Whirlwind attack with glaive.

[Spacehamster]

Would the level 11 hunter ability be more useful with a glaive since you would hit everyone in a 10ft area around you instead of 5ft or would it still be pretty crappy?

[Plaguescarred]

The weapon's reach doesn't matter Whirlwind Attack only let you attack creatures within 5 feet of you anyway.

[Specter]

The ability doesn't allow that, sadly. But talk to your GM, maybe he finds it okay. A (not so effective) combo I think of now is taking 3 levels in Frenzy Barbarian for the bonus action attack, attacking everyone 5ft around you and then someone behind these lines, for a max of 9 people attacked (possibly with advantage for Reckless Attack, but around 8 dudes that's the very definition of reckless).

[Giant2005]

The weapon's reach doesn't matter Whirlwind Attack only let you attack creatures within 5 feet of you anyway.

All attacks only let you attack creatures within 5' of you. The reach property extends one's reach.

[Spacehamster]

logic dictates that a reach 10 weapon would make a melee special attack with a reach 5 become a reach 10 special attack so think most DM´s would
approve, know I would at least since the ability is silly weak anyways. :)

[Easy_Lee]

By the strict wording, whirlwind attack allows you to make one weapon attack against all targets within 5' of you. I believe Sentinel and Mage Slayer have already been ruled to not benefit, at all, from extended reach. So, weird as it is, this may actually be both the intent and the RAW.

However, if you want to play RAW, you're technically allowed to move between attacks. This means you may (again, by RAW only, not necessarily RAI) make one whirlwind attack, move, and make the next attack. It would be up to your DM to determine whether you're limited to targets who were within 5' when you started the action, or whether you may hit targets who are within 5' at any point. Combine with a greatsword for best results.

Point is, ask your DM what he thinks.

[Plaguescarred]

However, if you want to play RAW, you're technically allowed to move between attacks.According to Jeremy Crawford you can't move between them as it's a single attack https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/512336707828457473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

@Plaguescarred Howdy Jeremy! Question RE Whilwind Attack-Must targets be wt 5' when taking action or attacking & can move between attacks?
@JeremyECrawford Attack is a single attack with multiple attack rolls. The intent is no movement between the rolls.
@Plaguescarred Ok thanks. Strange since the feature is called Multiattack and Volley even require an ammunition for each target
@JeremyECrawford Like Whirlwind Attack, Volley is a single attack with multiple attack rolls.

[Easy_Lee]

According to Jeremy Crawford you can't move between them as it's a single attack https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/512336707828457473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

@Plaguescarred Howdy Jeremy! Question RE Whilwind Attack-Must targets be wt 5' when taking action or attacking & can move between attacks?
@JeremyECrawford Attack is a single attack with multiple attack rolls. The intent is no movement between the rolls.
@Plaguescarred Ok thanks. Strange since the feature is called Multiattack and Volley even require an ammunition for each target
@JeremyECrawford Like Whirlwind Attack, Volley is a single attack with multiple attack rolls.

Right, that's the intent. But like I said, it's technically RAW. They wrote the feature incorrectly.

Edit: if you read his response, it's pretty clear that they didn't think of the above, and that the text doesn't actually disallow it. That's why he used the word "intent."

However, one really has to wonder why volley has both a longer range and larger radius than whirlwind attack. That's what got me to think this up in the first place.

[Foxhound438]

by RAW no, but if you have a glaive you can go whirlwind -> horde break attack on a guy that's 10' out.

[Ruslan]

Yet again Crawford fails to read his own rules.

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.
Remember this part. If you have an action that involved multiple attacks, you can move between attacks.


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.
And Whirlwind Attack is indeed "an action that includes more than one weapon attack". QED. Crawford can't read.

By the way, I houserule all instances of "within 5 feet" in cases such as Whirlwind Attack, the Wolf Totem 3rd Level ability, Mage Slayer and similar to say "within your melee reach". Unlike Crawford, I make no pretense that this is what the rule is. No, this is my own houserule, and, if you don't mind me tooting my own horn, a darn good one.

[Plaguescarred]

If RAW meant to be multiple attacks it would be pretty redundant to say it's one attack roll against each target.

Also if you could move between attacks wouldn't a literal RAW mean that with a single action, you can attack every creature that happen to be within 5 feet of you wherever you go all your life, always and forever?

[DivisibleByZero]

Yet again Crawford fails to read his own rules.

Remember this part. If you have an action that involved multiple attacks, you can move between attacks.


And Whirlwind Attack is indeed "an action that includes more than one weapon attack". QED. Crawford can't read.

By the way, I houserule all instances of "within 5 feet" in cases such as Whirlwind Attack, the Wolf Totem 3rd Level ability, Mage Slayer and similar to say "within your melee reach". Unlike Crawford, I make no pretense that this is what the rule is. No, this is my own houserule, and, if you don't mind me tooting my own horn, a darn good one.

Nice try.
Except for the fact that "one attack with multiple attack rolls" is different from "one attack action with multiple attacks" .
Two different things.


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.

A melee attack, singular. Whirlwind is just that, a melee attack. That it has multiple attack rolls is irrelevant.
He read his own rules just fine. You're the one mistakenly reading something else.

[Easy_Lee]

Nice try.
Except for the fact that "one attack with multiple attack rolls" is different from "one attack action with multiple attacks" .
Two different things.

A melee attack, singular.
He read his own rules just fine. You're the one mistakenly reading something else.

A voice in my head just said, "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." Where have I heard that, before?

[Plaguescarred]

Nice try.
Except for the fact that "one attack with multiple attack rolls" is different from "one attack action with multiple attacks" .
Two different things.



A melee attack, singular. Whirlwind is just that, a melee attack. That it has multiple attack rolls is irrelevant.
He read his own rules just fine. You're the one mistakenly reading something else.
Hence why even though it could have different possible interpretations the one that make more sense as a whirlwind attack move which has been confirmed by a member of R&D is the interpretation that it's an attack against all creatures within 5 feet of you - at the moment of taking the action.

[RickAllison]

I find it makes more sense if you imagine it as Link's spin attack, just as how I imagine a Twinned Booming Blade to be, a single attack that flows from one target to the next.

Interestingly, this becomes significantly more useful with 3-dimensional combat.

[Ruslan]

A voice in my head just said, "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." Where have I heard that, before?
In the PHB. Captain Obvious out.

[Easy_Lee]

In the PHB. Captain Obvious out.

Thanks, Captain. Well then, by their own rules, multiple attack rolls really do mean multiple attacks. Meaning you can move between them by the strictest RAW interpretation.

Like I said, they made a mistake. They forgot to specify the "no movement allowed during whirlwind" clause.

[DivisibleByZero]

Like I said, they made a mistake. They forgot to specify the "no movement allowed during whirlwind" clause.

No, they didn't.
Whirlwind Attack is one attack. It's one thing.
If I give you a quarter and a penny and I tell you that you are allowed to put the penny in between two quarters, you still need a second quarter to do it.
It's one thing. You can't do something in between one thing. You need a second thing.

[Kryx]

For what it's worth: Semantics and RAW aside: Whirlwind should be possible at reach. So should mage slayer and the others.


Moving between whirlwind, however, is unintended and has crazy consequences with boosted movement speed, or even regular movement speed. It should not be allowed.

[Easy_Lee]

No, they didn't.
Whirlwind Attack is one attack. It's one thing.
If I give you a quarter and a penny and I tell you that you are allowed to put the penny in between two quarters, you still need a second quarter to do it.
It's one thing. You can't do something in between one thing. You need a second thing.

If I gave you a quarter and a penny, and told you it was 26 cents, I wonder if you'd still argue about it.

If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. If you make multiple attacks, you may move between them. Moving whirlwind is RAW but not RAI, so do what you want with that info. Many, perhaps most DMs won't allow it. Nothing else needs to be said. This has nothing to do with currency.

[DivisibleByZero]

If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
Yes, that's true. But if you're making multiple attack rolls, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're making multiple attacks.
This is one attack. In 4e terms, it would be a melee AoE that targets every enemy in a 5 foot burst. You roll to hit each target, but it's still only one attack. There is nothing to move in between because there isn't any in between involved.


Many, perhaps most DMs won't allow it.
That's because many, if not most DMs realize that this is a singular attack with multiple targets.

[MeeposFire]

For what it's worth: Semantics and RAW aside: Whirlwind should be possible at reach. So should mage slayer and the others.


Moving between whirlwind, however, is unintended and has crazy consequences with boosted movement speed, or even regular movement speed. It should not be allowed.

Without it whirlwind attack is not even worth it for a melee weapon user. Using RAW WA does not even net you a benefit over using your attack action unless you can get 3 enemies within 5 feet of you at once 4 if you use the "classic" two weapons or any other weapon ability that gets an extra attack with an attack action.

Also consider that at the same level the fighter would be the same as whirlwind attacking just using the attack action so long as there are 4 enemies or less except they get the option of using all those attack against one person. Make that 5 enemies if you get additional attacks with that. Even with horde breaker the ranger still needs to have 3 or 4 enemies within 5 feet to get ahead.


Is spreading weak damage so strong that you make an ability that requires 3 or more enemies within 5 feet of you at once to even come out ahead? Seems really weak to me.

[Foxhound438]

how I read whirlwind:

take "whirlwind" action
check which creatures are within 5 feet of user
user makes one attack against a creature of their that was checked before
normal attack rules apply
repeat until no creatures checked in step 2 have not been attacked, or until user decides not to make an attack

[Plaguescarred]

Moving between Attacks says 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.

We know Whirlwind Attack has multiple attack rolls but not if it's more than one attack necessarily as it's referred to an attack and the title is also singular. There is even the mention that it's a separate attack roll for each target, which like i said would be redundant if it was multiple attacks since normally each attack has an attack roll against it's target.

I don't see these two necessarily conflicting then if you take R&D's RAI of it, it becomes even more clear that among a possibility of multiple interpretation, the correct one is that Whirldwing Attack is a single attack and therefore you can't move in between attack rolls.

[DivisibleByZero]

We know Whirlwind Attack has multiple attack rolls but not if it's more than one attack necessarily as it's referred to an attack and the title is also singular. There is even the mention that it's a separate attack roll for each target, which like i said would be redundant if it was multiple attacks since normally each attack has an attack roll against it's target.

Exactly, because it has already told you that it is an attack singular.
Otherwise the ability would read: You make an attack against every enemy within 5'
Full stop.
But it doesn't read that way.

[Kryx]

Is spreading weak damage so strong that you make an ability that requires 3 or more enemies within 5 feet of you at once to even come out ahead? Seems really weak to me.
You're right that whirlwind isn't very strong.

However as I mentioned above: Picture it in an optimized form in the "move as much as you want perspective". It could easily hit tens of enemies. Every round. That's not balanced, at all.

Really Whirlwind makes much more sense as a Barbarian feature. I'd suggest something different for Ranger all together. Perhaps his offhand hits twice when he uses a bonus action.

[Easy_Lee]

I think people are overestimating the effectiveness of whirlwind attack, even a moving one. Hitting several targets for around 10 to 11.5 damage is not very powerful, so you basically have to combine it with a buff like Elemental Weapon to get real effectiveness out of it. Combine that with the relatively low likelihood that PCs will be fighting six, eight, ten, or however many foes would make the skill worth using, and you'll see that there's generally very little reason to use it, movement or not. I don't know about you guys, personally, but I don't like to try to track twenty small-fry enemies at once.

[Kryx]

In terms of DPR a Ranger GWM does about 28 DPR at level 11. Each additional attack does 8.2 DPR. So he'd have to hit 2 people to be equivalent to normal.
He'd have to hit 2 extra creatures to be equivalent to a Fighter GWM (44 DPR vs 45 DPR). 4 creatures isn't beyond reason from either perspective.

Volley is similarly balanced it attacks potentially up to 5x5 squares.
If you balanced Whirlwind on the same situation: "You can use your action to move up to your base speed, making a melee attack against any number of creatures within range."

Limiting it to base speed is required imo. Otherwise things like Haste make it too powerful.

[RedMage125]

The way I read the RAW, I am inclined to agree with DivisibleByZero.

Whirlwind attack is "an attack", basically a melee AoE.

A voice in my head just said, "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." Where have I heard that, before?

No one ever said you were not making an attack. OF COURSE you are making an attack. The only distinction is that you are making "an attack" with multiple targets, as opposed to multiple attacks.

Mechanically, this could also have been handled by making one attack roll and using that against the AC of all targets within 5 feet.
But that is less beneficial to the players in the long run. Statistically, a PC misses 1/3 to 1/2 of attack against a creature of a comparable CR. One bad roll and the Whirlwind Attack is wasted. Of course, one good roll, and Whirlwind attack just hit all targets and was amazing. By specifying that a separate attack roll is used for each target, Whirlwind Attack will, statistically, hit at least one and miss at least one, given 4 or more targets. Which makes it AS GOOD as a regular melee attack at the least, but potentially better.

Specific Beats General, right? Whirlwind Attack is SPECIFICALLY "an attack" with multiple targets, with the specific exception that each TARGET gets a different roll, despite it being a single attack.

[BurgerBeast]

Thanks, Captain. Well then, by their own rules, multiple attack rolls really do mean multiple attacks. Meaning you can move between them by the strictest RAW interpretation.

"If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" doesn't imply that one attack roll equals one attack. That doesn't follow.

There is still room inside of "If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" to include single attacks that have multiple attack rolls. Each attack made implies that you're making an attack. A one-to-one relationship is not explicitly implied.

[edit: already said above, in different words]

[Easy_Lee]

"If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" doesn't imply that one attack roll equals one attack. That doesn't follow.

There is still room inside of "If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" to include single attacks that have multiple attack rolls. Each attack made implies that you're making an attack. A one-to-one relationship is not explicitly implied.

[edit: already said above, in different words]

I've seen this argument one too many times, now. An attack roll means an attack, but multiple attack rolls don't mean multiple attacks...guys, that's tenuous.

Not only that, but it's a counterintuitive assumption. If A = B then the plain English assumption (since Crawford likes that phrase so much) is that 3A = 3B.

