Multiattack Rules

[Sabeta]

This debate, started by user Easy_Lee began in this THIS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?492954-Whirlwind-attack-with-glaive) thread has gone on long enough that it's high time it got its own topic. It all started with the quote below:


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.

Which begs the questions. Are Multiattack abilities treated a single attack with multiple rolls, or are they several attacks? Here are the descriptions for the abilities in question:


MULTIATTACK
At 11th level, you gain one of the following features of your choice.

Volley. You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number 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.

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.

Now, by the Rules as Written both of these abilities specifically state that you make "A range/melee attack" Conceptually, this could be visualized as knocking several arrows at once and firing them in a scatter, or performing a large swirling motion with your sword (ie: Link, from "The Legend of Zelda"); however you are still making Multiple Attack Rolls. This could imply that Volley is rapidly firing arrows at impossible speeds, or that Whirlwind Attack is several very fast strikes against anyone in range; your body moving as fast as a Whirlwind. Although I'm inclined to say that it's one attack with multiple rolls, it's easy to see how other interpretations may exist. Let's take a look at other abilities where multiple attacks are made from one action.


EXTRA ATTACK
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

Not too much help here. It just says Attack twice when you Attack. It doesn't really help us decide how Multiattack works.


Eldritch Blast
...Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage.

The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam.

Well that's not helpful at all, in fact its wording is nearly identical to Multiattack. However, there is one more version of Multiattack that we haven't covered yet.

(Edit: It would appear that "Cast a Spell" is its own action, different from Attack. You cannot move while Casting a Spell unless the spell says that you can; even if that spell has you take multiple attack rolls)


BLACK BEAR (and other Monsters)
Multiattack. The bear makes two attacks, one with its bite and one with its claws.

Well, in my opinion that kind of seals it. This version of Multiattack SPECIFIES that the bear makes two attacks. Not "an attack against multiple targets", but two independant attacks. This further supports the stance that Ranger's Multiattack feature is in fact one attack capable of hitting multiple targets.

Up until now, I've gotten everything supporting my argument from the PHB, but there actually is a Sage Advice covering this very topic. Even if there was still room for question it is impossible to deny the intent, now.

source (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/08/whirlwind-attack-movement/)
@JeremyECrawford: Can a Ranger move between the attacks granted by their level 11 feature Whirlwind?
Answer: Whirlwind Attack is unusual: one attack with multiple attack rolls. The intent is that you don't move during it.

Have at it ya stinky nerds. I'm sure there will be plenty of debate still to be had.

[Reaver25]

To be honest with you, I think the case can vary. For instance, with fhe Volley attack, I would just do one roll. However, some creatures in the MM have a Multi attack feature, allowing them to attack twice. In that case, I would do two different attack rolls.

[Sabeta]

To be honest with you, I think the case can vary. For instance, with fhe Volley attack, I would just do one roll. However, some creatures in the MM have a Multi attack feature, allowing them to attack twice. In that case, I would do two different attack rolls.

The ability says make one attack, with multiple attack rolls. Crawdad supports this. You would roll damage once, and attack however many times you could. With the MM Multiattack, it specifically says that a monster makes two attacks, just like the Extra Attack feature of most martials.

[Easy_Lee]

The writing is too ambiguous, IMO. Based on their intent, it should have been one attack, one damage roll, applied to any number of targets within reach.


The ability says make one attack, with multiple attack rolls. Crawdad supports this. You would roll damage once, and attack however many times you could. With the MM Multiattack, it specifically says that a monster makes two attacks, just like the Extra Attack feature of most martials.

There we have the issue of the same keyword meaning two different things in different contexts. Multiattack is also a combination of the words multiple and attack. That's not exactly clear writing.

[ZenBear]

The answer is quite clear that Whirlwind Attack is a singular attack that targets multiple enemies and does so via multiple attack rolls.

The main thrust of Easy_Lee's arguments clearly stems from his dislike of WotC. He is correct in saying WotC worded this mechanic poorly. The fact is, the entire Ranger class was made poorly, so this comes as no surprise to me. Whirlwind Attack is a singular oddity in 5E. No other mechanic in the game works the same way. It's nonsensical in my opinion that a Ranger can accomplish a feat of martial prowess that a Fighter cannot simply on principle of being a wilderness warrior.

Many errors were made in the PHB. There were plenty of spelling errors, Destructive Wave was printed as Destructive Smite, etc. None of this makes the official ruling by WotC wrong on its own mechanic.

[ZenBear]

The writing is too ambiguous, IMO. Based on their intent, it should have been one attack, one damage roll, applied to any number of targets within reach.
Obviously they wanted the player to make individual rolls per target, yet the ability still be considered an individual attack. They could have worded it better, but as I said, there were a lot of errors in the PHB and the entire Ranger class was one big F-up in my opinion.

There we have the issue of the same keyword meaning two different things in different contexts. Multiattack is also a combination of the words multiple and attack. That's not exactly clear writing.
Oh well. Get over it.

[MeeposFire]

The answer is quite clear that Whirlwind Attack is a singular attack that targets multiple enemies and does so via multiple attack rolls.

The main thrust of Easy_Lee's arguments clearly stems from his dislike of WotC. He is correct in saying WotC worded this mechanic poorly. The fact is, the entire Ranger class was made poorly, so this comes as no surprise to me. Whirlwind Attack is a singular oddity in 5E. No other mechanic in the game works the same way. It's nonsensical in my opinion that a Ranger can accomplish a feat of martial prowess that a Fighter cannot simply on principle of being a wilderness warrior.

Many errors were made in the PHB. There were plenty of spelling errors, Destructive Wave was printed as Destructive Smite, etc. None of this makes the official ruling by WotC wrong on its own mechanic.

It would be a very rare event indeed for a fighter to be jealous of the whirlwind atack ability. Remember a ranger would need at least 4 (5 if the fighter has a bonus action attack) enemies within 5 feet of him in order to get a net benefit over the fighter due to whirlwind attack. Otherwise the fighter has it as good or better. That is a very rare event and one a ranger may not survive if he uses it often.

[ZenBear]

It would be a very rare event indeed for a fighter to be jealous of the whirlwind atack ability. Remember a ranger would need at least 4 (5 if the fighter has a bonus action attack) enemies within 5 feet of him in order to get a net benefit over the fighter due to whirlwind attack. Otherwise the fighter has it as good or better. That is a very rare event and one a ranger may not survive if he uses it often.

Right, but the concept that a Ranger can swirl around and attack 8 enemies when they're completely surrounded but a Fighter can't makes no sense to me. I'm not talking about optimization, I'm talking about verisimilitude.

[MeeposFire]

Right, but the concept that a Ranger can swirl around and attack 8 enemies when they're completely surrounded but a Fighter can't makes no sense to me. I'm not talking about optimization, I'm talking about verisimilitude.

I don't really have a problem with that as the hunter ranger was designed to be better at fighting small groups. My only problem is that whirlwind attack is so bad at it. I am not sure how anybody can compare whirlwind attack and extra attack for 3 attacks and say that the ranger came out well in the end.

Now note if the ranger could move and attack with the ability it would be useful and really fit the horde fighter that the hunter is supposed to be. I would also allow it to actually work with the "traditional" two weapon set up for the ranger (for me it ends up giving an off hand attack to one target and one attack to the rest).

[Easy_Lee]

Obviously they wanted the player to make individual rolls per target, yet the ability still be considered an individual attack.

This wasn't obvious to me on my initial reading. I was under the impression that they made it multiple attacks so as to prevent it from benefiting heavily from abilities which apply to a single attack (such as shadow monk shadow step). In other words, to prevent unintended synergy (something WotC has consistently tried to do this edition; another factor I don't understand).

But if they truly meant one attack, then making one attack roll and one damage roll is statistically equivalent, easier, and is also faster. Abilities like Ensnaring strike still either do or don't apply to all targets hit, depending on the DM (pure RAW reading, and my guess as to WotC's intentions, is that they don't).

