit perfectly with the rules text you continue to ignore. Instead, it's not- the creatures are clearly called out as separate targets. Thus the separate attack rolls. Each one is a target, you determine modifiers separately, each one has an attack roll, it's almost like you're perfectly going through the process of making an attack (singular) with each one, while the whole thing (multiple targets, multiple attack rolls) flies in the face of the singular verbiage used in making an attack.

So though I certainly appreciate the effort, you're simply wrong in virtually everything you said here.

[Psionic]

1. If we agreed, there would be no discussion. Of course we disagree.

2. Thank you for conceding the point.

3. The verbiage states you make "a attack" singular, against "the target". Also singular. It then states "you can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones". Note how it just flipped from target singular, to targets, multiple? When a singular action is repeated multiple times, it is no longer singular. "a attack" made many times is no longer singular. "the target", chosen multiple times, is similarly no longer singular. This is important because it's the same instance of plurality being predicated on repeating an action which affects whirlwind. You make a attack, singular, true. That is made against any number of creatures in range. A attack, made against multiple targets, thus multiple attacks.

4. So now you're arguing from a verisimilitude standpoint when it comes to someone shooting 15 arrows simultaneously from a bow, with a reasonable chance to hit 15 discrete targets, all of which are moving in a combat environment? Not your best strategy. The question is not "in reality, would one be struck before the other", it is "from a game mechanics standpoint, are they struck simultaneously or at different times". They are all struck as part of the same attack per your reasoning, thus simultaneously, from a game mechanics standpoint. Also, the AOE for a 10' radius effect is traditionally placed on the corner of a square, meaning up to 4 targets are in "the center". This is because having it centered on the middle of a square means it half occupies squares on the border, which raises into debate whether or not the targets on the border are hit. If they are, you are extending the range of the ability beyond what is intended, if they are not, you are reducing it. Thus the corner.

5. That reinforces my point, thank you. You're saying on the one hand that you are not hitting a creature, your target is the location? Well, a location is certainly a valid target for an attack, but in that case, you fail to meet the qualifier for the spell effect at all! If you are hitting "a location", and not "a creature", then either it does not trigger or it triggers on all of them, take your pick. I will point out however that you're deviating from the wording of the ability. The target is not a 5' radius burst, or anything similar. The target is "any number of creatures within 5'", where the creatures are then clearly the targets.

Note also that under "making an attack" it specifically states to make "the attack roll". You pick a target (singular), you make the attack roll (singular), you resolve the effects, if any. You are saying this ability changes it to being multiple targets (or a location, which is fine if you don't want the spells to interact with the abilities at all), multiple attack rolls, but still a singular effect. I find that logic inconsistent, and disagree with it.

Remember this? This happened in the first thread you argued with me before you jumped ship onto two other threads to attempt to misinform and cause issues. So I'm bringing along as my anti-dumb.

Hate to break it to you, but nothing I have said and will say is "reinforcing your point." Once again, I will attempt to tutor you, if only because I have the spare time.

2. I'm not sure where I "conceded a point" because I haven't agreed with you on a single premise except that Volley and Whirlwind attack does not work with haste. If you recall, if it were my decision, Eldritch blast would be one attack, four targets, because the verbiage used says so. Period. You separated this from my Scorching Ray comments in order to make yourself look somewhat credible after throwing yours out the window by bringing it up.

In summary, and hopefully this time you won't try to number my points because you clearly have no clue where my elaboration on one topic begins and another ends:

- Scorching Ray is one of very few examples where the action / spell specifically tells you to make multiple ATTACKS, not rolls
- This sets a precedence for spells / abilities intended to be multiple-attack actions to follow.
- None of the examples you have listed follow this example. Therefore, they are all single-attack moves with multiple hits. The wording among these options are very specifically similar, intended to separate the two in terms of attack rolls / actual attacks.

What's worse is you separated my entire statement (with your numbering) about how the wording of Eldritch blast not only fits Volley and Whirlwind attack, it also doesn't follow the verbiage of Scorching ray by adding the keyword "roll" to the mix, which for some reason you feel the necessity to dodge me on this. So no, I didn't "agree" with you, and I haven't read it all that carefully but I only care to wonder what else you edited out to make yourself look good instead of having a level discussion.

3. An attack made against "Multiple targets" does not mean "Multiple attacks," no matter how many times you say it. The fact that you are duplicating the effect is dubious, which is why there's any leeway whatsoever. That being said, argue what you want to about how the number of targets can split (whirlwind and Volley do that too, but they're not multiple hit moves, no matter how hard you preach for them to be otherwise) the move says you make a separate ROLL for each. If they just said "A separate attack" then you'd be absolutely right. They say "a separate attack roll" so you're just simply, blatantly, wrong. There is no rewording or specific verbiage to support the premise that the attack itself splits, and without that, it's in the same boat as Volley and Whirlwind Attack. Better stop before you sink more ships than your own.