There's no point in making that argument because it's irrelevant to the discussion. We know movement during whirlwind isn't intended, and we know it's very easy to assume it is just from reading the rules. If it wasn't a natural assumption, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Someone would have just told me "you're stupid," then moved on.

What's worse, every time someone finds a mistake or idiosyncrasy in 5e, people come out of the woodwork to defend WotC and claim the book is perfect. Newsflash: WotC makes mistakes.

That movement is allowed by RAW is a mistake. It's been identified as a mistake. And if it had occurred to WotC while they were writing the ability, they would have included a clause which specifically said you cannot move during the action.

Whether one can do it in game is, as always, up to the DM. I'd just limit the player to half speed so there's actually some reason to use whirlwind over volley shot.

[RickAllison]

I've seen this argument one too many times, now. An attack roll means an attack, but multiple attack rolls don't mean multiple attacks...guys, that's tenuous.

Not only that, but it's a counterintuitive assumption. If A = B then the plain English assumption (since Crawford likes that phrase so much) is that 3A = 3B.

There's no point in making that argument because it's irrelevant to the discussion. We know movement during whirlwind isn't intended, and we know it's very easy to assume it is just from reading the rules. If it wasn't a natural assumption, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Someone would have just told me "you're stupid," then moved on.

What's worse, every time someone finds a mistake or idiosyncrasy in 5e, people come out of the woodwork to defend WotC and claim the book is perfect. Newsflash: WotC makes mistakes.

That movement is allowed by RAW is a mistake. It's been identified as a mistake. And if it had occurred to WotC while they were writing the ability, they would have included a clause which specifically said you cannot move during the action.

Whether one can do it in game is, as always, up to the DM. I'd just limit the player to half speed so there's actually some reason to use whirlwind over volley shot.

Well, you tried using mathematics to prove it, but math even uses that kind of organization. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Whole numbers are real numbers, but an infinite amount of real numbers exist between whole numbers. All calculus is math, but not all math is calculus (and thank your preferred noun that it isn't).

[RedMage125]

Newsflash:
Despite that being someone's answer to your question earlier, the phrase "if you make an attack roll, you are making an attack" is not in the PHB in any form. I just did a search for all uses of the words "attack roll" through a pdf of the PHB and it was not there.

Which kind of takes some of the support out of your argument.

[Easy_Lee]

Newsflash:
Despite that being someone's answer to your question earlier, the phrase "if you make an attack roll, you are making an attack" is not in the PHB in any form. I just did a search for all uses of the words "attack roll" through a pdf of the PHB and it was not there.

Which kind of takes some of the support out of your argument.

Chapter 9, under making an attack: "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."

An attack roll = an attack. Plain as day. What the others are trying to argue is that multiple attack rolls =/= multiple attacks. Which is tenuous, as I said. But I'm done arguing about it because, as I said, it doesn't matter.

[RickAllison]

Chapter 9, under making an attack: "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."

An attack roll = an attack. Plain as day. What the others are trying to argue is that multiple attack rolls =/= multiple attacks. Which is tenuous, as I said. But I'm done arguing about it because, as I said, it doesn't matter.

As has been pointed out to you, it is far from tenuous. It is a concept in both English and mathematics that something can have the relationship here. We even see it in other parts of the text! Every attack with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack, but not every ranged weapon attack is an attack with a ranged weapon. To call this relationship being in the text tenuous is only so if you also claim that the same concept in mathematics and English is flawed.

[DivisibleByZero]

{scrubbed}

[Ruslan]

Not gonna argue anymore, but if they intended the inability to move during Whirlwind attack, they made a huge wording error. It should have been worded differently. That's all I have to say about that.

[BurgerBeast]

Chapter 9, under making an attack: "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."

An attack roll = an attack. Plain as day. What the others are trying to argue is that multiple attack rolls =/= multiple attacks. Which is tenuous, as I said. But I'm done arguing about it because, as I said, it doesn't matter.

No, it's not An attack roll = an attack. that's your misconception.

It's possible for a single attack to target multiple people and therefore require multiple rolls.

If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

Implies: if you're not making an attack roll, you're not making an attack.
Implies: if you're not making an attack, you're not making any attack rolls. [edited for correctness]

But does not imply: if you make an attack roll, you are making exactly one attack.

This is the point of the quoted passage. If there is no attack roll, then there is no attack. That is the only conclusion that is implied. Zero attack rolls = no attack.

Edit: as an example,:

If you scored a three-point shot, you played a game of basketball.

Does not imply: If you scored three three-point shots, you played three games of basketball.

But does imply: If you played zero games of basketball, you scored zero three-point shots.

[RedMage125]

Chapter 9, under making an attack: "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."

An attack roll = an attack. Plain as day. What the others are trying to argue is that multiple attack rolls =/= multiple attacks. Which is tenuous, as I said. But I'm done arguing about it because, as I said, it doesn't matter.

Which would only be relevant if someone were claiming that Whirlwind Attack was somehow NOT an attack. Of course it is. By using Whirlwind Attack, we KNOW we are making an "attack", that is not in question.

The wording of WA is very clear. It is "one attack with multiple attack rolls". And since Specific Overrides General, I don't se why there is any confusion. The rule about moving between attacks refers to people getting multiple attacks when taking the Attack action. WA specifies that it is ONE attack.

It's disingenuous to imply or state that the RAW supports moving during/between the rolls of a WA.

[Waffle_Iron]

I think people are overestimating the effectiveness of whirlwind attack, even a moving one. Hitting several targets for around 10 to 11.5 damage is not very powerful, so you basically have to combine it with a buff like Elemental Weapon to get real effectiveness out of it. Combine that with the relatively low likelihood that PCs will be fighting six, eight, ten, or however many foes would make the skill worth using, and you'll see that there's generally very little reason to use it, movement or not. I don't know about you guys, personally, but I don't like to try to track twenty small-fry enemies at once.

I'm with you on this one. DPR is nice and all, but burst damage is much more impactful on combat results, due to full fighting ability with even 1 hp.

[RickAllison]

I'm with you on this one. DPR is nice and all, but burst damage is much more impactful on combat results, due to full fighting ability with even 1 hp.

One area where WA becomes fantastic is combined with Mobile or Fancy Footwork of the Swashbuckler. At that point, it allows you to extricate yourself from an entire swarm surrounding you while sill dealing damage. Added points if you have flight so you are nigh-impossible to surround.

[JackPhoenix]

An attack roll = an attack. Plain as day. What the others are trying to argue is that multiple attack rolls =/= multiple attacks. Which is tenuous, as I said. But I'm done arguing about it because, as I said, it doesn't matter.

So... If I'm rolling two attack rolls due to advantage/disadvantage, I'm, in fact, making two separate attacks?

[Easy_Lee]

So... If I'm rolling two attack rolls due to advantage/disadvantage, I'm, in fact, making two separate attacks?

You already know the answer to that question.

[uraniumrooster]

I think the RAW is a bit ambiguous but the intent is pretty clear (even without Crawford's response).

That said, in a home game I'm running, I do allow movement during Whirlwind Attack simply to give the melee-ranger some love.

The character is a Wood Elf Ranger with the Mobile feat (pretty much required, otherwise drawing all those Opp Attacks would make the whole build a wash) for 45' base movement. He's occasionally very strong, but all in all no better than the Fighter or Rogue (and still often worse). If the party is facing a horde of weak enemies, he can do quite a bit of damage, though still less than most of the good AoE spells. However, most of the group's encounters are against 3-6 enemies max, so that puts a natural cap on how many attacks he can make. He's also frequently limited in which enemies he can attack by Crowd Control effects ("don't hit those guys, they're Hypnotic Patterned/Turned/Etc"). And of course, Hunter's Mark only works against a single target so spreading out his attacks across multiple enemies still tends to come out behind an archer Ranger focusing fire on one at a time.

It could certainly be broken through multi-classing (Champion for GWF and improved crit range and/or Barbarian for Rage and Reckless Attack come to mind), but as a pure Ranger it's still a sub-optimal choice even with the movement allowance. Mostly, it just allows the player to feel cool when his character turns into the Tasmanian Devil in combat.

[Vogonjeltz]

They wrote the feature incorrectly.

The language specifies that it's an attack. So, the language matches the intention.


Yet again Crawford fails to read his own rules.

Remember this part. If you have an action that involved multiple attacks, you can move between attacks.

And Whirlwind Attack is indeed "an action that includes more than one weapon attack". QED. Crawford can't read.

By the way, I houserule all instances of "within 5 feet" in cases such as Whirlwind Attack, the Wolf Totem 3rd Level ability, Mage Slayer and similar to say "within your melee reach". Unlike Crawford, I make no pretense that this is what the rule is. No, this is my own houserule, and, if you don't mind me tooting my own horn, a darn good one.

The phrase "a melee attack" is singular, not plural.

Your reasoning would be sound, provided it were multiple attacks, but it's not, it's one attack that specifically has to make a different roll for each possible target.


A voice in my head just said, "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." Where have I heard that, before?

Yes, you're making an attack, but only one melee weapon attack. Ergo regardless of that fact that all rolls constitute an attack (singular) there's only ever one melee weapon attack involved.


For what it's worth: Semantics and RAW aside: Whirlwind should be possible at reach. So should mage slayer and the others.

I'd agree, provided there was no creature in between you and the target who might otherwise block it (i.e. providing full cover).


There's no point in making that argument because it's irrelevant to the discussion. We know movement during whirlwind isn't intended, and we know it's very easy to assume it is just from reading the rules. If it wasn't a natural assumption, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Someone would have just told me "you're stupid," then moved on.

It's not a natural assumption, but that's no reason to resort to calling you names.


Not gonna argue anymore, but if they intended the inability to move during Whirlwind attack, they made a huge wording error. It should have been worded differently. That's all I have to say about that.

It's worded that way because it specifically does not allow movement. Plural phrasing would have been required to allow movement.

[R.Shackleford]

That's because many, if not most DMs realize that this is a singular attack with multiple targets.

No.

You are making stuff up and adding it to whirlwind.

Whirlwind is, by RAW, multiple attacks.

However it wasn't meant to be.

You are mixing up RAW (what is actually written) and RAI (what they meant to write).

[Vogonjeltz]

No.

You are making stuff up and adding it to whirlwind.

Whirlwind is, by RAW, multiple attacks.

However it wasn't meant to be.

You are mixing up RAW (what is actually written) and RAI (what they meant to write).

It says a melee attack.

It doesn't say melee attacks.

By the written word, it's one.

[uraniumrooster]

It says a melee attack.

It doesn't say melee attacks.

By the written word, it's one.

Actually, the way it's written, "a melee attack against any number of targets," is pretty ambiguous. If I say, "you can have a dollar for each cookie you bring me," then you bring be 10 cookies, you would expect 10 dollars, right? Even though I said "a dollar," singular, there's an expectation that if you bring me more than one cookie, you get more than one dollar. Likewise, Whirlwind Attack can be read with the expectation that multiple targets will grant multiple attacks.

If it read "a single attack capable of targeting multiple creatures," that would be clear that it is one attack, regardless of the number of targets, but the way it's written doesn't make that clear. If it weren't ambiguous, there wouldn't be a debate, and J-Craw wouldn't have had to clarify it.

[RickAllison]

Actually, the way it's written, "a melee attack against any number of targets," is pretty ambiguous. If I say, "you can have a dollar for each cookie you bring me," then you bring be 10 cookies, you would expect 10 dollars, right? Even though I said "a dollar," singular, there's an expectation that if you bring me more than one cookie, you get more than one dollar. Likewise, Whirlwind Attack can be read with the expectation that multiple targets will grant multiple attacks.

If it read "a single attack capable of targeting multiple creatures," that would be clear that it is one attack, regardless of the number of targets, but the way it's written doesn't make that clear. If it weren't ambiguous, there wouldn't be a debate, and J-Craw wouldn't have had to clarify it.

On the other hand, your sentence established that it was a one-for-one exchange. "You can have a dollar for each cookie you bring me." You established that the exchange rate is one dollar per cookie, without any ambiguity. By contrast, we could have "I will give you a dollar for any cookies you bring me." That is a sentence that lacks a clear exchange rate. However, someone who claimed that you owed them $10 for 10 cookies does not actually have a leg to stand on, the sentence can rather clearly be seen as $1 regardless of the number of cookies. Seems like the kind of a deal a bard would pull...

[uraniumrooster]

On the other hand, your sentence established that it was a one-for-one exchange. "You can have a dollar for each cookie you bring me." You established that the exchange rate is one dollar per cookie, without any ambiguity. By contrast, we could have "I will give you a dollar for any cookies you bring me." That is a sentence that lacks a clear exchange rate. However, someone who claimed that you owed them $10 for 10 cookies does not actually have a leg to stand on, the sentence can rather clearly be seen as $1 regardless of the number of cookies. Seems like the kind of a deal a bard would pull...

Haha, true, it wasn't the best example. I just really want some cookies and happen to have a dollar on me.

[MaxWilson]

According to Jeremy Crawford you can't move between them as it's a single attack https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/512336707828457473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

@Plaguescarred Howdy Jeremy! Question RE Whilwind Attack-Must targets be wt 5' when taking action or attacking & can move between attacks?
@JeremyECrawford Attack is a single attack with multiple attack rolls. The intent is no movement between the rolls.
@Plaguescarred Ok thanks. Strange since the feature is called Multiattack and Volley even require an ammunition for each target
@JeremyECrawford Like Whirlwind Attack, Volley is a single attack with multiple attack rolls.

Ohohoho! That means that, according to Crawford, you can attack multiple targets with Nets at once.

"When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." But it's only one attack, according to Crawford, so as long as you have enough ammunition, you can net unlimited targets apparently.

[uraniumrooster]

Ohohoho! That means that, according to Crawford, you can attack multiple targets with Nets at once.

"When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." But it's only one attack, according to Crawford, so as long as you have enough ammunition, you can net unlimited targets apparently.

Genius. Whirlwind Attack Volley with a Net... bring that to the cheese thread!

[RickAllison]

Ohohoho! That means that, according to Crawford, you can attack multiple targets with Nets at once.

"When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." But it's only one attack, according to Crawford, so as long as you have enough ammunition, you can net unlimited targets apparently.