[ZenBear]

I don't really have a problem with that as the hunter ranger was designed to be better at fighting small groups. My only problem is that whirlwind attack is so bad at it. I am not sure how anybody can compare whirlwind attack and extra attack for 3 attacks and say that the ranger came out well in the end.

Now note if the ranger could move and attack with the ability it would be useful and really fit the horde fighter that the hunter is supposed to be. I would also allow it to actually work with the "traditional" two weapon set up for the ranger (for me it ends up giving an off hand attack to one target and one attack to the rest).

In my opinion the Ranger, hunter or otherwise, should not be any more proficient at martial combat than a Fighter is capable of depending on their specialty. They get half-caster Druid spells and lots of nature/stealth skills, that's their shtick.

If you are allowed to move with WA then combining that with the Mobile feat makes the Ranger crazy stronk. Perhaps if the Ranger got to make two hits per target, one with each weapon, then it would be cool, but then two-hander/s&b Rangers get shafted.

[Sabeta]

I think it has less to do with being easier (as nobody can argue that one attack roll would have been easier) and the fact that the system is open to abuse if you do. If you make a single attack roll whose AC do you go off of? The large Bugbear wearing chain armor, or the half-naked goblin standing next to him? The Whirlwind Attack was clearly designed to factor in every monster's AC into the equation. I suppose if you really wanted a more easily understood system then they could have just made it function like most spells. "All targets within range must make a Dex Saving throw. On a success they take no damage."

[ZenBear]

This wasn't obvious to me on my initial reading.

Oh well. It was to me. You shouldn't speak for others when you post, by the way. I saw at least one occasion where you claimed that, "It didn't occur to most, the first time they read the ability, that the separate attack rolls were part of the same attack."


I was under the impression that they made it multiple attacks so as to prevent it from benefiting heavily from abilities which apply to a single attack (such as shadow monk shadow step). In other words, to prevent unintended synergy (something WotC has consistently tried to do this edition; another factor I don't understand).

But if they truly meant one attack, then making one attack roll and one damage roll is statistically equivalent, easier, and is also faster. Abilities like Ensnaring strike still either do or don't apply to all targets hit, depending on the DM (pure RAW reading, and my guess as to WotC's intentions, is that they don't).

I disagree that one attack and damage roll for all targets is the best way to go. They don't do that for AoE spells, this is an AoE attack. Ensnaring Strike specifies one target, so it clearly doesn't apply to all.

[Easy_Lee]

I think it has less to do with being easier (as nobody can argue that one attack roll would have been easier) and the fact that the system is open to abuse if you do. If you make a single attack roll whose AC do you go off of? The large Bugbear wearing chain armor, or the half-naked goblin standing next to him? The Whirlwind Attack was clearly designed to factor in every monster's AC into the equation. I suppose if you really wanted a more easily understood system then they could have just made it function like most spells. "All targets within range must make a Dex Saving throw. On a success they take no damage."

You'd make a single roll, and it would hit anyone whose AC it met or beat. Same kind of deal. That said, I'd prefer it to be a Dex-save ability, just to add some variety to rangers.


Oh well. It was to me. You shouldn't speak for others when you post, by the way. I saw at least one occasion where you claimed that, "It didn't occur to most, the first time they read the ability, that the separate attack rolls were part of the same attack."

I'm basing that on tweets. I'd appreciate it if you don't try to police my language.

[MeeposFire]

This wasn't obvious to me on my initial reading. I was under the impression that they made it multiple attacks so as to prevent it from benefiting heavily from abilities which apply to a single attack (such as shadow monk shadow step). In other words, to prevent unintended synergy (something WotC has consistently tried to do this edition; another factor I don't understand).

But if they truly meant one attack, then making one attack roll and one damage roll is statistically equivalent, easier, and is also faster. Abilities like Ensnaring strike still either do or don't apply to all targets hit, depending on the DM (pure RAW reading, and my guess as to WotC's intentions, is that they don't).

Not exactly true. WotC seems to like certain things to have synergy such as apparently making crossbow expert remove disadvantage on ALL ranged attack rolls (not just crossbows) made in melee range was in fact on purpose. Why I have no idea why that was OK but in the same breath warcaster and polearm master was not initially (but then later even this changed when they added booming blade which allows this synergy to actually work).

Heck the Sage is not that consistent to begin with. Sometimes he is very big on the exact wording, other times he isn't, sometimes he is clear that what he is ruling is intent and not necessarily what it says, other times he makes it more implied rather than directly saying that, and sometimes like with magic initiate he just flat out makes up rules and passes them off as if it was just a ruling.

[ZenBear]

I'm basing that on tweets. I'd appreciate it if you don't try to police my language.

Still an unproven assumption. You've done plenty of language policing yourself, most of it scrubbed from the last thread.

[georgie_leech]

Worth noting that by the rules on p.196, if Whirlwind counts as an 'other effect,' it actually has a single damage roll. This was pointed out by Vogonjeltz in the other thread.

[MeeposFire]

Worth noting that by the rules on p.196, if Whirlwind counts as an 'other effect,' it actually has a single damage roll. This was pointed out by Vogonjeltz in the other thread.

Which would make it very similar to a 4e burst type attack (of which there are several that are for weapon users that work much like whirlwind attack). In those cases it was multiple attack rolls but only one damage roll.

[Sabeta]

Still an unproven assumption. You've done plenty of language policing yourself, most of it scrubbed from the last thread.

Reading around some old threads about Multiattack here it actually IS a popular misinterpretation. I play entirely too much Yu-Gi-Oh!, and as a consequence I'm used to analysing language down to a comma in order to parse the timing of an effect. It's intended effect was easily picked up on by me, but even as little as a year ago here there were people getting excited because they thought they had found an unintended mechanic of Whirlwind Attack. (That you could move in between each attack). Easy_Lee was even in that thread.

It's not nice to make assumptions about people.

[Vogonjeltz]

You'd make a single roll, and it would hit anyone whose AC it met or beat. Same kind of deal. That said, I'd prefer it to be a Dex-save ability, just to add some variety to rangers.



I'm basing that on tweets. I'd appreciate it if you don't try to police my language.

The only problem with having it be one roll is that the ranger could crit 8 targets at once. It would also raise the issue of advantage/disadvantage (one enemy is paralyzed, another dodging, another is just fighting normally.

If it was 1 roll for all it would unfairly penalize the dodger, and unfairly benefit the paralyzed one.

It has to be done through individual rolls to avoid that problem.

[R.Shackleford]

The answer is quite clear that Whirlwind Attack is a singular attack that targets multiple enemies and does so via multiple attack rolls.

The main thrust of Easy_Lee's arguments clearly stems from his dislike of WotC. He is correct in saying WotC worded this mechanic poorly. The fact is, the entire Ranger class was made poorly, so this comes as no surprise to me. Whirlwind Attack is a singular oddity in 5E. No other mechanic in the game works the same way. It's nonsensical in my opinion that a Ranger can accomplish a feat of martial prowess that a Fighter cannot simply on principle of being a wilderness warrior.

Many errors were made in the PHB. There were plenty of spelling errors, Destructive Wave was printed as Destructive Smite, etc. None of this makes the official ruling by WotC wrong on its own mechanic.

Or it comes from the fact that the PHB and Crawford have said many times that if you are rolling an attack roll you are making an attack.

RAI has been told but that doesn't change the fact that RAW says otherwise. It also doesn't help that there is nothing in the feature that supports their RAI. They clearly screwed up (based on how they explained their stuff).

People are thinking that once RAI comes out they have to do these mental gymnastics to make the RAW support it. That's not how it works. Just because RAI = X doesn't mean RAW = X.


"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."

With how this is written, there is no way to interpret this other than it being multiple attacks. It doesn't say "make one attack" it says "make a melee attack against any number of creatures" that right there shows you that it is multitle attack rolls which is multiple attacks.