4. First off, I thank you for the obviousness, of course you need to have it on a corner for a 10' radius to be workable on a grid.

Secondly, you need to understand that even things that DO happen simultaneously in D&D, do NOT happen simultaneously in D&D, and I cannot understand why this is so difficult for you. If you cast a fireball on a group of 8 enemies, you are not going to have eight dex checks by the DM simultaneously. He will save each individually, starting from the top of the order, the center of the AOE, or whatever he feels necessary. This is generally made to limit confusion (or the number of dice needed at the same time) and deal with effects on a by-case basis. Second, this very specifically is there to allow people to individually respond to effects upon them in a chain. Third, it allows things to resolve. Even things that happen Simultaneously, As per your example, DO NOT, as a method of dealing with your example. Get it? The game has built in Anti-dumb, for dumb things that aren't intended.

5. Oh, so since you're making a single attack at all enemies within an area, now it doesn't meet the requirements for the spell at all (since you're not hitting a single creature, you're hitting multiple, therefore the three part trigger of "Next, Single Creature, Weapon Attack" never activates) and it just doesn't have any effect until the next time you hit only one enemy? Yeah, actually that makes a lot of sense, and the language works with it too (since you're not making the minimum requirements of the spell). You're right. The fact that the Whirlwind attack and Volley both target an area, and enemies within the area are being attacked at once, there's no trigger of the spell at all. Fixes all the problems too.

I feel better now. Don't you feel better now? :D

So, my summary is:

- Eldritch Blast is one attack (just like Whirlwind and Volley)
- Rolls are done once at a time to clarify the game state, allow for reactions, and to apply effects. Attacking multiple enemies "at once" isn't attacking them "at once" to D&D
- None of these abilities or spells that were aforementioned work with them at all, because they both most definitely have a location targeting scheme, with selective ignorance. Since the one attack targets multiple enemies, it doesn't count for the three-part trigger required to activate them. Which makes this all pointless again. Yay!

Edit: I'm being dead honest here. Instead of just triggering on one person, it makes PERFECT sense to say that the three part trigger has no chance to activate, since you're attacking more than one target at the same time. This is far more useful than arguing the semantics about ordering, and it makes sense logistically. So this is the answer I'm rolling with. If you hit more than one enemy with a single attack, the effect can't trigger because it must activate on a single target. Beautifully summed up.

If you're going to push the issue and run around on different threads without any argument whatsoever, the least you could do is answer my statements here instead of dodging them.

[GiantOctopodes]

Remember this? This happened in the first thread you argued with me before you jumped ship onto two other threads to attempt to misinform and cause issues. So I'm bringing along as my anti-dumb.

Hate to break it to you, but nothing I have said and will say is "reinforcing your point." Once again, I will attempt to tutor you, if only because I have the spare time.

2. I'm not sure where I "conceded a point" because I haven't agreed with you on a single premise except that Volley and Whirlwind attack does not work with haste. If you recall, if it were my decision, Eldritch blast would be one attack, four targets, because the verbiage used says so. Period. You separated this from my Scorching Ray comments in order to make yourself look somewhat credible after throwing yours out the window by bringing it up.

In summary, and hopefully this time you won't try to number my points because you clearly have no clue where my elaboration on one topic begins and another ends:

- Scorching Ray is one of very few examples where the action / spell specifically tells you to make multiple ATTACKS, not rolls
- This sets a precedence for spells / abilities intended to be multiple-attack actions to follow.
- None of the examples you have listed follow this example. Therefore, they are all single-attack moves with multiple hits. The wording among these options are very specifically similar, intended to separate the two in terms of attack rolls / actual attacks.

What's worse is you separated my entire statement (with your numbering) about how the wording of Eldritch blast not only fits Volley and Whirlwind attack, it also doesn't follow the verbiage of Scorching ray by adding the keyword "roll" to the mix, which for some reason you feel the necessity to dodge me on this. So no, I didn't "agree" with you, and I haven't read it all that carefully but I only care to wonder what else you edited out to make yourself look good instead of having a level discussion.