There is one problem with that, and it is the item interactions necessary to pull out the nets. But with a net in each hand already, you could net up to three targets in one go!

[MaxWilson]

There is one problem with that, and it is the item interactions necessary to pull out the nets. But with a net in each hand already, you could net up to three targets in one go!

And if we're playing the RAW game with Crawford, Volley doesn't actually say you need to have enough item interactions to pull out all the ammo. You just need to have it.

"Volley: You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target."

[RickAllison]

And if we're playing the RAW game with Crawford, Volley doesn't actually say you need to have enough item interactions to pull out all the ammo. You just need to have it.

"Volley: You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target."

Interesting...

Another by-product of that is it does not discriminate between actual ranged weapons and thrown ones (unless the part about ammunition was supposed to be limited to only weapons with that property, in which case the net does not work). Thus, the ranger could also lob a swarm of greatswords at up to 60'.

[uraniumrooster]

And if we're playing the RAW game with Crawford, Volley doesn't actually say you need to have enough item interactions to pull out all the ammo. You just need to have it.

"Volley: You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target."

Looks like you could use Volley to attack 10 feet past the Net's range too. Target a point within 15', then your attack can hit any targets within 10' of that for up to 25' range. Use Sharpshooter to bypass ranged disadvantage, and for the -5/+10 to actually deal some damage with your nets.

Edit: Green is for sarcasm right? Because this is pure cheese nobody should ever be allowed to use.

[RickAllison]

Looks like you could use Volley to attack 10 feet past the Net's range too. Target a point within 15', then your attack can hit any targets within 10' of that for up to 25' range. Use Sharpshooter to bypass ranged disadvantage, and for the -5/+10 to actually deal some damage with your nets.

Edit: Green is for sarcasm right? Because this is pure cheese nobody should ever be allowed to use.

Blue is sarcasm, green is talking in an utterly RAW sense without regard to actual play. Green is the color that really should be used for cheese...

[R.Shackleford]

It says a melee attack.

It doesn't say melee attacks.

By the written word, it's one.

"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."

From SRD

I bolded a very specific part.

There is no way by raw that you or anyone else can say that it is one single attack. You are making multiple attack rolls therefore making multiple attacks.


.

[Easy_Lee]

"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."

From SRD

I bolded a very specific part.

There is no way by raw that you or anyone else can say that it is one single attack. You are making multiple attack rolls therefore making multiple attacks.


.

Man, I've been having this same debate for a year, now. It's so clear, as you've said. But some people just won't accept it, for whatever reason.

[RickAllison]

Man, I've been having this same debate for a year, now. It's so clear, as you've said. But some people just won't accept it, for whatever reason.

Because it can be read just as easily the other way, but that side has the benefit of RAI. Your reading is no more valid than the opposition's, but the developers have already stated what the meaning of that phrase is.

Really, all your persistent disagreement has shown is that they need to look through and add more errata so readings that are ambiguous like this can be made to reflect the intent. Apparently showing what the actual reading of the rule is supposed to be is not enough, so they have to spell it out even more explicitly.

[MaxWilson]

"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."

From SRD

I bolded a very specific part.

There is no way by raw that you or anyone else can say that it is one single attack. You are making multiple attack rolls therefore making multiple attacks.
.

However, by strict RAW, it's also hard to argue that you can attack all creatures along your movement path. It's just, "You use whirlwind attack, and count how many creatures are within 5' of you, and attack them all."

Munchkin: but the PHB says I can move between attacks! So I can move up to a new creature and attack it as long as it's within 5' of me!
DM: sure, you can move between attacks, but it doesn't change who you're allowed to attack. I'll let you run in circles around the enemies if you want to eat more opportunity attacks--but what you get is an attack on everybody who is within 5' when you activate Whirlwind Attack.

[uraniumrooster]

Blue is sarcasm, green is talking in an utterly RAW sense without regard to actual play. Green is the color that really should be used for cheese...

Ah ha! Thanks.


However, by strict RAW, it's also hard to argue that you can attack all creatures along your movement path. It's just, "You use whirlwind attack, and count how many creatures are within 5' of you, and attack them all."

Munchkin: but the PHB says I can move between attacks! So I can move up to a new creature and attack it as long as it's within 5' of me!
DM: sure, you can move between attacks, but it doesn't change who you're allowed to attack. I'll let you run in circles around the enemies if you want to eat more opportunity attacks--but what you get is an attack on everybody who is within 5' when you activate Whirlwind Attack.

I agree, and this is definitely the best counter-argument I've seen (I don't find "Crawford said so" all that compelling). I do think it's pretty ambiguous though, the way it's written. Something like, "When you use this action, you can immediately make a single attack capable of targeting any number of creatures within your reach" seems like how I would expect it to be phrased. Followed by a process for resolving the attack ("Make separate attack and damage rolls for each target"), and a proscription on movement ("You cannot move between attack rolls made using this action"). When I first read Whirlwind Attack, I actually assumed it was their intent to allow movement, since it seemed like they had deliberately avoided wording it in a way that clearly forbade it.

[MeeposFire]

Well regardless of which way you want to go with it the reality is without any sort of movement allowed with it whirlwind attack is practically hard to use to get an advantage.

Seriously a ranger with a glaive would need to have three targets within 5 feet or 4 targets if you have PAM in order to come out ahead of just using your attack action. Also notice that if any of the targets are within 10 feet that the attack action automatically wins. If you could move at least then you could find enough targets to make the ability useful fairly often rather than once in every long while otherwise. Even then in order to use it safely you would need to make an investment in mobile so even then it is not a free lunch.

Makes you wonder what they were thinking. It isn't like this is a new concept whirlwind attack was fairly terrible in 3e though at least there it had the benefit of being able to attack all targets with full attack bonus whereas full attacking had diminished accuracy but in 5e even that benefit is gone (though honestly I do not miss that at all as diminishing accuracy sucked).

[MaxWilson]

I agree, and this is definitely the best counter-argument I've seen (I don't find "Crawford said so" all that compelling). I do think it's pretty ambiguous though, the way it's written. Something like, "When you use this action, you can immediately make a single attack capable of targeting any number of creatures within your reach" seems like how I would expect it to be phrased. Followed by a process for resolving the attack ("Make separate attack and damage rolls for each target"), and a proscription on movement ("You cannot move between attack rolls made using this action"). When I first read Whirlwind Attack, I actually assumed it was their intent to allow movement, since it seemed like they had deliberately avoided wording it in a way that clearly forbade it.

I don't think it matters whether the DM counts it as a "single melee attack" or "N attacks for N creatures." The result is the same either way.

Crawford failed to think through his answer, but that doesn't mean you or I can't do better. And if you happen to like allowing movement, sure, go to town. I actually like that version better anyway, both because it gives it a niche (can potentially attack more targets than Volley; otherwise, Volley is clearly better in every way except logistically) and for metagame historical reasons (Diablo II Whirlwind is the very place I ever saw whirlwind-style attacks, and those allowed movement; I'm not counting AD&D rules for a "sweep" of creatures with less than 1 HD because it wasn't called Whirlwind :)).

I'm not planning on houseruling it because it's not a big enough deal for me to add a house rule, but I do like the "movement allowed" version better.

[Tanarii]

However, by strict RAW, it's also hard to argue that you can attack all creatures along your movement path. It's just, "You use whirlwind attack, and count how many creatures are within 5' of you, and attack them all."

Actions don't necessarily have timing or order. "Use your action" to do whirlwind might be the very first thing you declare, before resolving everything. I.e. moving and attacking.

So just like declaring you use an attack action, moving up to the first target, attacking, then moving up to the second target, and attacking. Or declaring you use an attack action, getting your bonus action from Shield Master, moving up to shove a target, then moving to attack another.

Now, not all DMs and players view "declare & use actions" to be a separate portion of your turn from resolution, and thus be orderless. But many do. But it sounds like you're someone who assumes 'using' actions occurs at the same specific point as resolution, ie 'using' occurs as a part of resolution, in resolution order.

(Edit: I assume declaration to use to be a different part of your turn, and orderless, from actual resolutio. Because that's my inclination, but also because various JC rulings such as Shield Master shove strongly imply it's RAI. So it took me more than a minute to figure out what the hell you were trying to get at. I don't think WA should be allowed to move or anything. I'm just pointing out you made a fairly huge assumption about how game-play works. And in the process lost me for a sec. :smallwink: )

[R.Shackleford]

However, by strict RAW, it's also hard to argue that you can attack all creatures along your movement path. It's just, "You use whirlwind attack, and count how many creatures are within 5' of you, and attack them all."

Munchkin: but the PHB says I can move between attacks! So I can move up to a new creature and attack it as long as it's within 5' of me!
DM: sure, you can move between attacks, but it doesn't change who you're allowed to attack. I'll let you run in circles around the enemies if you want to eat more opportunity attacks--but what you get is an attack on everybody who is within 5' when you activate Whirlwind Attack.

Bullcrap.

First, wanting to move between attacks with whirlwind is hardly a munchin thing to do. Stop trying to throw insults at people who are using core rules as the core rules are told to us. Next I'll hear that it is being a munchin for using Expertise to double my proficiency bonus :smallannoyed:

Ever see Jackie Chan spinning around hitting multiple enemies on multiple sides that get close as he moves around the battle? That's whirlwind attack with movement right there.

There is no RAW argument, or yhe more importsnt Rule of Cool argument, to stand on for not letting movement work with whirlwind. Pretend all you like, try using any insults that you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it is multiple attacks and you can move between multiple attacks.

[MaxWilson]

I wasn't talking about you specifically, or anyone in particular.

[Cybren]

{scrubbed}

[R.Shackleford]

I wasn't talking about you specifically, or anyone in particular.

No, of course you arent being specific, why would you want to specifically insult people when you can just generally insult players who are following the rules as they are written?

Agree or not with whirlwind's wording, using the rules as they are stated in the book is not a munchin thing to do. People aren't moving with whirlwind to break the ability, but because as RAW you can move and it's the only way to make it worth using.

[Cybren]

Because it can be read just as easily the other way, but that side has the benefit of RAI. Your reading is no more valid than the opposition's, but the developers have already stated what the meaning of that phrase is.

Really, all your persistent disagreement has shown is that they need to look through and add more errata so readings that are ambiguous like this can be made to reflect the intent. Apparently showing what the actual reading of the rule is supposed to be is not enough, so they have to spell it out even more explicitly.

I don't even think it's particularly clear, and the games use of attack to mean "rolled an attack roll" but also "an ability that lets you make an attack roll" is confusing people

[RickAllison]

I don't even think it's particularly clear, and the games use of attack to mean "rolled an attack roll" but also "an ability that lets you make an attack roll" is confusing people

Oh I don't deny that it is a poorly-written ability. I could clarify that with two or three extra words:

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

There. Doesn't take much at all to errata it. The trickier part is the movement. I'm sure it can also be solved with minor edits, but I'm not particularly against the movement in-between either. I think Whirlwind is supposed to be more indicative of Link's spinning slash than some martial artist repeatedly swinging his staff around his head, but it wouldn't make much sense for the players' Multiattack ability to work differently than the Multiattack of NPCs (who would rule that a dragon can't move between his attacks? One certainly could, but it seems needlessly restrictive).

Really, I feel like Whirlwind needs a rider. How about either "Any creature that takes damage from this ability is shoved 5' away into an unoccupied space" or "If a creature is targeted as part of this melee attack, it cannot make opportunity attacks against you for the rest of your turn." In either case, we get a unique escape ability where the Hunter can get from situations where he might be surrounded. At that point, it becomes a defensive ability, rather than offensive.

[Tanarii]

"WHIRLWIND ATTACK
You can use your action to make a single melee attack against that targets any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."
Interestingly the only place 'targets' is used as a verb is in spells.

The only other references to outside of spells it are all noun, and very limited: the sections for attacking unseen targets, making a ranged attack, and making a melee attack.

For some reason they steered away from the word.

(I scanned the basic pdf, not my PHB (which is physical). So I may have missed it being used in a class ability. Happy to be corrected.)

[RickAllison]

Interestingly the only place 'targets' is used as a verb is in spells.

The only other references to outside of spells it are all noun, and very limited: the sections for attacking unseen targets, making a ranged attack, and making a melee attack.

For some reason they steered away from the word.

(I scanned the basic pdf, not my PHB (which is physical). So I may have missed it being used in a class ability. Happy to be corrected.)

Probably to put the focus on having a world rather than a game system.

[R.Shackleford]

Oh I don't deny that it is a poorly-written ability. I could clarify that with two or three extra words:

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


You didn't fix it at all actually.

The issue is that when you roll an attack you are making an attack. You left that part in there (separate attack roll for each target) and just made the entire thing more of a jumbled mess.


Something like this is what you need to do in order for Whirlwind's RAW to match it's RAI


"WHIRLWIND ATTACK
You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you simultaneously. Make an attack roll and compare the result against each target. Each creature you hit takes weapon damage."

Still could use better wording but making the fluff and crunch match the preexisting rules is key.

So now it is one attack roll versus multiple targets.

[RickAllison]

You didn't fix it at all actually.

The issue is that when you roll an attack you are making an attack. You left that part in there (separate attack roll for each target) and just made the entire thing more of a jumbled mess.


Something like this is what you need to do in order for Whirlwind's RAW to match it's RAI


"WHIRLWIND ATTACK
You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you simultaneously. Make an attack roll and compare the result against each target. Each creature you hit takes weapon damage."

Still could use better wording but making the fluff and crunch match the preexisting rules is key.

So now it is one attack roll versus multiple targets.

That is because you are injecting the preconception that one attack roll is one attack. That doesn't have to be true any more than all rectangles have to be squares just because squares are a common form. If you remove the preconception that has no basis from the rules, the situation isn't as muddled as you claim.

[R.Shackleford]

That is because you are injecting the preconception that one attack roll is one attack. That doesn't have to be true any more than all rectangles have to be squares just because squares are a common form. If you remove the preconception that has no basis from the rules, the situation isn't as muddled as you claim.


No.

The book says and Crawford have said, if you are rolling an attack roll you are making an attack. The original wording makes each attack roll it's own attack.