The only way to interpret this as one attack roll is to ignore what the book says on attacks, what the feature says, what Crawford says on attacks, and what basic English tells us. Or be in complete denial.

For it to work as one attack you must remove the multiple attack rolls part. Because as long as you have multiple attack rolls, it is multiple attacks.

****

"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee (weapon) attack roll that targets all creatures within 5' of you. If you hit at least one creature, roll weapon damage, any creature you hit takes that weapon damage."

So you make one attack roll, compare it against all the ACs od the creatures within 5' of you, and then roll one weapon damage (glaive = 1d10 + Str + Misc), and each creature that you hit takes that damage.

[WereRabbitz]

No offense but what is the point of this thread?

The RAW seems clear enough that Whirlwind is a Single attack against multiple enemies you can move before or after the attack just like a fighter can move between his 4 attacks.
Look at your Bear example it's making 2 attacks so it's mentioned otherwise E-Blast & Whirlwind are treated as a single attack with multiple attack rolls.

I can't imagine a scenario where a DM or a player would think a DM would allow you to dance around the room hitting everyone with a greatsword and a correction was already put out there so the argument seems mute too me.

Just seems to be picking on the book.

[R.Shackleford]

No offense but what is the point of this thread?

The RAW seems clear enough that Whirlwind is a Single attack against multiple enemies you can move before or after the attack just like a fighter can move between his 4 attacks.
Look at your Bear example it's making 2 attacks so it's mentioned otherwise E-Blast & Whirlwind are treated as a single attack with multiple attack rolls.

I can't imagine a scenario where a DM or a player would think a DM would allow you to dance around the room hitting everyone with a greatsword and a correction was already put out there so the argument seems mute too me.

Just seems to be picking on the book.

The RAW is clear that it is multiple attacks, as it says in the ability.

The RAI however, as said by crawford, is that it wasn't meant to be multiple attacks.

RAW =/= RAI

WotC is known for not checking their own editing. Look at the grapple feat and see where they went wrong there ;).

They must have made whirlwind, then made the rules about attacks, then didn't go back and fix whirlwind.

[georgie_leech]

The RAW is clear that it is multiple attacks, as it says in the ability.

The RAI however, as said by crawford, is that it wasn't meant to be multiple attacks.

RAW =/= RAI

WotC is known for not checking their own editing. Look at the grapple feat and see where they went wrong there ;).

They must have made whirlwind, then made the rules about attacks, then didn't go back and fix whirlwind.

'If X, then Y' does not imply 'If multiple X, then multiple Y.' There's nothing stopping an attack from having multiple attack rolls, it just wouldn't be one without at least one. For your argument to be sound, you need to show that multiple rolls mean multiple attacks, not just assert it. The general structure of the proposition is no good. Here are some counter examples:

'If I am hit by a Magic Missile, I have been targeted by a spell. If I am hit by multiple Magic Missiles, I have been targeted by multiple spells.' Invalid, one Magic Missile can hit the same target multiple times.

'If I fail a Saving Throw, I am affected by an ability, feature, or spell. If I fail multiple Saving Throws, I am affected by multiple abilities, features, or spells.' Invalid, many spells offer multiple saves, the Open Hand Monk can force multiple saving throws on the same turn from the same ability.

'If I have a Class Level, I have a Race. If I have multiple Class Levels, I have multiple Races.' Invalid, you have both a Race and Class Levels for unrelated reasons in fluff and for the mechanical reason that you need both to be a valid character.

[Easy_Lee]

Would like to point out that, due to rule 0 if nothing else, there are multiple possible rulings. Given the whole rulings over rules focus of this edition, there is no "correct" ruling, not even Crawford's.

The multiple attacks reading is the one I believe most people assumed when they read the ability. I base that on tweets and my own memory of the threads about it last year. The fact that Crawford's ruling contradicted many players' initial understanding is what caused a lot of the heat.

I don't think Sage rulings ought to exist. It's just one possible ruling. And yet, every time he makes one, people assume that the Sage ruling is the "correct" and only possible ruling. Which is understandable. Even though it goes against one of 5e's stated goals, it's only natural to assume that the designer's ruling is the right one.

Play it how you want, people. Regardless of attacks and movement, the bigger issue to me is how little damage the ability does compared with most AoEs. Because honestly, how many times do you expect to have the opportunity to use this ability in a given adventuring day? Probably no more often that the sorcerer gets a chance to throw a fireball.

[Cybren]

The writing is too ambiguous, IMO. Based on their intent, it should have been one attack, one damage roll, applied to any number of targets within reach.



There we have the issue of the same keyword meaning two different things in different contexts. Multiattack is also a combination of the words multiple and attack. That's not exactly clear writing.

Multiattack isn't a "keyword". It's a header.


Play it how you want, people. Regardless of attacks and movement, the bigger issue to me is how little damage the ability does compared with most AoEs. Because honestly, how many times do you expect to have the opportunity to use this ability in a given adventuring day? Probably no more often that the sorcerer gets a chance to throw a fireball.

The ability is clearly supposed to be the rangers version of Extra Attack 2, where they can get more attacks. Like the rest of the ranger it seems a little under-thought.

I think the standard WotC wariness over things like reach are a problem. It was probably smart to be cautious about the new cantrips in SCAG using a fixed reach vs your weapons reach, since spells tend to be more open to abuse, but the only reason I can think of not letting the ranger use a reach weapon with Whirldwind Attack is they aesthetically don't like the idea of halberd wielding rangers. Which maybe speaks to D&D needing a better fidelity for space and reach than 5ft increments. (damn i keep editing this post)

[ZenBear]

...if you are rolling an attack roll you are making an attack.

"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."

With how this is written, there is no way to interpret this other than it being multiple attacks. It doesn't say "make one attack" it says "make a melee attack against any number of creatures" that right there shows you that it is multiple attack rolls which is multiple attacks.

The only way to interpret this as one attack roll is to ignore what the book says on attacks, what the feature says, what Crawford says on attacks, and what basic English tells us. Or be in complete denial.

Again I say, you can have one attack with multiple attack rolls and it doesn't require any mental gymnastics to get there. Just like multiple spell attack rolls from Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray is still a single spell.

If you are making an attack roll you are making an attack =/= if you are making multiple attack rolls you are making multiple attacks. That is a logical leap.

To allow Rangers to move between attack rolls makes any Ranger with Mobile an absurdly OP character.

[Easy_Lee]

Again I say, you can have one attack with multiple attack rolls and it doesn't require any mental gymnastics to get there. Just like multiple spell attack rolls from Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray is still a single spell.

If you are making an attack roll you are making an attack =/= if you are making multiple attack rolls you are making multiple attacks. That is a logical leap.

To allow Rangers to move between attack rolls makes any Ranger with Mobile an absurdly OP character.

EB is a single spell with multiple spell attacks. That's why even Crawford confirmed that agonizing blast applies CHA damage multiple times. It isn't unreasonable to read whirlwind attack as a single action with multiple melee attacks. We already have other examples of those.

Also, bear in mind that combat usually only involves a handful of creatures. Massive battles are rare in most campaigns. Consider the overwhelming amount of total damage an evokes could do in such a situation, and a mobile whirlwind doesn't really seem so bad.

As to the wizard technically being able to throw fewer fireballs, a ranger isn't going to have many opportunities to actually use whirlwind attack in a given adventuring day. So it's moot to say it's okay for the caster to do more AoE damage, just because he's using a limited resource.

[MrStabby]

Would like to point out that, due to rule 0 if nothing else, there are multiple possible rulings. Given the whole rulings over rules focus of this edition, there is no "correct" ruling, not even Crawford's.

The multiple attacks reading is the one I believe most people assumed when they read the ability. I base that on tweets and my own memory of the threads about it last year. The fact that Crawford's ruling contradicted many players' initial understanding is what caused a lot of the heat.