3. An attack made against "Multiple targets" does not mean "Multiple attacks," no matter how many times you say it. The fact that you are duplicating the effect is dubious, which is why there's any leeway whatsoever. That being said, argue what you want to about how the number of targets can split (whirlwind and Volley do that too, but they're not multiple hit moves, no matter how hard you preach for them to be otherwise) the move says you make a separate ROLL for each. If they just said "A separate attack" then you'd be absolutely right. They say "a separate attack roll" so you're just simply, blatantly, wrong. There is no rewording or specific verbiage to support the premise that the attack itself splits, and without that, it's in the same boat as Volley and Whirlwind Attack. Better stop before you sink more ships than your own.

4. First off, I thank you for the obviousness, of course you need to have it on a corner for a 10' radius to be workable on a grid.

Secondly, you need to understand that even things that DO happen simultaneously in D&D, do NOT happen simultaneously in D&D, and I cannot understand why this is so difficult for you. If you cast a fireball on a group of 8 enemies, you are not going to have eight dex checks by the DM simultaneously. He will save each individually, starting from the top of the order, the center of the AOE, or whatever he feels necessary. This is generally made to limit confusion (or the number of dice needed at the same time) and deal with effects on a by-case basis. Second, this very specifically is there to allow people to individually respond to effects upon them in a chain. Third, it allows things to resolve. Even things that happen Simultaneously, As per your example, DO NOT, as a method of dealing with your example. Get it? The game has built in Anti-dumb, for dumb things that aren't intended.

5. Oh, so since you're making a single attack at all enemies within an area, now it doesn't meet the requirements for the spell at all (since you're not hitting a single creature, you're hitting multiple, therefore the three part trigger of "Next, Single Creature, Weapon Attack" never activates) and it just doesn't have any effect until the next time you hit only one enemy? Yeah, actually that makes a lot of sense, and the language works with it too (since you're not making the minimum requirements of the spell). You're right. The fact that the Whirlwind attack and Volley both target an area, and enemies within the area are being attacked at once, there's no trigger of the spell at all. Fixes all the problems too.

I feel better now. Don't you feel better now? :D

So, my summary is:

- Eldritch Blast is one attack (just like Whirlwind and Volley)
- Rolls are done once at a time to clarify the game state, allow for reactions, and to apply effects. Attacking multiple enemies "at once" isn't attacking them "at once" to D&D
- None of these abilities or spells that were aforementioned work with them at all, because they both most definitely have a location targeting scheme, with selective ignorance. Since the one attack targets multiple enemies, it doesn't count for the three-part trigger required to activate them. Which makes this all pointless again. Yay!

Edit: I'm being dead honest here. Instead of just triggering on one person, it makes PERFECT sense to say that the three part trigger has no chance to activate, since you're attacking more than one target at the same time. This is far more useful than arguing the semantics about ordering, and it makes sense logistically. So this is the answer I'm rolling with. If you hit more than one enemy with a single attack, the effect can't trigger because it must activate on a single target. Beautifully summed up.

If you're going to push the issue and run around on different threads without any argument whatsoever, the least you could do is answer my statements here instead of dodging them.

Hate to break it to you, but there was a reason I didn't reply to the other one. There's nothing to reply to. First you bring up the fact that Eldritch Blast is the same as Volley and Whirlwind, which only reinforces the idea that they are multiple attacks now that JC has weighed in and stated plainly that Eldritch Blast is multiple attacks.
Then, you repeat your mantra of multiple attack rolls does not equal multiple attacks without addressing the singular tense of attack roll within the structure of making an attack, while saying there's no support for my premise due to it being roll, not attack (regarding this, see Eldritch Blast).
Then you apply the conventions of your table as though they're RAW and state that the DM "will not" use the time saving technique of rolling all saves simultaneously (seriously, the DM at your table should buy more dice), and you veer off into the blatantly incorrect when you say that it's to allow people to respond, when by RAW a reaction does not occur until the action has concluded, while trouting out the awesome statement " things that DO happen simultaneously in D&D, do NOT happen simultaneously in D&D"
You then move on to your conclusion, which is that despite hitting a creature with a weapon attack, effects which occur when you hit a creature with a weapon attack do not trigger.

I mean, more power to you, run your game however you want, but you provided 0 rules support in that massive diatribe full of personal attacks, and it's ironic you should bring that out now, when the entire premise it relies upon is that Volley and Whirlwind are like Eldritch Blast, not Scorching Ray, and one of the game developers, the one allowed to make game rulings, has stated directly that Eldritch Blast is multiple attacks. So... yes? I agree, it's more like Eldritch Blast than Scorching Ray? Also, you're completely wrong in just about everything you say, and since you don't feel the need to provide rules support, I don't see why I would bother either?

You're right, I *do* feel better.

Also, http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

[Savannah]

The Mod One Out: Locked for review.