You are ignoring one of the fundamental rules of the game.

You are also ignoring the entire issue by not addressing it and then thinking you fixed the issue.

Changing it to be one attack roll makes the RAW match the RAI of the ability being one attack.

[Tanarii]

The book says and Crawford have said, if you are rolling an attack roll you are making an attack.
Nothing about this statement means that each attack roll is a different attack.

[Mellack]

Multiple attack rolls can all be part of the same attack. I consider it the attack version of casting a fireball. One spell, but if there are multiple creatures the all get to make individual saves. You don't roll a single save and apply it to everyone in the blast. Similarly Whirlwind is one attack, with a roll for each creature in the attack.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't know why we're still debating this.
You're wrong. We've shown you how you are wrong.
The devs have explained how you are wrong.
It is one attack. Period.

As to the arrow thing, the ammunition quality and the rules for using such weapons state that drawing the ammunition is a part of the attack, which does not require an item interaction, so there is no issue there.

[RickAllison]

I don't know why we're still debating this.
You're wrong. We've shown you how you are wrong.
The devs have explained how you are wrong.
It is one attack. Period.

As to the arrow thing, the ammunition quality and the rules for using such weapons state that drawing the ammunition is a part of the attack, which does not require an item interaction, so there is no issue there.

The debate for the ammunition was for Nets, whether it was possible to use them since they lack the ammunition property, and the inherent limitation on them if they are allowed.

[MaxWilson]

I don't know why we're still debating this.
You're wrong. We've shown you how you are wrong.
The devs have explained how you are wrong.
It is one attack. Period.

So, now you're a "we", are we, Precioussss?

I'm always leery of attempts to invoke the moral authority of the herd mentality. I say this even though I probably agree with DBZ on the merits of the question at hand (can't remember for sure what his/her position is, but I think I do agree).

Any true statement can stand on its own without an assist from appeal to authority. I call shenanigans.

(Also, dev tweets are dumb. If it's not in the PHB or DMG or the official errata, it's not a game rule, just an opinion.)

[Easy_Lee]

Moving during whirlwind is both rules-legit (move between attacks, separate roll = separate attack) and fairly balanced. Volly, otherwise, has a larger AoE and a longer range. You can get surprise on a group with volley. You most likely cannot with whirlwind attack.

Whirlwind attack, in this manner, has synergy with haste and longstrider, or Fly. That's not a bad thing. Back in 3.5e, when moves had synergy together, we called it synergy. We didn't call it "broken." That's a 5e trend.

[Cybren]

Moving during whirlwind is both rules-legit (move between attacks, separate roll = separate attack) and fairly balanced. Volly, otherwise, has a larger AoE and a longer range. You can get surprise on a group with volley. You most likely cannot with whirlwind attack.

That's sorta begging the question now, isn't it? The entire crux of the debate comes down to if one attack can have multiple attack rolls.

[Easy_Lee]

That's sorta begging the question now, isn't it? The entire crux of the debate comes down to if one attack can have multiple attack rolls.

My interpretation of "an attack against any number of targets" is that it's one attack per target. The phrase "separate attack roll for each target" reinforces that.

My guess is that this was written before the move between attacks rule.

[MaxWilson]

My interpretation of "an attack against any number of targets" is that it's one attack per target. The phrase "separate attack roll for each target" reinforces that.

My guess is that this was written before the move between attacks rule.

But the point under dispute is: at what point are the "targets" selected? Is it once, when you activate the ability, or continuously throughout your movement?

[RickAllison]

I would like to suggest that this discussion be moved to its own thread. It has stopped being about Whirlwind and instead is an argument whether an attack roll has an inherent 1-to-1 relationship with attacks, or if one attack can have multiple rolls. If the former, Easy_Lee and company have backing. If the latter, their arguments have no standing. In either case, it is a rules discussion of its own rather than being about Whirlwind and glaives.

[Easy_Lee]

But the point under dispute is: at what point are the "targets" selected? Is it once, when you activate the ability, or continuously throughout your movement?

There have been threads about this before, and no one can ever come to an agreement. According to my reading, your post is the primary point of DM fiat. Movement between the attacks is a given, but whether you can attack targets who were not within 5' of you when you started the attack is up to the DM.

But some disagree. As to moving this to a separate thread, it's been done. No one ever agrees.

[RickAllison]

There have been threads about this before, and no one can ever come to an agreement. According to my reading, your post is the primary point of DM fiat. Movement between the attacks is a given, but whether you can attack targets who were not within 5' of you when you started the attack is up to the DM.

But some disagree. As to moving this to a separate thread, it's been done. No one ever agrees.

In that case, why are we continuing it here? The arguments have been made on both sides, the reasoning why as well, and the intents of the developers have been added as well. Let it die.

[Vogonjeltz]

Actually, the way it's written, "a melee attack against any number of targets," is pretty ambiguous. If I say, "you can have a dollar for each cookie you bring me," then you bring be 10 cookies, you would expect 10 dollars, right? Even though I said "a dollar," singular, there's an expectation that if you bring me more than one cookie, you get more than one dollar. Likewise, Whirlwind Attack can be read with the expectation that multiple targets will grant multiple attacks.

If it read "a single attack capable of targeting multiple creatures," that would be clear that it is one attack, regardless of the number of targets, but the way it's written doesn't make that clear. If it weren't ambiguous, there wouldn't be a debate, and J-Craw wouldn't have had to clarify it.

The example you're giving is neither analogous, nor written in the same manner.

The ability states one attack multiple targets.


Ohohoho! That means that, according to Crawford, you can attack multiple targets with Nets at once.

"When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." But it's only one attack, according to Crawford, so as long as you have enough ammunition, you can net unlimited targets apparently.

If only a Net were an ammunition weapon? Volley, by its wording, rules out the use of non-ammunition ranged weapon attacks.


And if we're playing the RAW game with Crawford, Volley doesn't actually say you need to have enough item interactions to pull out all the ammo. You just need to have it.

Did you crosscheck that with the rules in the equipment section on weapons, ammunition, and the rules in the combat section on ranged attacks?


"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."

From SRD

I bolded a very specific part.

There is no way by raw that you or anyone else can say that it is one single attack. You are making multiple attack rolls therefore making multiple attacks.

You've bolded the wrong part.

here, this is the correct part to bold in determining how many attacks it is: "to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

One single attack. The only purpose of the last sentence is so the user knows they don't make a single roll for that single attack and then compare that roll to every AC of every target. That way the character can't exploit the ability to say, roll a 20 and then crit 8 targets in one turn.


My interpretation of "an attack against any number of targets" is that it's one attack per target. The phrase "separate attack roll for each target" reinforces that.

My guess is that this was written before the move between attacks rule.

That's not what it says in english, which is a matter of grammatical fact, not opinion.


In that case, why are we continuing it here? The arguments have been made on both sides, the reasoning why as well, and the intents of the developers have been added as well. Let it die.

We're discussing it here because Easy_Lee claimed in post #6 of this thread, "However, if you want to play RAW, you're technically allowed to move between attacks."

It's not RAW nor even RAI.

[MaxWilson]

If only a Net were an ammunition weapon? Volley, by its wording, rules out the use of non-ammunition ranged weapon attacks.

What a fascinating interpretation of the term "ranged attack."

"Volley: You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target."

[Easy_Lee]

That's not what it says in english, which is a matter of grammatical fact, not opinion.

We're discussing it here because Easy_Lee claimed in post #6 of this thread, "However, if you want to play RAW, you're technically allowed to move between attacks."

It's not RAW nor even RAI.

I'm a college graduate trained in business communications and linguistics. I'm also a software developer who regularly translates software requirements into business logic, and vice versa. I've also been a member of a weekly writing group for the past three years.

My knowledge of the English language, grammar, and effective communication is vastly superior to your own. If you think you understand "grammatical fact" better than I do, you're wrong. The mere fact that you used the term "grammatical fact" proves that you are ignorant of this topic.

[Cybren]

I'm a college graduate trained in business communications and linguistics. I'm also a software developer who regularly translates software requirements into business logic, and vice versa. I've also been a member of a weekly writing group for the past three years.

My knowledge of the English language, grammar, and effective communication is vastly superior to your own. If you think you understand "grammatical fact" better than I do, you're wrong. The mere fact that you used the term "grammatical fact" proves that you are ignorant of this topic.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with anything, especially when the people that wrote the ability have spoken as to what it means.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with anything, especially when the people that wrote the ability have spoken as to what it means.

The people who wrote this ability did not consider how it would interact with other rules. They failed to write what they meant. And in the great 5e tradition, they've taken the stance that all synergy is unintentional, and that players who find interesting rules interactions are evil and wrong.

[Cybren]

Alternatively you're trying to read an overly permissive version of the ability and refusing to admit that it is an overly permissive reading of the ability. {scrubbed}

[RickAllison]

What a fascinating interpretation of the term "ranged attack."

"Volley: You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target."

Max, I think he is focusing on the same part of the text that I mentioned could defeat it when you first brought it up. I bolded it in your quote. It provides evidence that ranged attacks from weapons without the ammunition property may not function.

[Easy_Lee]

Alternatively you're trying to read an overly permissive version of the ability and refusing to admit that it is an overly permissive reading of the ability. Arguing that each attack roll is always a separate iteration of an attack is an incredibly pedantic stretch.

{scrubbed}

If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. It then follows that if I make multiple attack rolls, I'm making multiple attacks. That's not a pedantic stretch, anymore than it would be to suggest multiple skill checks require multiple skill rolls and thus multiple uses of the skill.

I'm done debating this, because everyone knows where they stand. I don't have the time or patience to keep going on about it.

[Tanarii]

If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. It then follows that if I make multiple attack rolls, I'm making multiple attacks. That's not a pedantic stretch, anymore than it would be to suggest multiple skill checks require multiple skill rolls and thus multiple uses of the skill.
The second sentence does not follow from the first sentence. Not under the rules of English, nor under the rules of Logic. (Edit: Unless you're making an unstated assumption that isn't contained in the words you wrote.)

[Cybren]

{scrubbed}

If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. It then follows that if I make multiple attack rolls, I'm making multiple attacks. That's not a pedantic stretch, anymore than it would be to suggest multiple skill checks require multiple skill rolls and thus multiple uses of the skill.

I'm done debating this, because everyone knows where they stand. I don't have the time or patience to keep going on about it.

If you're watching someone slam dunk, you're watching a basketball game. It then follows that if you're watching someone dunk multiple times, you're watching multiple basketball games.

If you're answering a math problem, you're in math class. It then follows if you answer multiple math problems, you're in multiple math classes.

If you chop an onion, you're cooking a meal. It then follows that if you chop multiple onions, you are cooking multiple meals.

If you roll a d20, you're playing a D&D game. It then follows that if you roll multiple d20s, you are playing multiple games of D&D.

If you hatch a hydralisk, you're playing a game of starcraft. It then follows that if you hatch multiple hydralisks, you are playing multiple games of starcraft.

If you make a poorly constructed argument to read an overly permissive view of the rules...

[Tanarii]

If you make a poorly constructed argument to read an overly permissive view of the rules...then you're a regular poster on a D&D forum? :smallbiggrin:

(Seriously, I don't think I've seen a regular poster that hasn't done this as some point.)

[ZenBear]

BEYBLADE!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxtWC6Djtdw

[Cybren]

then you're a regular poster on a D&D forum? :smallbiggrin:

(Seriously, I don't think I've seen a regular poster that hasn't done this as some point.)

Well certainly, but usually it's because you get excited you found a combo and get defensive about it, not because you're convinced You Are The One Keeper of Truth

[RickAllison]

{scrubbed}

If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. It then follows that if I make multiple attack rolls, I'm making multiple attacks. That's not a pedantic stretch, anymore than it would be to suggest multiple skill checks require multiple skill rolls and thus multiple uses of the skill.

I'm done debating this, because everyone knows where they stand. I don't have the time or patience to keep going on about it.

And there is the inevitable personal attack, resorting to insults to the opposition when the integrity of one's own posts is called into question.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your conclusion fails because your logic fails. Just because an attack roll necessitates being part of an attack does NOT imply that there is a constant 1-to-1 relationship. Your entire line of reasoning is based on a ruling that exists nowhere in the RAW and has been declared to be untrue by the rules guru.

You had to make an RAI judgement to support your hypothesis, but the official RAI is in opposition.

[Kryx]

And there is the inevitable personal attack
Ya, this is uncalled for, Easy.

[Easy_Lee]

Ya, this is uncalled for, Easy.

Called for or not, this debate has been going on for a year now, with no progress. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of people questioning each other's understanding of English. I'm sick of weird, overlong, and flawed posts meant to make some sort of existential point. And I'm really sick of people arguing that WotC is without fault.

And as far as whether my point was called for or not, consider that within the past two pages of this thread, I have been called shallow, pedantic, overly permissive, wrong according to grammatical fact, and wrong period.

Calling someone a WotC fan boy in a D&D forum is far less insulting than any of the above.

Some believe it is inappropriate to respond in kind. I disagree.

[georgie_leech]

Called for or not, this debate has been going on for a year now, with no progress. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of people questioning each other's understanding of English. I'm sick of weird, overlong, and flawed posts meant to make some sort of existential point. And I'm really sick of people arguing that WotC is without fault.

And as far as whether my point was called for or not, consider that within the past two pages of this thread, I have been called shallow, pedantic, overly permissive, wrong according to grammatical fact, and wrong period.

Calling someone a WotC fan boy in a D&D forum is far less insulting than any of the above.

Some believe it is inappropriate to respond in kind. I disagree.




My knowledge of the English language, grammar, and effective communication is vastly superior to your own. If you think you understand "grammatical fact" better than I do, you're wrong. The mere fact that you used the term "grammatical fact" proves that you are ignorant of this topic.

:smallamused:

If you really are sick of this debate, you have the option of not participating. That goes for both sides of any argument.

[RickAllison]

Are there any abilities that effect "an attack" rather than "when an attack hits a creature" or "an attack roll"? If so, Whirlwind Attack would find great synergy there, getting multiple attack rolls out of what is normally for one.