I don't think Sage rulings ought to exist. It's just one possible ruling. And yet, every time he makes one, people assume that the Sage ruling is the "correct" and only possible ruling. Which is understandable. Even though it goes against one of 5e's stated goals, it's only natural to assume that the designer's ruling is the right one.

Play it how you want, people. Regardless of attacks and movement, the bigger issue to me is how little damage the ability does compared with most AoEs. Because honestly, how many times do you expect to have the opportunity to use this ability in a given adventuring day? Probably no more often that the sorcerer gets a chance to throw a fireball.

It certainly isn't clear. When I first came across it I went back and forward on what the correct interpretation was, finally settling on the "single attack, multiple targets" interpretation. At my table no one was clear at all - if there was anything "most people assumed", it was that a clarification would come out in due course.

After interpreting it I then relaxed the rules somewhat after a few sessions for balance reasons, but that's a different reason/issue.

[Vogonjeltz]

Or it comes from the fact that the PHB and Crawford have said many times that if you are rolling an attack roll you are making an attack.

That doesn't contradict the idea that a single attack can have multiple attack rolls.

The statement if you a rolling an attack roll you are making an attack remains true whether that's 1 attack with 50 rolls or 50 attacks with 1 roll, 1 attack with 1 roll or 50 attacks with 50 rolls.

In the case of whirlwind attack, you are making an attack, but just one. Every attack roll is an attack, yes, but the same attack.

The only purpose to that statement is to indicate the basic guideline for knowing if you're making an attack for abilities that end or are triggered by an attack.

[Mandragola]

It seems to me that whirlwind attack is not the attack action. It's a whole new action. You can move between the attacks in the atack action, if you've got several attacks, but that's not what's happening here. You're doing an action that lets you do a weapon attack at everyone within 5' of you. You take that action, with movement before and/or after as you like, but that's your action done for the turn.

[Easy_Lee]

It seems to me that whirlwind attack is not the attack action. It's a whole new action. You can move between the attacks in the atack action, if you've got several attacks, but that's not what's happening here. You're doing an action that lets you do a weapon attack at everyone within 5' of you. You take that action, with movement before and/or after as you like, but that's your action done for the turn.

Movement between attacks does not require the attack action. It just requires separate attacks. You can move between individual bolts of Eldritch Blast, for example.

[ZenBear]

You can move between individual bolts of Eldritch Blast, for example.

Can you verify this or is it supposition? I've never seen this done nor anyone claiming to have done so.

[Easy_Lee]

Can you verify this or is it supposition? I've never seen this done nor anyone claiming to have done so.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/614588258404597760

Q: "Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling?"

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

Not only does eldritch blast make multiple attacks, but they are not simultaneous and you can resolve them separately. That means you could change targets because the first one died, or interrupt them with a bonus action. It's the nicest possible ruling.

[Mandragola]

Honestly looking again at the rules, they aren't that tight. It just says (on page 190) that if you're making multiple attacks you're allowed to break up your movement by moving between those attacks. So for multiattack, I'd say you very clearly can move between attacks.

In the case of whirlwind attack you do make a bunch of seperate attacks. Arguably, you can therefore move between those attacks, which according to one reading of the rules could allow you to attack stuff you weren't originally within 5' of. Another reading might be that you could attack only the creatures within 5' of where you declared your whirlwind attack option, but you were free to move around as you liked while doing so... though there'd be very little reason to.

Despite the potential lack of clarity, I honestly don't think that any DM would rule that whirlwind attack allows you to run around for your full movement value, atttacking anything that you move within 5' of. That's clearly far too open to abuse.

[Plaguescarred]

RAW Whirlwind Attack is an action to make a melee attack.... This attack is made against multiple creatures and while it's a seperate attack roll for each target, it's still a single damage roll. If there was any RAW ambiguity as to having possible different interpretations, it has been cleared up by R&D as to which one is the correct one.

[Easy_Lee]

RAW Whirlwind Attack is an action to make a melee attack.... This attack is made against multiple creatures and while it's a seperate attack roll for each target, it's still a single damage roll. If there was any RAW ambiguity as to having possible different interpretations, it has been cleared up by R&D as to which one is the correct one.

And here we go again.

There is no "correct" ruling. If a thing can be interpreted multiple ways, that means there's plenty enough basis for multiple rulings. I love how this edition emphasizes rulings over rules, but then turns around and tells you to pay attention to Sage Advice. Endless amounts of Sage Advice.

Check out Eldritch Blast, for reference. It states that you make a ranged spell attack. It fires multiple beams at higher levels, and states that you make a separate attack for each beam. Turns out, that's been confirmed to be multiple attacks. Basically the same wording, opposite ruling.

Convinced yet? WotC doesn't care that wording is often vague, because it means that they can go with whichever ruling they like, whenever they like. Clearly, that's one of the design goals, rulings over rules.

So there is no "correct" interpretation.

[ZenBear]

And here we go again.

There is no "correct" ruling. If a thing can be interpreted multiple ways, that means there's plenty enough basis for multiple rulings. I love how this edition emphasizes rulings over rules, but then turns around and tells you to pay attention to Sage Advice. Endless amounts of Sage Advice.

Check out Eldritch Blast, for reference. It states that you make a ranged spell attack. It fires multiple beams at higher levels, and states that you make a separate attack for each beam. Turns out, that's been confirmed to be multiple attacks. Basically the same wording, opposite ruling.

Convinced yet? WotC doesn't care that wording is often vague, because it means that they can go with whichever ruling they like, whenever they like. Clearly, that's one of the design goals, rulings over rules.

So there is no "correct" interpretation.

The point of trying to find the "correct" ruling is so players and DMs can come to an agreement of how to play. Whether it's a player trying to finagle an OP ability or a DM being overly restrictive, or anything in between, people are going to argue over ambiguous rules. This discussion often ends up defaulting to what the developers say, hence Sage Advice.

Don't blast it just because it disagrees with you from time to time.

[Easy_Lee]

The point of trying to find the "correct" ruling is so players and DMs can come to an agreement of how to play. Whether it's a player trying to finagle an OP ability or a DM being overly restrictive, or anything in between, people are going to argue over ambiguous rules. This discussion often ends up defaulting to what the developers say, hence Sage Advice.

Don't blast it just because it disagrees with you from time to time.

You keep using that word "correct." A ruling isn't automatically correct just because Crawford makes it. That's my point. People use Crawford's rulings to shut down dissent, when in fact his own rulings are inconsistent and no better than anyone else's?

[ZenBear]

You keep using that word "correct." A ruling isn't automatically correct just because Crawford makes it. That's my point. People use Crawford's rulings to shut down dissent, when in fact his own rulings are inconsistent and no better than anyone else's?

I used "correct" in quotes because you have been using it. I agree that there is no correct ruling because it is up to the DM and players if they care to follow any rule in the book. The book explicitly says everything is up for modification. People use Crawford's rulings as a tie breaker just as much as a shut down.

[RickAllison]

I really don't think the debate over this is because of the fact that it is one attack against multiple targets and so has multiple attack rolls. The problem exists (IMO) purely because it and volley are unique in that aspect.

The reason Easy_Lee's "plain English" argument exists is because until JC's tweet confirming its nature, there were no examples of it. Because no other abilities function that way, a rule that doesn't exist in the book unconsciously forms that then gets applied to the two abilities that are intended to defy that norm.

I feel like they should just errata in a sentence to page 194 of the PHB: "if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack. In rare cases, one attack can have multiple attack rolls." It is unnecessary as no rule exists that an attack must have only one attack roll, but it does establish for both this and future abilities that the possibility exists so there is no question about what the book means.

[Easy_Lee]

I really don't think the debate over this is because of the fact that it is one attack against multiple targets and so has multiple attack rolls. The problem exists (IMO) purely because it and volley are unique in that aspect.

The reason Easy_Lee's "plain English" argument exists is because until JC's tweet confirming its nature, there were no examples of it. Because no other abilities function that way, a rule that doesn't exist in the book unconsciously forms that then gets applied to the two abilities that are intended to defy that norm.