[Kryx]

And as far as whether my point was called for or not, consider that within the past two pages of this thread, I have been called shallow, pedantic, overly permissive, wrong according to grammatical fact, and wrong period.
Ya, sorry that I only called out one side. What others have said is uncalled for as well.

I agree that the debate has dragged. For my own sanity I limit my participation in debates like this because it just leads to frustration.

[Easy_Lee]

:smallamused:

If you really are sick of this debate, you have the option of not participating. That goes for both sides of any argument.

Context. I was effectively called a moron long before either of the posts that you quoted. And as to your comment, are you telling me not to post in this thread? Or perhaps you're telling me that I shouldn't defend my viewpoint on the Internet.

I know where I stand. I also know that, simply by saying that my viewpoint is valid, I received a massive amount of hate from certain posters, claiming that any interpretation other than WotC's was badwrong and invalid.

I don't care for bullies. I care less for cry-bullies. Now that I have told you lot exactly how I feel about your implied insults, you cry foul on me. Good show. Way to ignore everything besides the actual point.

WotC wrote one thing and meant another. Some amount of verbal acrobatics can be done to prevent movement during whirlwind attack. Whether that extends the AoE is very firmly up to the DM. If you disagree, fine. But I don't appreciate it when you tell me, or anyone else, that our position is invalid because WotC said so. I will respond that yours is invalid, because I say so. Because at this point, any poster's word is every bit as valid as WotC's, as far as I'm concerned.

[georgie_leech]

Are there any abilities that effect "an attack" rather than "when an attack hits a creature" or "an attack roll"? If so, Whirlwind Attack would find great synergy there, getting multiple attack rolls out of what is normally for one.

We should really add a 'single,' explicit or implied, to the latter two. For instance, an ability that affects 'an attack that hits a creature,' it would apply to Whirlwind just fine. 'The first time you hit a creature with an attack' would also work, for that matter, since that one attack is hitting different creatures anyway. 'The next time you hit a creature with an attack' wouldn't be able to take advantage of this loophole though. 'The next attack roll,' wouldn't; 'an attack roll you make on your turn,' would.

Edit:


Context. I was effectively called a moron long before either of the posts that you quoted. And as to your comment, are you telling me not to post in this thread? Or perhaps you're telling me that I shouldn't defend my viewpoint on the Internet.

I know where I stand. I also know that, simply by saying that my viewpoint is valid, I received a massive amount of hate from certain posters, claiming that any interpretation other than WotC's was badwrong and invalid.

I don't care for bullies. I care less for cry-bullies. Now that I have told you lot exactly how I feel about your implied insults, you cry foul on me. Good show. Way to ignore everything besides the actual point.

Not to you specifically, but yes, if you really are 'sick of having this debate,' you can just not have this debate. If you are sick of people arguing that you can't move between Whirlwind attacks, you don't have to participate. If you are sick of people arguing that you can move during the single Whirlwind Attack, you don't have to participate. Heck, if some unusual person was sick of debates in general, I would advise them to not participate on forums in general, and question why they were reading this post in the first place. None of this is directed at any particular person.

The :smallamused: was directed at you specifically, because I found the proximity of complaining about people casting aspersions on each other's grammar abilities with that particular post amusing. It's actually somewhat hypocritical of my to call out that sort of hypocritical comment, and I apologise for that. I'm not going to edit it out though, because my hypocrisy should rightly be plain to see and called out by those who want to.

[Cybren]

as a point of order (and to be pedantic myself), for the most part easy lee's arguments have been called those things, not his person himself. Criticizing a poor argument is not a criticism of the person, but calling someone a wotc fanboy is a direct criticism of the person.

[Kryx]

Criticizing a poor argument is not a criticism of the person.
The manner in which it is criticized equates to the same result.

[Easy_Lee]

as a point of order (and to be pedantic myself), for the most part easy lee's arguments have been called those things, not his person himself. Criticizing a poor argument is not a criticism of the person, but calling someone a wotc fanboy is a direct criticism of the person.

For the most part and in whole are two different things. I might show you the last private message I sent: a notice to another poster that I wouldn't report him for calling me an ass, because I don't report people, but that he could be reported and may be wise to revise his post.

And fan boy is only an insult if you take it as one. It's no different from calling someone an extreme fan.

[Cybren]

For the most part and in whole are two different things. I might show you the last private message I sent: a notice to another poster that I wouldn't report him for calling me an ass, because I don't report people, but that he could be reported and may be wise to revise his post.

Certainly, but I was pointing out that of the list of things you claimed to have been called, at least a certain subset where not things you were called at all, but criticisms made of your arguments, but nonetheless you took them as personal attacks.


And fan boy is only an insult if you take it as one. It's no different from calling someone an extreme fan.

The context with which you used it is clearly a pejorative.

[Waffle_Iron]

Are there any abilities that effect "an attack" rather than "when an attack hits a creature" or "an attack roll"? If so, Whirlwind Attack would find great synergy there, getting multiple attack rolls out of what is normally for one.

To follow on this, when an ability that is a single attack requires multiple saving throws or multiple to hit rolls, is damage rolled separately as well?

For example, fireball, damage is rolled once, right?
So if whirlwind is a single attack, and a smite is used...?

Or does the ability specify individual damage rolls? AFB, so not sure.

[Easy_Lee]

Certainly, but I was pointing out that of the list of things you claimed to have been called, at least a certain subset where not things you were called at all, but criticisms made of your arguments, but nonetheless you took them as personal attacks.


The context with which you used it is clearly a pejorative.

See Kryx's post above. I can detect the intent behind text, and am not unique in this regard.

And I said what I meant. You can take WotC fan boy as an insult, if you choose. But when I say WotC fan boy, I mean someone whose default position is to defend WotC. When someone has such a bias, it's very difficult to convince them that WotC made a mistake.

In other words, I said that my opponents are biased. Is that also too pejorative for you? Of so, perhaps we can take this to PM.

[Easy_Lee]

To follow on this, when an ability that is a single attack requires multiple saving throws or multiple to hit rolls, is damage rolled separately as well?

For example, fireball, damage is rolled once, right?
So if whirlwind is a single attack, and a smite is used...?

Or does the ability specify individual damage rolls? AFB, so not sure.

This is basically what it came down to before. If whirlwind attack is one attack with multiple rolls, then ensnaring strike or, indeed, smite and similar, apply to all targets hit. I have a feeling that is not WotC's intent.

And so I'm left with a conundrum. The only reading I know if that consistently enforces their actual intent is this: whirlwind attack makes multiple attacks, you may move between those attacks, but moving does not allow you to target more foes than were within 5' when you started the action. That last point is what I identified as the primary bit of DM fiat.

As you can see, this effectively enforces their intent, clearly and without cheese.

[Cybren]

See Kryx's post above. I can detect the intent behind text, and am not unique in this regard.

And I said what I meant. You can take WotC fan boy as an insult, if you choose. But when I say WotC fan boy, I mean someone whose default position is to defend WotC. When someone has such a bias, it's very difficult to convince them that WotC made a mistake.

In other words, I said that my opponents are biased. Is that also too pejorative for you? Of so, perhaps we can take this to PM.

This is hypocritical. You are saying you can infer someones intent through context, but that your intent cannot be inferred through context.

[Easy_Lee]

This is hypocritical. You are saying you can infer someones intent through context, but that your intent cannot be inferred through context.

I'm saying that your inference was correct but your understanding of the word "fan boy" wasn't. I definitely intended to call my detractors fan boys. You're the one who cried foul.

Again, I offer you this chance to take this to PMs. Your grudge against me is not the topic of this thread.

[BiPolar]

To follow on this, when an ability that is a single attack requires multiple saving throws or multiple to hit rolls, is damage rolled separately as well?

For example, fireball, damage is rolled once, right?
So if whirlwind is a single attack, and a smite is used...?

Or does the ability specify individual damage rolls? AFB, so not sure.

This is an incredibly interesting question. If, as many folks have said, this is a single attack with multiple rolls but really just one attack, then using a Smite should apply to all. Holy moly, that's a lot of most likely unintended smity goodness.

[Cybren]

This is an incredibly interesting question. If, as many folks have said, this is a single attack with multiple rolls but really just one attack, then using a Smite should apply to all. Holy moly, that's a lot of most likely unintended smity goodness.

Well, this is definitely falling into RAI territory, since smite says "when you hit a creature" and you deal extra damage to "the target" singular. A DM would be fine to rule that even if it a single attack with multiple targets, the smite wording indicates it only cares about one target (the one you hit).
This is why 5e has the "rulings, not rules" mentality, since it's hard to predict every possible interaction.

[Easy_Lee]

This is an incredibly interesting question. If, as many folks have said, this is a single attack with multiple rolls but really just one attack, then using a Smite should apply to all. Holy moly, that's a lot of most likely unintended smity goodness.

Yep. Came up last year, too. Also consider ensnaring strike, which doesn't even require a multiclass. One ensnaring strike could be applied to all targets, if it's all one attack.

[georgie_leech]

This is an incredibly interesting question. If, as many folks have said, this is a single attack with multiple rolls but really just one attack, then using a Smite should apply to all. Holy moly, that's a lot of most likely unintended smity goodness.

My copy uses the wording 'when you hit a creature with an attack... to deal damage to the target,' meaning your enhancing that particular hit, rather than the attack as a whole. So that particular cheese doesn't work, thankfully.

Ensnaring strike seems to work similarly, 'the next time you hit a creature with an attack,' again restricting it to a particular hit rather than the attack as a whole.

[Cybren]

Yep. Came up last year, too. Also consider ensnaring strike, which doesn't even require a multiclass. One ensnaring strike could be applied to all targets, if it's all one attack.

Looking at the wording for ensnaring strike:

The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, a writhing mass of thorny vines appears at the point of impact, and the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw or be restrained by the magical vines until the spell ends. A Large or larger creature has advantage on this saving throw. If the target succeeds on the save, the vines shrivel away.


it seems to be the same wording structure as smite: the next time you hit a creature and the target (singular). It doesn't seem clear cut that you could get it on all the whirlwind attack targets.

[georgie_leech]

You know, given their explicit intention to avoid keyword heavy rules, it would be amusing if WotC actually printed 0 abilities that could take advantage of this interaction entirely by accident. :smallamused:

[BiPolar]

And this is a good thing :)

[RickAllison]

You know, given their explicit intention to avoid keyword heavy rules, it would be amusing if WotC actually printed 0 abilities that could take advantage of this interaction entirely by accident. :smallamused:

I noticed that! I thought of this interaction, but I have yet to find anything it could be used for. Not True Strike, not Smites, not Colossus Slayer, not Sneak Attack. They all seem to trigger off the attack roll or the hit, both of which are fir each creature rather than all of them.

[Knaight]

See Kryx's post above. I can detect the intent behind text, and am not unique in this regard.

And I said what I meant. You can take WotC fan boy as an insult, if you choose. But when I say WotC fan boy, I mean someone whose default position is to defend WotC. When someone has such a bias, it's very difficult to convince them that WotC made a mistake.

In other words, I said that my opponents are biased. Is that also too pejorative for you? Of so, perhaps we can take this to PM.

Your opponents have a different reading than you, and claiming that it's bias in favor of WotC in every case is ludicrous. I don't think your reading holds up, and with my posting history it's pretty clear that any WotC related bias I have is against the company.

[Vogonjeltz]

What a fascinating interpretation of the term "ranged attack."

"Volley: You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target."


"You must have ammunition for each target,"

I mean, it's right there...you literally typed it inside the quotes!


I'm a college graduate trained in business communications and linguistics. I'm also a software developer who regularly translates software requirements into business logic, and vice versa. I've also been a member of a weekly writing group for the past three years.

My knowledge of the English language, grammar, and effective communication is vastly superior to your own. If you think you understand "grammatical fact" better than I do, you're wrong. The mere fact that you used the term "grammatical fact" proves that you are ignorant of this topic.

Ok, so if you were assigned to make a 1-hour presentation to convince any number (let's say 8 for arguments sake) of people in a conference room to sign on as clients, you would then go ahead and make 8 different presentation for every person in the room, one after the other for 8 consecutive hours?


I'm not sure what any of that has to do with anything, especially when the people that wrote the ability have spoken as to what it means.

The first line looks to be the appeal to authority fallacy (referencing qualifications as if that had any bearing on the truth of ones position).

Line two is a baseless assumption given that there was no information to go on and the phrase grammatical fact isn't an uncommon one.


The people who wrote this ability did not consider how it would interact with other rules. They failed to write what they meant. And in the great 5e tradition, they've taken the stance that all synergy is unintentional, and that players who find interesting rules interactions are evil and wrong.

Or there isn't synergy between those statements, as was demonstrated earlier in the thread.


Max, I think he is focusing on the same part of the text that I mentioned could defeat it when you first brought it up. I bolded it in your quote. It provides evidence that ranged attacks from weapons without the ammunition property may not function.

Correct, the function is dependent on there being ammunition, per the requirement that the weapon use ammunition.


BEYBLADE!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxtWC6Djtdw

Wha...what am I seeing here?


And as far as whether my point was called for or not, consider that within the past two pages of this thread, I have been called shallow, pedantic, overly permissive, wrong according to grammatical fact, and wrong period.

Calling someone a WotC fan boy in a D&D forum is far less insulting than any of the above.

Wrong according to grammatical fact isn't an attack, nor an insult.


Are there any abilities that effect "an attack" rather than "when an attack hits a creature" or "an attack roll"? If so, Whirlwind Attack would find great synergy there, getting multiple attack rolls out of what is normally for one.

Off the top of my head, these might (Fact check please):
Barbarian's Reckless Attack?
Savage Attacker feat?

GWM or GWFS?


If whirlwind attack is one attack with multiple rolls, then ensnaring strike or, indeed, smite and similar, apply to all targets hit. I have a feeling that is not WotC's intent.

Not if the ability in question refers to when a target is hit. It would only apply to one target out of the group.


I noticed that! I thought of this interaction, but I have yet to find anything it could be used for. Not True Strike, not Smites, not Colossus Slayer, not Sneak Attack. They all seem to trigger off the attack roll or the hit, both of which are fir each creature rather than all of them.

Some maneuvers work off the attack right?

Precision Attack; Lunging Attack? AFB.

[georgie_leech]

Precision Attack is no good, it applies to an attack roll made with a weapon attack; it needs an attack to work, but applies to a single roll. Lunging Attack... partial success! As shown by this thread itself, it's very debateable whether reach increases can apply to to the flat 5' specified in the ability. However, the bonus damage applies to the attack's damage roll, without the language in the others specifying it would only apply to one creature, so it looks like it just might apply to every target. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether that means you roll a dX for every damage roll, or roll the one dX and apply that to each. Either way, 'damage roll' is singular, so evidence of it not applying, thus Ask Your Dm (tm). Savage Attacker definitely doesn't apply, as that only works with a single weapon die once per turn.

In the process of checking though, I did find one unambiguous ability that works: Shadow Step gives you advantage on the next melee weapon attack, flat out. So looks like there's two cases in the PHB so far. A Monk 6 dip, and a Fighter dip or Martial Adept. Hey, we finally found a way to make that feat give a solid damage bump! :smallamused:

[RickAllison]

Precision Attack is no good, it applies to an attack roll made with a weapon attack; it needs an attack to work, but applies to a single roll. Lunging Attack... partial success! As shown by this thread itself, it's very debateable whether reach increases can apply to to the flat 5' specified in the ability. However, the bonus damage applies to the attack's damage roll, without the language in the others specifying it would only apply to one creature, so it looks like it just might apply to every target. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether that means you roll a dX for every damage roll, or roll the one dX and apply that to each. Either way, 'damage roll' is singular, so evidence of it not applying, thus Ask Your Dm (tm). Savage Attacker definitely doesn't apply, as that only works with a single weapon die once per turn.

In the process of checking though, I did find one unambiguous ability that works: Shadow Step gives you advantage on the next melee weapon attack, flat out. So looks like there's two cases in the PHB so far. A Monk 6 dip, and a Fighter dip or Martial Adept. Hey, we finally found a way to make that feat give a solid damage bump! :smallamused:

Hooray!!!

Although I really like the Shadow Monk combo. Something seems immensely fun about teleporting in the middle of a crowd and kicking everyone in the face. Too bad it has to wait until 17...

[georgie_leech]

Hooray!!!

Although I really like the Shadow Monk combo. Something seems immensely fun about teleporting in the middle of a crowd and kicking everyone in the face. Too bad it has to wait until 17...

'Impractical but awesome' is pretty much the name of the game for Monk combos, isn't it?

[RickAllison]

'Impractical but awesome' is pretty much the name of the game for Monk combos, isn't it?

Yup! I still love my Moon Druid 2/Fighter 11/Monk 2 combo using the Female Steeder. Use her ability to jump 90' in a bound, Attack (3X), Action Surge Attack (3X), Flurry of Blows (2X). Flavor it as spinning around in the air like a spider-saw blade.

Or Moon Druid 6/Rogue 2/Monk X. Turn into a giant octopus, grapple up to 8 people where they can't hit you, then slowly beat them up.

Those are awful combos, but so much fun to think about!

[uraniumrooster]

So, looking at the ability as a single attack that can hit multiple targets, it's essentially just an AoE effect. Wouldn't you just roll damage once, and apply the same total to every target you successfully hit? Basically, it's the Sword Burst cantrip, but with attack rolls instead of saves (and depending on weapon selection, Whirlwind Attack could potentially do less damage at 11th level).

I think treating each roll as a separate attack, and allowing increased reach and movement between attacks, is more appropriate for an 11th level ability, and will continue to do so in my home games. In AL games, I'll just have to feel sorry for anyone who plays a melee hunter.

[Vogonjeltz]

Precision Attack is no good, it applies to an attack roll made with a weapon attack; it needs an attack to work, but applies to a single roll. Lunging Attack... partial success! As shown by this thread itself, it's very debateable whether reach increases can apply to to the flat 5' specified in the ability. However, the bonus damage applies to the attack's damage roll, without the language in the others specifying it would only apply to one creature, so it looks like it just might apply to every target. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether that means you roll a dX for every damage roll, or roll the one dX and apply that to each. Either way, 'damage roll' is singular, so evidence of it not applying, thus Ask Your Dm (tm). Savage Attacker definitely doesn't apply, as that only works with a single weapon die once per turn.

In the process of checking though, I did find one unambiguous ability that works: Shadow Step gives you advantage on the next melee weapon attack, flat out. So looks like there's two cases in the PHB so far. A Monk 6 dip, and a Fighter dip or Martial Adept. Hey, we finally found a way to make that feat give a solid damage bump! :smallamused:

Got back to book, I think Savage Attack might just work. First it applies to all the weapon's damage dice, not just one, second per pg 196 on dealing damage:

"If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them."

As whirlwind is only one attack, even though it requires multiple rolls to hit, all would be off one damage roll, presumably (except for any critical hits?), meaning that savage attack ought to apply to all targets (albeit only happening once, still)

[Cybren]

If you're watching someone slam dunk, you're watching a basketball game. It then follows that if you're watching someone dunk multiple times, you're watching multiple basketball games.

If you're answering a math problem, you're in math class. It then follows if you answer multiple math problems, you're in multiple math classes.

If you chop an onion, you're cooking a meal. It then follows that if you chop multiple onions, you are cooking multiple meals.

If you roll a d20, you're playing a D&D game. It then follows that if you roll multiple d20s, you are playing multiple games of D&D.

If you hatch a hydralisk, you're playing a game of starcraft. It then follows that if you hatch multiple hydralisks, you are playing multiple games of starcraft.

If you make a poorly constructed argument to read an overly permissive view of the rules...

Has anyone ever addressed this argument?

[Vogonjeltz]

Has anyone ever addressed this argument?

Nope, they are solid comparisons and counterfactuals to the multiple attack claim.

[georgie_leech]

Got back to book, I think Savage Attack might just work. First it applies to all the weapon's damage dice, not just one, second per pg 196 on dealing damage:

"If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them."

As whirlwind is only one attack, even though it requires multiple rolls to hit, all would be off one damage roll, presumably (except for any critical hits?), meaning that savage attack ought to apply to all targets (albeit only happening once, still)

Oop, you're correct, I misread 'dice' as 'die.' That's a good catch for damage too, I misremembered that as applying to spells only. So now we're up to 3, including Savage Attacker.

[Sabeta]

Every thread on this forum seems to go rapidly off topic and instead argues over very obscure rulings. I didn't think we would need several pages of bickering after pointing out that Whirlwind Attack is a single attack with multiple roles, I mean just think about it logically and it would be obvious: Every individual enemy tries to block or dodge your one attack, necessitating multiple rolls against their AC.

@ TC: I couldn't find anything concrete, but I don't see why not. If it's RAW that you can't then I imagine this is a result of having to hold the weapon near the blade for some reason. Though I haven't seen any official sources that claim Sentinal doesn't benefit from Reach. (At least not in the Errata or SA Compendium.

[georgie_leech]

Every thread on this forum seems to go rapidly off topic and instead argues over very obscure rulings. I didn't think we would need several pages of bickering after pointing out that Whirlwind Attack is a single attack with multiple roles, I mean just think about it logically and it would be obvious: Every individual enemy tries to block or dodge your one attack, necessitating multiple rolls against their AC.


When was the last time you ever found a group of gamers that can stay on topic and focused for more than fifteen minutes or so? :smallbiggrin:

[Sabeta]

GameFAQs and 4Chan can usually manage. I mean, some people always try to stir the pot, bit everyone there knows not to feed to the trolls.

[mgshamster]

GameFAQs and 4Chan can usually manage. I mean, some people always try to stir the pot, bit everyone there knows not to feed to the trolls.

People here may get off topic, and some of them can even have jerk behavior sometimes. But not a single person posting in this thread or any of the threads on the first page are trolls.

At least, they're not trolls here.

[Easy_Lee]

Nope, they are solid comparisons and counterfactuals to the multiple attack claim.

{scrubbed}

Sometimes the plain English reading is the one that makes the most sense to the most people. Someone asked Crawford about Volley attack, and he said it's a single attack with multiple attack rolls. The response? "Strange since the feature is called Multiattack and Volley even [requires] ammunition for each target"

The whole one attack with multiple attack rolls thing doesn't make sense at first. It doesn't even cross the average player's mind to think of that. Only once they're told, and it's explained to them, do players understand that logic. And even then, it doesn't really make sense.

I hold that any rule or ability which is misread the first time (misread meaning the player doesn't get the intended meaning from it) is poorly written. I also hold that WotC doesn't care. The biggest failing of 5th edition is that, in trying to remove the gamey elements, WotC has made it so that 5e doesn't function as a game without heavy moderation. A year after its release, we as a community still have basic rulings questions. Unacceptable.

I already know you're going to reply and say my reading is wrong, Vogon. You're going to reply, "well, actually, multiattack actually could mean an attack with multi- rolls, actually. Maybe you should re-read that ability!" And you will have proven 1) that I'm awesome and clearly the best at predictions, and 2) that the ability is poorly written to begin with, since multiple interpretations are possible.

[Cybren]

{scrubbed}

[georgie_leech]

-snip-

That's great, but do you want address why those counterexamples are so different from your position on attack rolls?

[Easy_Lee]

That's great, but do you want address why those counterexamples are so different from your position on attack rolls?

Because they had nothing to do with attacks or attack rolls. Apples and oranges come to mind.

Edit: also, I'll take your omission of the rest of my post to mean that you agree with everything else I said. Thank you for that.

[RickAllison]

Because they had nothing to do with attacks or attack rolls. Apples and oranges come to mind.

Edit: also, I'll take your omission of the rest of my post to mean that you agree with everything else I said. Thank you for that.

That was because he was pointing out how ridiculous the logical leap you made was by pointing out what happens if we apply your logic in a plain English setting. We end up examples that make no sense because the logic makes no sense. Indeed, your response was to insult the posts rather than to explain how his application of your logic differed from your own.

How is the logic applied to the slam dunks any different than to the attack rolls in Whirlwind? If you can't refute that, the argument stands. Your logic has an argument that would unravel it, you have the choice whether to defend it, let your previous arguments stand (but it was a deconstruction of those arguments...), to concede the point, or to just leave.

[georgie_leech]

Because they had nothing to do with attacks or attack rolls. Apples and oranges come to mind.

Edit: also, I'll take your omission of the rest of my post to mean that you agree with everything else I said. Thank you for that.

No, I'm trying to get you to stop avoiding this point. Here, let's use a D&D example. 'If you are hit by a Scorching Ray, you have been targeted by a spell. If you are hit by multiple Scorching Rays, you have been targeted by multiple spells.' This sentence follows the same structure of your argument, but is clearly not universally true. Why is your sentence universally true? You've claimed that you're the expert on grammar, so explain what the difference between the sentences are.

[Knaight]

Because they had nothing to do with attacks or attack rolls. Apples and oranges come to mind.

Edit: also, I'll take your omission of the rest of my post to mean that you agree with everything else I said. Thank you for that.

It doesn't matter that they had nothing to do with attacks or attack rolls. The problem isn't the specifics of the claims, the problem is that there are fundamental logical flaws in the structure of the argument. The other examples just reveal that the structure clearly doesn't work.

[Waffle_Iron]

Weird semi-related question: the whirlwind attack ability specifies a melee attack, can this be any melee attack the character is capable of?

Generally: must the attack be a weapon attack?

Specifically: the Druid spell Flame Blade allows you to use your action to make a melee spell attack. Is there a reason why this attack could not be used during whirlwind attack?

The interpretation that whirlwind is a single attack with multiple rolls would seem not to interfere with the spell's apparent limit of one attack.

[Shaofoo]

When was the last time you ever found a group of gamers that can stay on topic and focused for more than fifteen minutes or so? :smallbiggrin:

I find that D&D forums are more prone to this "off topic" tangent than other places.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Everyone, please remember to stay on topic and adhering to the Forum Rules.

[Easy_Lee]

It doesn't matter that they had nothing to do with attacks or attack rolls. The problem isn't the specifics of the claims, the problem is that there are fundamental logical flaws in the structure of the argument. The other examples just reveal that the structure clearly doesn't work.

I said apples to oranges because they weren't the same as the original example. Outside of multiattack abilities (and multiattack implies multiple attacks), we don't have any examples where one attack = multiple attack rolls. A closer approximation would be this: "if you see a four-sided shape, you're looking at a quadrilateral. If you see multiple four-sided shapes, you're looking at multiple quadrilaterals." And the response from WotC was akin to saying, "no, you're just looking at a single quadrilateral reflected from multiple mirrors."

It didn't occur to most, the first time they read the ability, that the separate attack rolls were part of the same attack. Same action, sure, but, as we all know that the Attack action can produce multiple attacks, and an attack roll means an attack is made, it was most obvious to assume that multiattack meant multiple attacks (multiple + attack = multiattack). If it's one attack, it makes the most sense to only roll the attack and damage once.

And they could have done so: the ability would be no different statistically, but would be easier to use at a table because you'd only roll once. Example:
Whirlwind Attack: as an action, you make a single melee attack. Roll the attack and damage as normal, but the attack may target any number of creatures within your reach.

The above would be exactly the same, would prevent movement, would be faster at the table, and would have avoided this whole debate. Did WotC do this? No. And that implies to me that they either prefer ambiguous rules, or (more likely) just didn't think about it too hard. And I view their response to the matter as a feeble attempt to cover their mistake.

Is that the only possible view? No. But I've presented my evidence, and I believe it's correct.

[Sabeta]

I'm just going to make a new thread for this. It seems we're clearly not done talking about it.

[RickAllison]

I said apples to oranges because they weren't the same as the original example. Outside of multiattack abilities (and multiattack implies multiple attacks), we don't have any examples where one attack = multiple attack rolls. A closer approximation would be this: "if you see a four-sided shape, you're looking at a quadrilateral. If you see multiple four-sided shapes, you're looking at multiple quadrilaterals." And the response from WotC was akin to saying, "no, you're just looking at a single quadrilateral reflected from multiple mirrors."