I feel like they should just errata in a sentence to page 194 of the PHB: "if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack. In rare cases, one attack can have multiple attack rolls." It is unnecessary as no rule exists that an attack must have only one attack roll, but it does establish for both this and future abilities that the possibility exists so there is no question about what the book means.

Alternatively, the rare exception could include the line, "this counts as a single attack."

[MeeposFire]

EB is a single spell with multiple spell attacks. That's why even Crawford confirmed that agonizing blast applies CHA damage multiple times. It isn't unreasonable to read whirlwind attack as a single action with multiple melee attacks. We already have other examples of those.

Also, bear in mind that combat usually only involves a handful of creatures. Massive battles are rare in most campaigns. Consider the overwhelming amount of total damage an evokes could do in such a situation, and a mobile whirlwind doesn't really seem so bad.

As to the wizard technically being able to throw fewer fireballs, a ranger isn't going to have many opportunities to actually use whirlwind attack in a given adventuring day. So it's moot to say it's okay for the caster to do more AoE damage, just because he's using a limited resource.

Careful EB gets cha on each beam not really due to being multiple attacks per say but rather it is based on a hit and regardless of whether it is considered 4 attacks or 1 you still hit 4 times and you get that bonus on a hit.

EB and cha bonus to damage on a hit neither confirms or invalidates your point.

[Plaguescarred]

Check out Eldritch Blast, for reference. It states that you make a ranged spell attack. It fires multiple beams at higher levels, and states that you make a separate attack for each beam. Turns out, that's been confirmed to be multiple attacks. Basically the same wording, opposite ruling.Eldritch Blast is not a good comparison as you use an action to create multiple beams which let you make ranged spell attacks for each while Whirlwind Attack is an action to make a melee attack wether there's one or more targets within range.

One is a multiattack, letting you re-target the same creature multiple time while the other is a multitarget letting you attack once regardless of how many targets.

[Easy_Lee]

Careful EB gets cha on each beam not really due to being multiple attacks per say but rather it is based on a hit and regardless of whether it is considered 4 attacks or 1 you still hit 4 times and you get that bonus on a hit.

EB and cha bonus to damage on a hit neither confirms or invalidates your point.

Here's more: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/614588258404597760

Q: "Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling?"
A: "Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise."

Crawford considers EB to be multiple attacks, and furthermore that they are not simultaneous and can be resolved at different times during the round. Bonus actions and movement could happen between rays.

Consider the text of the EB spell. It says you make one spell attack to fire a beam. It says it fires multiple beams at higher levels, with a separate attack roll for each. Not a separate attack, but a separate attack roll. And yet you'll notice that Crawford did not rule this as one attack with multiple attack rolls, as he did with Whirlwind Attack and Volley. It is, in fact, multiple spell attacks, like most of us "correctly" assumed.

How odd.

[Vogonjeltz]

Here's more: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/614588258404597760

Q: "Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling?"
A: "Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise."

Crawford considers EB to be multiple attacks, and furthermore that they are not simultaneous and can be resolved at different times during the round. Bonus actions and movement could happen between rays.

Consider the text of the EB spell. It says you make one spell attack to fire a beam. It says it fires multiple beams at higher levels, with a separate attack roll for each. Not a separate attack, but a separate attack roll. And yet you'll notice that Crawford did not rule this as one attack with multiple attack rolls, as he did with Whirlwind Attack and Volley. It is, in fact, multiple spell attacks, like most of us "correctly" assumed.

How odd.

Except he didn't actually say that second half, in classic fashion he just supplied the relevant rule and then left it to the reader to comprehend it.

Eldritch Blast generates the beams simultaneously (on casting) ergo he actually was explaining that one can not move in between beams.

[MeeposFire]

Except he didn't actually say that second half, in classic fashion he just supplied the relevant rule and then left it to the reader to comprehend it.

Eldritch Blast generates the beams simultaneously (on casting) ergo he actually was explaining that one can not move in between beams.

Actually you can't move between beams because as I recall being able to move between attacks was specific to weapon attacks not just attacks in general.

Also I would disagree that Crawford in that case was insinuating that the beams are simultaneous. He had a chance to say that and did not and even pointed out that unless the spell specifically calls it out then it is not required to be simultaneous. Since the spell does not specify that they happen at exactly the same time then it does not have to be. Just casting the spell does not mean they happen at exactly the same time. It could or they could have four blasts one right after another.

Now even if the blasts come one after the other you still can't move between the blasts since as I said I believe the rule on moving between attacks specified weapon attacks and this is still not a weapon attack.

EDIT: Yes I just checked that under the header of breaking up your movement it does specify moving between your multiple weapon attacks. This means that no matter how you view EB you still cannot move between beams because the rules specify that you can do that movement with weapon attack but do not say it is allowed for spell attacks.

[Plaguescarred]

Eldritch Blast is multiple beam attacks that can target the same creature more than once, while Whirlwind Attack (and Volley) aren't and thus cannot.

[MeeposFire]

Eldritch Blast is multiple beam attacks that can target the same creature more than once, while Whirlwind Attack (and Volley) aren't and thus cannot.

Yes that is true though I am not sure how that is relevant. I don't think anybody was saying that EB could not target a single enemy more than once or that whirlwind attack could attack one target more than once so I am not sure what you are referencing.

[Lombra]

It clearly states that you can make AN attack against the creatures within 5 FEET of you. Then it says that you have to roll for each creature to hit it, it's an action that uses one attack on several targets, hence you can't move between the rolls because they happen virtually simultaneously. The intent is pretty clear.

[Easy_Lee]

The intent is pretty clear.

If the intent was clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and he wouldn't have been asked about it on Twitter so many times.

[Plaguescarred]

Yes that is true though I am not sure how that is relevant. I don't think anybody was saying that EB could not target a single enemy more than once or that whirlwind attack could attack one target more than once so I am not sure what you are referencing.I point out because Eldritch Blast is a true multiattack (multiple Attacks vs a single or multiple targets) while Whirldwind Attack is not. Its a multitarget attack (a single attack vs one or multiple targets)

[BurgerBeast]

This argument is tiresome already. I'm sorry, Easy_Lee, but in this particular case, you (and potentially others) are making a simple mistake of logic. It may be the case that no one on this thread can convince you of it, but in that case I suggest you consult a professor of philosophy.

If the making of an attack roll signifies that an attack is being made, that does not in any way imply that making multiple attacks signifies multiple attacks.

A bunch of examples were given in the other thread. There is no multiple-interpretation problem here. By that I mean that, despite a number of people misinterpreting it, it doesn't mean there is more than one correct interpretation. In the absence of information, you don't get to invent it. The language was intentionally chosen for this purpose. You just don't get it. As I said, if you're not willing to take our words for it, ask someone who is experienced in the field, not because of their authority but because they are better equipped to explain it.

The most relevant example of this was: If you make a slam dunk, you've played basketball does not in any way imply that if make multiple slam dunks you have played basketball multiple times.

[BurgerBeast]

If the intent was clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and he wouldn't have been asked about it on Twitter so many times.

By this argument, if the evidence for evolution was clear, there wouldn't be so many proponents of intelligent design.

No, I'm sorry. That's a terrible argument.

[Easy_Lee]

I point out because Eldritch Blast is a true multiattack (multiple Attacks vs a single or multiple targets) while Whirldwind Attack is not. Its a multitarget attack (a single attack vs one or multiple targets)

We know this is the intent now. However, the text does not clearly state it, anymore than it clearly states you may fire an EB at one target, resolve the attack and damage, then decide afterwards who to target with your next. That's a ruling.

And it seems that rulings were the intent, which is why I find the whole Whirlwind Attack response confusing.

It seems that, when a ruling would benefit a caster, especially a wizard, it's allowed. But when it would benefit a martial, Crawford says that isn't the intent and attempts to find a RAW reading which prevents it. He did the same thing with polearm mastery + War Caster, saying that the opportunity attack could not be used to cast a spell. This is in spite of both using the term "opportunity attack," and war caster specifically saying "when a hostile creature's movement provokes..." Hence, a strict RAW reading allows it, but Crawford said no it doesn't. He didn't say that he wouldn't allow it, but that it doesn't work. A much stronger reply.

As a result of his inconsistencies and bias against martials, I'd argue that Crawford's rulings on Whirlwind Attack are worthless. His words are no more valuable, to me, than any of my fellow playgrounders'.

[BurchardOfEn]

It seems that, when a ruling would benefit a caster, especially a wizard, it's allowed. But when it would benefit a martial, Crawford says that isn't the intent and attempts to find a RAW reading which prevents it.

I can assure you that there have been rulings that really hampered casters. The "Failure to Meet the Conditions of Your Readied Action" one being one of the most absurd rulings against casters that I've ever seen since it effectively takes away that action from casters since they'll just lose the spell if the condition wasn't met. By proxy of it hampering casters, this also gives martials a tactical advantage since they can use the Ready action with far fewer consequences.

For reference:
How does readying a spell work? Do you lose your spell slot if the trigger never occurs? A readied spell’s slot is lost if you don’t release the spell with your reaction before the start of your next turn. Pulled from http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-june-2016

[Easy_Lee]

I can assure you that there have been rulings that really hampered casters. The "Failure to Meet the Conditions of Your Readied Action" one being one of the most absurd rulings against casters that I've ever seen since it effectively takes away that action from casters since they'll just lose the spell if the condition wasn't met. By proxy of it hampering casters, this also gives martials a tactical advantage since they can use the Ready action with far fewer consequences.

For reference: Pulled from http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-june-2016

Casters can still ready cantrips. However, this wasn't really a ruling, but what the text actually said. It's also something I ignore in my games. If a caster wants to have a spell held and ready to be released, I'm fine with that.

[BurchardOfEn]

Casters can still ready cantrips.

Yes, but a Battlemaster does not risk his superiority dice being wasted. A Paladin wanting to wallop a Divine Smite isn't losing that slot (since you choose upon making the attack). So on and so forth. Martials have can't lose any of their goodies through the Ready action and can fully use them whereas casters are limited to their most bare bones of goodies.


However, this wasn't really a ruling, but what the text actually said.

False.


When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell’s magic requires concentration (explained in chapter 10). If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken.

PHB, pg. 193.

If you combine the PHB's text as is alongside Crawford's ruling(someone will need to ask if that's how you're supposed to handle that), then casters really might as well forget that the Ready action exists for them since it would break their concentration and risks precious spell slots.


It's also something I ignore in my games.

All the more power to you, I can't imagine that there would be all that many DMs that would be big on enforcing that ruling, but it's still the ruling that Crawford gave regardless of if people ignore it or not.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes, but a Battlemaster does not risk his superiority dice being wasted. A Paladin wanting to wallop a Divine Smite isn't losing that slot (since you choose upon making the attack). So on and so forth. Martials have can't lose any of their goodies through the Ready action and can fully use them whereas casters are limited to their most bare bones of goodies.



False.



PHB, pg. 193.

If you combine the PHB's text as is alongside Crawford's ruling(someone will need to ask if that's how you're supposed to handle that), then casters really might as well forget that the Ready action exists for them since it would break their concentration and risks precious spell slots.



All the more power to you, I can't imagine that there would be all that many DMs that would be big on enforcing that ruling, but it's still the ruling that Crawford gave regardless of if people ignore it or not.

So we've established that Crawford flatly doesn't understand the game, and just makes statements at random. I rest my original case.

[Plaguescarred]

We know this is the intent now. However, the text does not clearly state it, anymore than it clearly states you may fire an EB at one target, resolve the attack and damage, then decide afterwards who to target with your next.Eldritch Blast create beams, each of which makes an attack, so it doesn't need to state it since seperate beams can attack the same or different targets, that is the core of multiattack. While in comparison Whirlwind Attack is singular, and is a melee attack against any creatures within its range, without creating further whirlwind attack.


As a result of his inconsistencies and bias against martials, I'd argue that Crawford's rulings on Whirlwind Attack are worthless. His words are no more valuable, to me, than any of my fellow playgrounders'.

So we've established that Crawford flatly doesn't understand the game, and just makes statements at random.YOu're certainly entitled to your opinion on the worthiness and worthness of Jeremy Crawford's ruling, and decide that his words are no more valuable to you than anyone here.

But throughout the D&D community here, on EnWorld and everywhere else, i can guarantee you that Jeremy Crawford 's rulings are not only not worthless, but MUCH more valuable to others than anyone in the community. But feel free to keep saying nonsense like he doesn't understand the game if it please you.

[Easy_Lee]

But throughout the D&D community here, on EnWorld and everywhere else, i can guarantee you that Jeremy Crawford 's rulings are not only not worthless, but MUCH more valuable to others than anyone in the community.

Did you just argue that Jeremy Crawford is more important than any of our forum posters? You don't even know who we are. For all we know, you could be Jeremy Crawford, posting here to toot your own horn.

[BurgerBeast]

The writing is too ambiguous, IMO. Based on their intent, it should have been one attack, one damage roll, applied to any number of targets within reach.

The damage roll is irrelevant. There's no reason to think that they intended a single damage roll. You could use zero rolls (applying average damage) or one roll applied to all, or one roll per hit.


There we have the issue of the same keyword meaning two different things in different contexts. Multiattack is also a combination of the words multiple and attack. That's not exactly clear writing.

Cowboy is a combination of the terms cow and boy. It's still clear that they're different. But let's put this a different way: if you think that multiple attacks and multi-attack are the same thing, then why do you suppose wizards of the coast used the two different terms? (Actually, we don't need to speculate about why in order to see they must at least be different.) So they're different. Just because you don't see it, doesn't make it not so.


This wasn't obvious to me on my initial reading. I was under the impression that they made it multiple attacks so as to prevent it from benefiting heavily from abilities which apply to a single attack (such as shadow monk shadow step). In other words, to prevent unintended synergy (something WotC has consistently tried to do this edition; another factor I don't understand).

So (1) don't speculate. (2) If you recognize that you're speculated, and an easier alternative is presented, then (via Occam's Razor) disregard your original speculation and re-think the problem from the start.


But if they truly meant one attack, then making one attack roll and one damage roll is statistically equivalent, easier, and is also faster.

So what? Resolving a whole combat in one roll is easier, too. I think it's clear that statistically equivalent, easier, and faster were not the determining factors in every combat decision.


Or it comes from the fact that the PHB and Crawford have said many times that if you are rolling an attack roll you are making an attack.

Yes, which logically does not imply that if you are rolling multiple attack rolls you are making multiple attacks.


RAI has been told but that doesn't change the fact that RAW says otherwise.

RAW does not say otherwise. It is a misconceived assumption derived from what RAW does say.


People are thinking that once RAI comes out they have to do these mental gymnastics to make the RAW support it. That's not how it works. Just because RAI = X doesn't mean RAW = X.

All of this is true and well said, but doesn't apply in this particular case.


With how this is written, there is no way to interpret this other than it being multiple attacks.

Of course there is. It's this: "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."

See? One attack. Unless you are claiming that an attack and an attack roll are the same thing (which Easy_Lee made in the other thread). They are not.


It doesn't say "make one attack" it says "make a melee attack against any number of creatures" that right there shows you that it is multitle attack rolls which is multiple attacks.

Nope. Make a melee attack. One attack. Multiple attack rolls. Attack rolls and attacks arenotnot the same thing.


The only way to interpret this as one attack roll...

Nobody is claiming that it suggests one attack roll (except in the case that there is exactly one target). It clearly says: a separate attack roll for each target.


For it to work as one attack you must remove the multiple attack rolls part. Because as long as you have multiple attack rolls, it is multiple attacks.