It didn't occur to most, the first time they read the ability, that the separate attack rolls were part of the same attack. Same action, sure, but, as we all know that the Attack action can produce multiple attacks, and an attack roll means an attack is made, it was most obvious to assume that multiattack meant multiple attacks (multiple + attack = multiattack). If it's one attack, it makes the most sense to only roll the attack and damage once.

And they could have done so: the ability would be no different statistically, but would be easier to use at a table because you'd only roll once. Example:
Whirlwind Attack: as an action, you make a single melee attack. Roll the attack and damage as normal, but the attack may target any number of creatures within your reach.

The above would be exactly the same, would prevent movement, would be faster at the table, and would have avoided this whole debate. Did WotC do this? No. And that implies to me that they either prefer ambiguous rules, or (more likely) just didn't think about it too hard. And I view their response to the matter as a feeble attempt to cover their mistake.

Is that the only possible view? No. But I've presented my evidence, and I believe it's correct.

Do note that a lack of examples does not create a rule. It can imply a rule, but it could also be that no other created abilities so-far needed the system. It was a perfectly acceptable interpretation before the Sage Advice, but that clarification of RAI removed the one pillar such logic had.

When the rule could go either way, either interpretation could be correct as there was no evidence that really solidified which one was right. Once the ruling from JC came out that the 1-to-1 RAI rule was false, it took the primary standing point of the 1-to-1 away and gave it to the opposition. When the creators have stated that a lack of rules saying that one attack roll necessitated one attack and vice versa is because such rules do not exist, it changes the arguments.

Now all of this is for the game at large. House ruling that it works the way you argue for is perfectly fine, and may even be superior to the actual rules. Arguing that your ruling isn't backed up by the text is very different than saying it is a bad house rule to implement. Arguing RAW and RAI have to do with text and what little information we can get from the developers, but being a "good" ruling doesn't have to care for that at all.

[georgie_leech]

For instance, for all I think it's a single attack, the multiple attack idea makes it a lot easier to argue you can move between attacks and so reach more targets, at the risk of provoking AoO's. That's a quick and easy way to give a bump in power for Melee Hunter Ranger without turning them into unstoppable blenders against single targets. That needs a more explicit house rule under the single attack form, which can make a struggling Ranger less likely to suggest this buff. It's easy to feel like a munchkin to ask for house rules in your favor.

[Sabeta]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?496447-Multiattack-Rules&p=21065637#post21065637

Done, please move this debate to the new thread. I also infodumped a lot of stuff supporting One Attack versus Many.

[Easy_Lee]

Do note that a lack of examples does not create a rule. It can imply a rule, but it could also be that no other created abilities so-far needed the system. It was a perfectly acceptable interpretation before the Sage Advice, but that clarification of RAI removed the one pillar such logic had.

When the rule could go either way, either interpretation could be correct as there was no evidence that really solidified which one was right. Once the ruling from JC came out that the 1-to-1 RAI rule was false, it took the primary standing point of the 1-to-1 away and gave it to the opposition. When the creators have stated that a lack of rules saying that one attack roll necessitated one attack and vice versa is because such rules do not exist, it changes the arguments.

Now all of this is for the game at large. House ruling that it works the way you argue for is perfectly fine, and may even be superior to the actual rules. Arguing that your ruling isn't backed up by the text is very different than saying it is a bad house rule to implement. Arguing RAW and RAI have to do with text and what little information we can get from the developers, but being a "good" ruling doesn't have to care for that at all.

That's kind of my whole point, though. The ability never should have had multiple interpretations in the first place. I attempted to interpret it using only the RAW and examples from the text. WotC threw a ruling at it, based on a non-obvious interpretation that multiple attack rolls != multiple attacks. I don't think anyone came up with that before they did, which troubles me. Certainly, if I had suggested that, I would have been laughed out of the Playground.

Just kidding. I'm not that easy to get rid of.

If WotC truly wishes for a rulings over rules system, then they shouldn't have Sage Advice in the first place. If the creators of a game release a set of rulings which are their rulings, then fans are reasonable to assume that those rulings are the correct rulings. And that's what really sets fire to these already heated debates. Furthermore, it confuses DMs everywhere, who were already using a different ruling and now must question whether they were "wrong."

[Tanarii]

ON TOPIC (to make sure it jumps out :smallwink: )

I may have missed it in the side debate, but can a Battlemaster using Lunging Attack to use his Glaive in conjunction with Whirlwind Attack? I realize that would require multiclassing to make it work, but it might be worth it.

(Under either interpretation of the number of attacks Whirlwind attack constitutes.)

[Easy_Lee]

ON TOPIC (to make sure it jumps out :smallwink: )

I may have missed it in the side debate, but can a Battlemaster using Lunging Attack to use his Glaive in conjunction with Whirlwind Attack? I realize that would require multiclassing to make it work, but it might be worth it.

(Under either interpretation of the number of attacks Whirlwind attack constitutes.)

Ask your DM, as his ruling is the one that matters. If you want me to guess at the intent, though, I suspect Crawford would say no because whirlwind attack specifies targets within 5', not reach. Martials aren't allowed to have synergy.

[georgie_leech]

Ask your DM, as his ruling is the one that matters. If you want me to guess at the intent, though, I suspect Crawford would say no because whirlwind attack specifies targets within 5', not reach. Martials aren't allowed to have synergy.

More or less this. If Reach weapons do extend the reach of Whirlwind, so to does Lunging Attack. If they don't, neither does Lunging Attack. The damage boost definitely applies to the attack at least, as that's independent of the reach increase.

One thing to note is its interaction with the number of attacks, if it works. If Whirlwind is a single attack, the reach increase applies to the whole thing. If Whirlwind is multiple attacks, only one gets the increased reach and damage boost.

[Waffle_Iron]

Weird semi-related question: the whirlwind attack ability specifies a melee attack, can this be any melee attack the character is capable of?

Generally: must the attack be a weapon attack?

Specifically: the Druid spell Flame Blade allows you to use your action to make a melee spell attack. Is there a reason why this attack could not be used during whirlwind attack?

The interpretation that whirlwind is a single attack with multiple rolls would seem not to interfere with the spell's apparent limit of one attack.

This may have been missed amongst all the gnashing of teeth.

Any answers on this?

[Cybren]

This may have been missed amongst all the gnashing of teeth.

Any answers on this?

It's real ambiguous. There's two angles: "flame blade creates a weapon you hold in your hand, it specifies you can use your action for clarity" and "flame blade creates an effect that lets you use your action to make a melee spell attack". I think the latter is more likely to be raw, given that, for example, you can't Extra Attack with a flame blade as far as I know. This is one of those things where D&D is acting more like a game than a model of the games world, I would assume.

[Waffle_Iron]

It's real ambiguous. There's two angles: "flame blade creates a weapon you hold in your hand, it specifies you can use your action for clarity" and "flame blade creates an effect that lets you use your action to make a melee spell attack". I think the latter is more likely to be raw, given that, for example, you can't Extra Attack with a flame blade as far as I know. This is one of those things where D&D is acting more like a game than a model of the games world, I would assume.

Thanks. I'm the GM for our group, and I've ruled pretty consistently in favor of actions that seem fitting in the fiction, and against game-y combos. I would allow flame blade whirlwind for what it's worth.

[ZenBear]

This may have been missed amongst all the gnashing of teeth.

Any answers on this?

I started a separate thread for you where a few people weighed in. By RAW it is not allowed, but like you I would allow it because it's cool and frankly Flame Blade is a pretty lackluster spell in general.

[Vogonjeltz]

Sometimes the plain English reading is the one that makes the most sense to the most people. Someone asked Crawford about Volley attack, and he said it's a single attack with multiple attack rolls. The response? "Strange since the feature is called Multiattack and Volley even [requires] ammunition for each target"

The whole one attack with multiple attack rolls thing doesn't make sense at first. It doesn't even cross the average player's mind to think of that. Only once they're told, and it's explained to them, do players understand that logic. And even then, it doesn't really make sense.[/quote]

The visual I had for Volley based on the text was that it was an archer loading their bow with multiple arrows and firing them all in one shot.

For Whirlwind it was someone spinning around once to try and hit everyone around them. It's one motion, as distinct from a Fighter with 4 attacks using action surge to attack everyone around them once, which would be many different sword strikes for example, instead of just 1 sword strike.

The plain english reading is that it's a single attack, that's literally what the english says by using the singular form instead of plural. The format of the ability goes out of its way to explain that multiple rolls need to be used, despite what the plain text might otherwise imply (i.e. one attack roll).


I hold that any rule or ability which is misread the first time (misread meaning the player doesn't get the intended meaning from it) is poorly written. I also hold that WotC doesn't care. The biggest failing of 5th edition is that, in trying to remove the gamey elements, WotC has made it so that 5e doesn't function as a game without heavy moderation. A year after its release, we as a community still have basic rulings questions. Unacceptable.

It's a nice idea, except I understood the written and intended meaning the first go through, so we can't universalize this precept as there are always going to be some situations where a first time reader might misconstrue what a thing says or does. That being the case, it doesn't seem like a particularly meaningful or quantifiable metric. Instead, using colloquial english expressions and then checking them for areas where they could be misunderstood is a reasonable guideline.

A copy of strunk and white is probably a good first step.


I already know you're going to reply and say my reading is wrong, Vogon. You're going to reply, "well, actually, multiattack actually could mean an attack with multi- rolls, actually. Maybe you should re-read that ability!" And you will have proven 1) that I'm awesome and clearly the best at predictions, and 2) that the ability is poorly written to begin with, since multiple interpretations are possible.

Well, that prediction proved wrong...it's worth noting that for any being with imperfect information the future is entirely mutable and thus unknowable with absolute certitude. (i.e. One might predict they will themselves eat a Tuna sandwich, but instead it turns out they don't have Tuna; or they change their mind in between that statement and eating and have a PB&J; or they get hit by a bus and end up in traction instead of eating lunch; or they simply forget to eat; etcetera, the list of possible examples is infinite).

However, since you brought up the idea of how Multiattack was meant to be read, it does make sense that it's referring to attacks that can hit multiple targets. Thank you for noting that.


Weird semi-related question: the whirlwind attack ability specifies a melee attack, can this be any melee attack the character is capable of?

Generally: must the attack be a weapon attack?

Specifically: the Druid spell Flame Blade allows you to use your action to make a melee spell attack. Is there a reason why this attack could not be used during whirlwind attack?

The interpretation that whirlwind is a single attack with multiple rolls would seem not to interfere with the spell's apparent limit of one attack.

I'd say by the rules no, and the intent is presumably no as it doesn't just say the character has a weapon in hand which attacks as a melee spell attack for x damage, but instead that they get to take a specific action to do that; not dissimilar from vampiric touch.


And they could have done so: the ability would be no different statistically, but would be easier to use at a table because you'd only roll once. Example:
Whirlwind Attack: as an action, you make a single melee attack. Roll the attack and damage as normal, but the attack may target any number of creatures within your reach.

That would have unintended consequences:

1) The roll could crit all targets equally. This could be heavily exploited by any ability that allows a re-roll.

2) Disadvantage and Advantage could not be accurately applied to the roll on the case by case basis that they matter for.


I may have missed it in the side debate, but can a Battlemaster using Lunging Attack to use his Glaive in conjunction with Whirlwind Attack? I realize that would require multiclassing to make it work, but it might be worth it.

(Under either interpretation of the number of attacks Whirlwind attack constitutes.)

It works on the single attack, yes. It's not clear that that matters however as the ability is specific to 5 feet, not reach.

[Tanarii]

Ask your DM, as his ruling is the one that matters. If you want me to guess at the intent, though, I suspect Crawford would say no because whirlwind attack specifies targets within 5', not reach. Martials aren't allowed to have synergy.


More or less this. If Reach weapons do extend the reach of Whirlwind, so to does Lunging Attack. If they don't, neither does Lunging Attack. The damage boost definitely applies to the attack at least, as that's independent of the reach increase.


It works on the single attack, yes. It's not clear that that matters however as the ability is specific to 5 feet, not reach.Ah. I was thinking Lunging attack would "turn on" the ability to use the Reach of the Glaive for some reason. Total forgot the entire point of Lunging attack is to allow you to reach opponents beyond what you can normally reach. /facepalm and seriously :smallconfused: myself here

[Easy_Lee]

It's a nice idea, except I understood the written and intended meaning the first go through, so we can't universalize this precept as there are always going to be some situations where a first time reader might misconstrue what a thing says or does. That being the case, it doesn't seem like a particularly meaningful or quantifiable metric. Instead, using colloquial english expressions and then checking them for areas where they could be misunderstood is a reasonable guideline.

A copy of strunk and white is probably a good first step.

Oh boy, vogonjeltz. It doesn't matter if you, personally, got it the first time. What matters is that not everyone did. We didn't have trouble understanding what the Extra Attack feature meant, or what Horde Breaker does. But we disagreed over whirlwind attack and volley.

That means they're poorly written. You can argue about that, but the majority disagrees. And the majority matters more than one person's opinion.

That's the last straw, by the way. Consider yourself ignored.

[Cybren]

Oh boy, vogonjeltz. It doesn't matter if you, personally, got it the first time. What matters is that not everyone did. We didn't have trouble understanding what the Extra Attack feature meant, or what Horde Breaker does. But we disagreed over whirlwind attack and volley.

That means they're poorly written. You can argue about that, but the majority disagrees. And the majority matters more than one person's opinion.

That's the last straw, by the way. Consider yourself ignored.

That's a significant shifting of the goal posts from "This is RAW" to "this is poorly worded"

[Easy_Lee]

That's a significant shifting of the goal posts from "This is RAW" to "this is poorly worded"

Because Crawford likes his plain English, and most people's plain English on it was the same as mine. It took a long time, when I first noticed this, for anyone to even bring up the single attack thing.

The tweet demonstrates one thing, though: literally anything can be changed with a ruling. Even plain English, it seems.

[georgie_leech]

Because Crawford likes his plain English, and most people's plain English on it was the same as mine. It took a long time, when I first noticed this, for anyone to even bring up the single attack thing.

The tweet demonstrates one thing, though: literally anything can be changed with a ruling. Even plain English, it seems.

Plain English is not the same as How I Read it the First Time.