This is the heart of the misunderstanding. I suggest the examples form theatre thread about slam dunks.


The RAW is clear that it is multiple attacks, as it says in the ability.

Not only is it not clear. It is clearly the opposite case.


The RAI however, as said by crawford, is that it wasn't meant to be multiple attacks.

RAW =/= RAI

RAW = RAI in this case.


EB is a single spell with multiple spell attacks. That's why even Crawford confirmed that agonizing blast applies CHA damage multiple times.

Yep.


It isn't unreasonable to read whirlwind attack as a single action with multiple melee attacks.

Yes, it is.


We already have other examples of those.

So what? This is not the same and there's no reason to think it is. That would be an (incorrect) assumption.


Movement between attacks does not require the attack action. It just requires separate attacks.

Bingo. So the only question is whether Whirlwind attack is one attack or many. It's one. That's why is says "a melee attack."


And here we go again.

There is no "correct" ruling. If a thing can be interpreted multiple ways, that means there's plenty enough basis for multiple rulings.

We're talking about a game where the DM can literally change the rules as he sees fit. Nobody is debating whether or not it can be ruled in multiple ways. We're debating whether, RAW, Whirlwind Attack is one attack or multiple attacks. RAW it is unambiguously one.


So there is no "correct" interpretation.

Yes, there is. It's dependent on logic and the rules that govern the English language.

The people who are right: "I have a christmas tree with multiple hanging christmas ornaments."

Easy_Lee and the people who are wrong: "Wait! A hanging ornament implies a Christmas tree! Therefore multiple ornaments implies multiple Christmas trees!"

The people who are right: "No. re-read the sentence. A christmas tree with multiple hanging ornaments."

Easy_Lee and the people who are wrong: "But I have a book, and in it, every Christmas tree has only one ornament! Therefore it is reasonable to assume that your Christmas tree also only has one ornament, so we are both right."

The people who are right: "No. re-read the sentence. A christmas tree with multiple hanging ornaments. The other trees aren't relevant to this tree."

[BurchardOfEn]

@Easy_Lee: He's pointing out that a developer's rulings are going to be generally regarded as the go-to since the developer rather obviously had a major hand in the development process of the game and, ergo, would have more authority on the vision of the game since it is, in part, his/her vision(his/her to generalize the case). We can also assume logically that it's a lot more likely that none of us are Jeremy Crawford, Mike Mearls, Mystery Guy #1, or some ghostwriter that wrote the rules than it is that a particular among us is one of them.

I will also say that it seems like you have a particular bias against Crawford considering you've shifted goal posts on why you seem to dislike him or his rulings.

[Easy_Lee]

@Easy_Lee: He's pointing out that a developer's rulings are going to be generally regarded as the go-to since the developer rather obviously had a major hand in the development process of the game and, ergo, would have more authority on the vision of the game since it is, in part, his/her vision(his/her to generalize the case). We can also assume logically that it's a lot more likely that none of us are Jeremy Crawford, Mike Mearls, Mystery Guy #1, or some ghostwriter that wrote the rules than it is that a particular among us is one of them.

I will also say that it seems like you have a particular bias against Crawford considering you've shifted goal posts on why you seem to dislike him or his rulings.

Shifted goal posts, or refined? I like how every time I add to my argument, someone says "shifting the goal posts." I didn't change anything I said. I've strengthened it.

And yes, I do have a bias against Crawford. Because he's inconsistent and violates the design goals of his own edition. Either we say rulings over rules, and his opinion doesn't matter, or we say rules over rulings, and it does.

Instead, people seem to treat it as Crawford over rulings over rules. And that's no good. I don't care what he thinks and, contrary to some people's opinion, I suspect most d&d players don't care, either.

[BurchardOfEn]

I say that you shifted goal posts because you went from an argument of that he was biased towards spell casters to that he doesn't understand the rules of the game which are pretty markedly different points, and you went to the latter because I gave you an example that showed that he wasn't just giving undue favor to casters. The sequencing to it is why I stated that you shifted goal posts.

It also isn't "refining" or "adding to" your argument. You changed it from "He favors casters and has a bias against martials" to "He doesn't understand the rules of the game, so he's garbage."

Sure, you argued that he's garbage either way, but you do realize that those are decidedly different arguments, yes?

[Pex]

The writing is too ambiguous, IMO. Based on their intent, it should have been one attack, one damage roll, applied to any number of targets within reach.



There we have the issue of the same keyword meaning two different things in different contexts. Multiattack is also a combination of the words multiple and attack. That's not exactly clear writing.

Sorry, we disagree here :smallsmile: half-way. I do agree with your issue of the same keyword having different meanings depending on where it's printed as a problem for its own sake, but I'm not seeing the ambiguity in this particular case. The context clarifies enough for me that your Action is to make multiple attack rolls each against a different opponent with no movement between any two rolls. The ability states that it's a separate attack roll for each target, so I don't see where you find RAI to mean one attack roll applying to all targets.

The "Extra Attack" ability is a mutually exclusive thing from "Multiattack", so even though it allows movement between attack rolls it has no bearing on what "Multiattack" does.

Eldritch Blast is a casting of one particular spell whose effect just happens to be to make multiple attack rolls. Those rolls happen right then and there, no movement between them. Not mentioned, but the same thing would apply to Scorching Ray.

[Easy_Lee]

I say that you shifted goal posts because you went from an argument of that he was biased towards spell casters to that he doesn't understand the rules of the game which are pretty markedly different points, and you went to the latter because I gave you an example that showed that he wasn't just giving undue favor to casters. The sequencing to it is why I stated that you shifted goal posts.

It also isn't "refining" or "adding to" your argument. You changed it from "He favors casters and has a bias against martials" to "He doesn't understand the rules of the game, so he's garbage."

Sure, you argued that he's garbage either way, but you do realize that those are decidedly different arguments, yes?

Except that I still think he's biased against martials, in general. So you tell me whether that's incompatible with my original argument.

Either way, shifting of goal posts doesn't really apply. That's when you change the rules when a contest is still under way. Crawford shifted the goal posts by saying rulings over rules, but then stating half of his tweets as rules. I haven't shifted any contest rules, here. I'm just arguing against the idea that one person's word is better than another's, regardless of who.

You can see how that would shut down debates, can't you? People argue over whether a ruling is valid and balanced or not, and someone comes along and says, "Crawford said this, therefore anything else is wrong / incorrect / a house rule." A house rule, as opposed to a house ruling. And rulings are supposed to be the thing, this edition. If we say one person's rulings are actually rules, that is a clear case of moving the goal posts.

[BurgerBeast]

Sorry, we disagree here :smallsmile: half-way. I do agree with your issue of the same keyword having different meanings depending on where it's printed as a problem for its own sake, but I'm not seeing the ambiguity in this particular case. The context clarifies enough for me that your Action is to make multiple attack rolls each against a different opponent with no movement between any two rolls. The ability states that it's a separate attack roll for each target, so I don't see where you find RAI to mean one attack roll applying to all targets.

The "Extra Attack" ability is a mutually exclusive thing from "Multiattack", so even though it allows movement between attack rolls it has no bearing on what "Multiattack" does.

Eldritch Blast is a casting of one particular spell whose effect just happens to be to make multiple attack rolls. Those rolls happen right then and there, no movement between them. Not mentioned, but the same thing would apply to Scorching Ray.

Yeah. I've just re-read and tried to make sense of the Eldritch Blast case (which, it's worth noting, is a separate case from Whirlwind Attack entirely).

I have to agree. Eldritch Blast is not an attack, nor is it a multi-attack. Eldritch blast is used via the Cast a Spell action. That action then triggers the spell text.

So you can interrupt your move to Cast a Spell, but you cannot move in the middle of the Cast a Spell Action. So there is no way to move between beams.

Nothing in what Crawford tweeted goes against this, except that Easy_Lee has apparently (and incorrectly) added more to what Crawford said.