[Easy_Lee]

Plain English is not the same as How I Read it the First Time.

"Plain English is presenting information so that in a single reading, the intended audience can read, understand and act upon it. Plain English means writing with the audience in mind and presenting information clearly and accurately."

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

[georgie_leech]

"Plain English is presenting information so that in a single reading, the intended audience can read, understand and act upon it. Plain English means writing with the audience in mind and presenting information clearly and accurately."

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Let me rephrase: just because you read it that way the first time, doesn't mean that is in fact the plain English reading. Otherwise we're left with a situation where the opposing sides both read it the first time in different ways, which leads to the argument of which side has plain English on their side to be a never ending cascade of 'I do!' 'No, I do!' It's a fruitless Avenue to pursue, in other words.

[Easy_Lee]

Let me rephrase: just because you read it that way the first time, doesn't mean that is in fact the plain English reading. Otherwise we're left with a situation where the opposing sides both read it the first time in different ways, which leads to the argument of which side has plain English on their side to be a never ending cascade of 'I do!' 'No, I do!' It's a fruitless Avenue to pursue, in other words.

It means there are multiple interpretations, meaning it's not really a RAW question.

[DivisibleByZero]

Lee's problem is that he/she/it always (and I mean ALWAYS) assumes that the way he/she/it reads something is the only logical way to read it. And as long as a single person claims to have read it the same way, that means that the majority of people did the same. And he/she/it clearly has a better grasp of the English language than anyone else on this board.
And so on and so forth.

[ZenBear]

It means there are multiple interpretations, meaning it's not really a RAW question.

The rule was worded ambiguously, thus it is not plain English. That fact does not make all interpretations equally valid; that's like saying scientists haven't come up with a certain answer for the origin of the universe, and therefore any explanation is as good as another.

That being said, it's up to you and your group how you choose to use Whirlwind Attack in your game, regardless of its intended use or whether or not the rules are ambiguous. You can choose to allow Whirlwind Attack to be used in place of a regular attack with Extra Attack. Nothing stopping you, and it's not wrong to do so.

[georgie_leech]

The rule was worded ambiguously, thus it is not plain English. That fact does not make all interpretations equally valid; that's like saying scientists haven't come up with a certain answer for the origin of the universe, and therefore any explanation is as good as another.

That being said, it's up to you and your group how you choose to use Whirlwind Attack in your game, regardless of its intended use or whether or not the rules are ambiguous. You can choose to allow Whirlwind Attack to be used in place of a regular attack with Extra Attack. Nothing stopping you, and it's not wrong to do so.

Mind you, I don't think anyone has argued that particular interpretation as the default rule. Though it does conjure up a rather amusing image of a whirling ball of sword that abruptly starts and stops.

[Vogonjeltz]

Because Crawford likes his plain English, and most people's plain English on it was the same as mine. It took a long time, when I first noticed this, for anyone to even bring up the single attack thing.

The tweet demonstrates one thing, though: literally anything can be changed with a ruling. Even plain English, it seems.

I don't believe most people when reading in plain English would see the use of the specifically singular "a melee attack" and then conclude the action is multiple attacks.

It's not even a little bit ambiguously worded.

[BurgerBeast]

Since Easy_Lee brought linguistics and computer science into this, I will try another way to explain. Please understand that this is not meant to be facetious or sarcastic. I'm being serious.

Look into the definition of the verb "be."

Believe it or not, you'll find that it's not as simple as it may at first appear. Specifically, look into the difference between the copula and the other definitions. In many other languages, the copula is a different verb than the verb "to be," but in English they share the same verb. The only example I know is Korean, in which we can contrast ieyo (the copula [conjugated in informal honorific]) against issoyo (the verb to be [same conjugation]).

In computer programming, the = symbol denotes one definition of the copula - specifically the principle of equality.

Contrast this with the := symbol as used in languages such as C++ (forgive me, it's been a while since I've programmed, so this is the example I'm most sure of, however I may be mistaken here and am ready to be corrected). This is a different form of the copula. It can be used to assign an element to a set, for example "a cat is an animal," which does not imply that cats and animals are the same thing, but rather that cats are a subset of animals.

The copula can also be used to assign essenses, for example "elephants are big" or "my shirt is red," so again, there is no equality implied through the use of the word "is." Likewise it can be used to convey states of being, for example "the radio is on" or "Jennifer is awake."

I don't know if this helps at all but I hope it does.

From the computer science or logical side of it, look into modus ponies and modus tollens. they are the two most common logical fallacies associated with logical implication and they shed a pretty good light on this discussion.

Basically:

(If A then B) is not the same as (A = B)

There are a number of ways to show this is true and this is a part of every Logic 101 course in universities and online. Most philosophy websites explain it rather well.

[Vogonjeltz]

Look into the definition of the verb "be."

Believe it or not, you'll find that it's not as simple as it may at first appear. Specifically, look into the difference between the copula and the other definitions. In many other languages, the copula is a different verb than the verb "to be," but in English they share the same verb. The only example I know is Korean, in which we can contrast ieyo (the copula [conjugated in informal honorific]) against issoyo (the verb to be [same conjugation]).

In MW they define be as "—used to indicate the identity of a person or thing; —used to describe the qualities of a person or thing; —used to indicate the condition of a person or thing Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary"

I think that those could all combine in summary as linking (i.e. copula) a subject to a state of existence.

I also wouldn't use something as non-standard as copula to describe it, most readers wouldn't know what that means, even if the word is accurate.

[BurgerBeast]

In MW they define be as "—used to indicate the identity of a person or thing; —used to describe the qualities of a person or thing; —used to indicate the condition of a person or thing Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary"

I think that those could all combine in summary as linking (i.e. copula) a subject to a state of existence.

Then you're missing the point.

"used to indicate the identity of a person or thing" is logically the same as "equals." For example, "I am Brent" implies that "I" and "Brent" are exactly the same person.

"used to describe the qualities of a person or thing" is a totally different notion. For example, if you consider: "the car is red," you'll notice that it is not the case that "the car" and "red" are exactly the same thing. The car is, well, a car. Red is a colour. "Red" is a quality of "the car." I am pretty sure that belonging to a set falls into this category. So when we say "a cat is an animal" it does not mean that "a cat" and "an animal" are exactly the same thing. Rather, it means that "a cat" has the property of belonging to the set of animals.

"used to indicate the condition of a thing" - well, yeah, this seems pretty similar to "describing the quality," except that conditions can (generally) change whereas qualities (generally) can't. So being tall is more akin to a quality of a person, while being happy is more akin to a condition.

But most interesting, in my opinion, is the difference between the sentences "I am John" and "I am a policeman." Bertrand Russell wrote extensively on this type of difference in meaning. At first glance, the word "is" seems to be performing the same function... but it isn't. As I said previously, the first sentence equates "I" to "John." But the second sentence does not equate "I" to "a policeman." It rather assigns "I" to the set of all policemen. There is no reason for anyone who understands English to think that the sentence is claiming that "a policeman" means the same person as "I" does.


I also wouldn't use something as non-standard as copula to describe it, most readers wouldn't know what that means, even if the word is accurate.

Copula isn't non-standard. And I'm using the term because I'm trying to introduce it to the readers.

"Be" has a whole other meaning English that is not in any way related to the copula. It's the meaning found in the sentences "To be or not to be" and in "I think therefore I am." It means "exist."

[mgshamster]

Look into the definition of the verb "be."

This post and your follow-up posts on this subject (in this thread and others) are incredibly fascinating.

In all sincerity, thank you. I've learned a lot (some of it was relearning old and forgotten material, but a lot of it was new).

[BurgerBeast]

In all sincerity, thank you. I've learned a lot (some of it was relearning old and forgotten material, but a lot of it was new).

You're welcome, and thank you! Sometimes amid all of my own lengthy babble it's hard to know if it's worth the effort or if I'm just being annoying. I suppose if I'm being annoying, people can just skip over it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Then you're missing the point.

"used to indicate the identity of a person or thing" is logically the same as "equals." For example, "I am Brent" implies that "I" and "Brent" are exactly the same person.

"used to describe the qualities of a person or thing" is a totally different notion. For example, if you consider: "the car is red," you'll notice that it is not the case that "the car" and "red" are exactly the same thing. The car is, well, a car. Red is a colour. "Red" is a quality of "the car." I am pretty sure that belonging to a set falls into this category. So when we say "a cat is an animal" it does not mean that "a cat" and "an animal" are exactly the same thing. Rather, it means that "a cat" has the property of belonging to the set of animals.

"used to indicate the condition of a thing" - well, yeah, this seems pretty similar to "describing the quality," except that conditions can (generally) change whereas qualities (generally) can't. So being tall is more akin to a quality of a person, while being happy is more akin to a condition.

But most interesting, in my opinion, is the difference between the sentences "I am John" and "I am a policeman." Bertrand Russell wrote extensively on this type of difference in meaning. At first glance, the word "is" seems to be performing the same function... but it isn't. As I said previously, the first sentence equates "I" to "John." But the second sentence does not equate "I" to "a policeman." It rather assigns "I" to the set of all policemen. There is no reason for anyone who understands English to think that the sentence is claiming that "a policeman" means the same person as "I" does.



Copula isn't non-standard. And I'm using the term because I'm trying to introduce it to the readers.

"Be" has a whole other meaning English that is not in any way related to the copula. It's the meaning found in the sentences "To be or not to be" and in "I think therefore I am." It means "exist."

And Brent is merely a name, it in and of itself tells you just as much information about a thing as red, rose, or any other adjective or noun.

Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?

[mgshamster]

And Brent is merely a name, it in and of itself tells you just as much information about a thing as red, rose, or any other adjective or noun.

Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?

A rose by another name is the sex organs of a thorny shrub.

[BurgerBeast]

And Brent is merely a name, it in and of itself tells you just as much information about a thing as red, rose, or any other adjective or noun.

Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?

You're right, but I think you know what I meant.

You could claim that "I am Brent" is no different than saying "My name is Brent" or even "I am a member of the set of all Brents," in which case the verb is functioning to identify a quality of "I."

But you could also take the intended meaning (the one I explicitly stated - that they are exactly the same person), which might be expressed as "I am Brent Preston Michael Hawkins, born October 12th, 1984 in Windsor, Ontario, Canada." (Or we could get more specific if you want to keep kicking the proverbial dead dog.) In this case the verb means "equals."

So we can play semantics, or you can acknowledge that my point, the point we both know I was trying to make (since I made it explicitly to avoid the ambiguity you've here invoked), remains.

[Vogonjeltz]

You're right, but I think you know what I meant.

You could claim that "I am Brent" is no different than saying "My name is Brent" or even "I am a member of the set of all Brents," in which case the verb is functioning to identify a quality of "I."

But you could also take the intended meaning (the one I explicitly stated - that they are exactly the same person), which might be expressed as "I am Brent Preston Michael Hawkins, born October 12th, 1984 in Windsor, Ontario, Canada." (Or we could get more specific if you want to keep kicking the proverbial dead dog.) In this case the verb means "equals."

So we can play semantics, or you can acknowledge that my point, the point we both know I was trying to make (since I made it explicitly to avoid the ambiguity you've here invoked), remains.

My meaning was that your name merely invokes a quality of the entity that is you.

Brent is like a pointer which, context driven, resolves to you.

In programming it is similar to saying Brent = You (as opposed to Brent == You); Brent is a variable which could be you, or it could be another Brent; the parens version where Brent == You is such that Brent could only be you.

[BurgerBeast]

Brent is like a pointer which, context driven, resolves to you.

This is the bit that was discussed in detail by Russell. Although if my memory serves, he assigned the meanings differently in his work, but the point is the same. At any rate, he talked about this in detail, and apparently his work had implications in symbolic logic and is still controversial today. (Obviously I'm no expert and don;t claim to be.)

[Vogonjeltz]

This is the bit that was discussed in detail by Russell. Although if my memory serves, he assigned the meanings differently in his work, but the point is the same. At any rate, he talked about this in detail, and apparently his work had implications in symbolic logic and is still controversial today. (Obviously I'm no expert and don;t claim to be.)

I'd think the word 'a' in the sentence 'I am a policeman' denotes that you're one of. Whereas the lack of the article implies singularity.

i.e. I am zul; I am a Zul; I am Azul. (I am the one and only Zul; I am one of a group known as Zuls; I am blue) :D

It's not dissimilar to Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, Socrates is mortal. I am a policeman would only indicate that I share whatever traits the group shares. This doesn't mean the inverse would be true, that the group shares all traits I share.

[BurgerBeast]

Russell looked specifically at two sentences, which is they were given in today's context would be.

I am Barrack Obama Barack Obama.

I am the current president of the United States.

He showed, controversially, that these sentences have different meanings. The second sentence is merely a pointer (if I remember correctly) whereas the first sentence is in fact an equality.

[wilhelmdubdub]

Yet again Crawford fails to read his own rules.

Remember this part. If you have an action that involved multiple attacks, you can move between attacks.


And Whirlwind Attack is indeed "an action that includes more than one weapon attack". QED. Crawford can't read.

By the way, I houserule all instances of "within 5 feet" in cases such as Whirlwind Attack, the Wolf Totem 3rd Level ability, Mage Slayer and similar to say "within your melee reach". Unlike Crawford, I make no pretense that this is what the rule is. No, this is my own houserule, and, if you don't mind me tooting my own horn, a darn good one.

Would having a polearm involve changing damage types for the 5ft and 10ft rings? polearm master gives you that d4, so would the outer ring give you that D10 while the inner 5ft ring give you maybe D4 bludgeoning? Just a consideration i had to make it more realistic seeing that a glave is a polearm with a slashing weapon at the end. Just a thought.

[Knaight]

Russell looked specifically at two sentences, which is they were given in today's context would be.

I am Barrack Obama.

I am the current president of the United States.

He showed, controversially, that these sentences have different meanings. The second sentence is merely a pointer (if I remember correctly) whereas the first sentence is in fact an equality.

Well yeah. For one thing, the current president is Barack Obama, not Barrack Obama.

[BurgerBeast]

Well yeah. For one thing, the current president is Barack Obama, not Barrack Obama.

Fair enough. I'm changing that.