[Pex]

I think it has less to do with being easier (as nobody can argue that one attack roll would have been easier) and the fact that the system is open to abuse if you do. If you make a single attack roll whose AC do you go off of? The large Bugbear wearing chain armor, or the half-naked goblin standing next to him? The Whirlwind Attack was clearly designed to factor in every monster's AC into the equation. I suppose if you really wanted a more easily understood system then they could have just made it function like most spells. "All targets within range must make a Dex Saving throw. On a success they take no damage."

You would make one attack roll and apply it to each creature's AC individually, allowing the possibility you hit some and miss others for having a higher AC.

[Easy_Lee]

You would make one attack roll and apply it to each creature's AC individually, allowing the possibility you hit some and miss others for having a higher AC.

Tricky to handle advantage and disadvantage, though. I'd probably just make it a Reflex save. It seems like a magical ability, anyway. Otherwise, fighters could do it.

[BurchardOfEn]

Except that I still think he's biased against martials, in general. So you tell me whether that's incompatible with my original argument.

It's not incompatible, but I'm noting that you reverted or shifted to the original argument when I provided a counterexample to the claim about martials.


I'm just arguing against the idea that one person's word is better than another's, regardless of who.

How far would you apply this logic for the sake of curiosity?


You can see how that would shut down debates, can't you? People argue over whether a ruling is valid and balanced or not, and someone comes along and says, "Crawford said this, therefore anything else is wrong / incorrect / a house rule." A house rule, as opposed to a house ruling. And rulings are supposed to be the thing, this edition. If we say one person's rulings are actually rules, that is a clear case of moving the goal posts.

Crawford is a developer and can give the presumed RAI(at least unless a Mike Mearls or the mystery guy wrote said part with no input or knowledge on the part of Crawford), so his ruling would have the backing of the presumed intention of the developers, ergo it does have more validity in game settings meant to follow the intentions of the developers. Outside of that? Sure, it means basically nothing, but you could also make anything in the PHB mean basically nothing if the focus is not following the intentions of the developers whether for better or for worse.

I'll put it like this: His ruling is still just a ruling, but it's the "official" ruling that would be used for things like the Adventurer's League as things like the Adventurer's League aren't meant to be about you arguing RAW vs RAI as they wouldn't function if someone was going to rules lawyer even when a developer has contradicted them.

Your point about "a house rule" vs "a house ruling" is nitpicky since most people here probably mean effectively the same thing in this circumstance. I also don't recall seeing all that many people who insisted that because Crawford said X that X is the only way that Whirlwind Attack can be; they've just noted that it is the official way that Whirlwind Attack functions. You can modify it how you want, and it can be balanced despite that. That hasn't changed. You just seem to place some hatred on a particular ruling being handled as official even if this is done in part for sake of necessity for things like the Adventurer's League.

So if Crawford's ruling correct? I dunno, what's a correct ruling? Is it the official ruling? Yes, it is.

[Easy_Lee]

1) How far would you apply this logic for the sake of curiosity?

2) So if Crawford's ruling correct? I dunno, what's a correct ruling? Is it the official ruling? Yes, it is.
(snipped, added numbers to address specific points)

1) I believe in equal opportunity, and part of that is equality of opinion. In the US, we have a legal system where everyone's vote counts equally. I extend that policy to everything. I don't think it's fair to say that this person's opinion is more important than that person's. What matters is who makes the stronger argument, and who more people agree with.

How far would I extend this? If the president of WotC said that wizards are balanced, and some bum on the street said they're not, I'd weigh both opinions equally and decide for myself what I thought.

2) Official or not, this is my point. People swing the "official" ruling like a bat, weilding the implicit assumption that official rulings are more important than house rulings. To me, the official rulings are just highly visible house rulings.


And regarding Crawford, specifically, I've made my opinion clear. Little irks me more in a game developer than inconsistency.

[RickAllison]

It seems that, when a ruling would benefit a caster, especially a wizard, it's allowed. But when it would benefit a martial, Crawford says that isn't the intent and attempts to find a RAW reading which prevents it. He did the same thing with polearm mastery + War Caster, saying that the opportunity attack could not be used to cast a spell. This is in spite of both using the term "opportunity attack," and war caster specifically saying "when a hostile creature's movement provokes..." Hence, a strict RAW reading allows it, but Crawford said no it doesn't. He didn't say that he wouldn't allow it, but that it doesn't work. A much stronger reply.

Is no one seriously going to point this out? Okay.

You claim they are more lenient on casters, yet you gave an example of a Sage Advice where they went against RAW to shut down a combo that empowered casters. Rather than defending your point, you actually showed that your argument is incorrect (quite polite of you).

After all if they were as biased as you claim to wizards, why would they make a ruling that only punished them and other casters? But they didn't. PAM was meant to empower martials, not casters, and so they shut down the combination. Instead, they came out with a ruling that PAM's bonus attack could use the -5/+10 of GWM. So martials are allowed their synergy, but apparently casters are not.

[Easy_Lee]

Is no one seriously going to point this out? Okay.

You claim they are more lenient on casters, yet you gave an example of a Sage Advice where they went against RAW to shut down a combo that empowered casters. Rather than defending your point, you actually showed that your argument is incorrect (quite polite of you).

After all if they were as biased as you claim to wizards, why would they make a ruling that only punished them and other casters? But they didn't. PAM was meant to empower martials, not casters, and so they shut down the combination. Instead, they came out with a ruling that PAM's bonus attack could use the -5/+10 of GWM. So martials are allowed their synergy, but apparently casters are not.

The PAM War Caster combo is not really used by dedicated casters. Eldritch Knights were the typical users. Though a caster could have used it, the non-RAW nerf to the combo was actually a nerf to a popular fighter trick.

I suppose you could argue that maybe he had quarterstaff-weilding casters in mind when he made that rule. Maybe. I'm not convinced, though, as I haven't seen anyone actually try the combo on a wizard.

[RickAllison]

The PAM War Caster combo is not really used by dedicated casters. Eldritch Knights were the typical users. Though a caster could have used it, the non-RAW nerf to the combo was actually a nerf to a popular fighter trick.

Still a caster. If only one fighter archetype is nerfed, it wasn't really a "fighter" trick, it was an EK trick. Heck, Battlemasters IIRC still get to rock their maneuvers. So my point stands, with the addition of partial casters to the list.

[Easy_Lee]

Still a caster. If only one fighter archetype is nerfed, it wasn't really a "fighter" trick, it was an EK trick. Heck, Battlemasters IIRC still get to rock their maneuvers. So my point stands, with the addition of partial casters to the list.

Perhaps you would prefer the Mage Slayer ruling, where a dedicated mage slayer PC waits until after the caster is completely done casting a spell before he makes his opportunity attack. Either way, this discussion is a bit off topic.

[georgie_leech]

(snipped, added numbers to address specific points)

1) I believe in equal opportunity, and part of that is equality of opinion. In the US, we have a legal system where everyone's vote counts equally. I extend that policy to everything. I don't think it's fair to say that this person's opinion is more important than that person's. What matters is who makes the stronger argument, and who more people agree with.

How far would I extend this? If the president of WotC said that wizards are balanced, and some bum on the street said they're not, I'd weigh both opinions equally and decide for myself what I thought.

2) Official or not, this is my point. People swing the "official" ruling like a bat, weilding the implicit assumption that official rulings are more important than house rulings. To me, the official rulings are just highly visible house rulings.


And regarding Crawford, specifically, I've made my opinion clear. Little irks me more in a game developer than inconsistency.



To borrow a comment by Dara O'Brian, 'a Professor of Dentistry for 40 years does not have a debate, with some idiot who removes his own teeth with string and a door.' There's a fine line between viewing arguments on the merits of their evidence (good), and viewing all arguments as equally valid (bad).

[Easy_Lee]

To borrow a comment by Dara O'Brian, 'a Professor of Dentistry for 40 years does not have a debate, with some idiot who removes his own teeth with string and a door.' There's a fine line between viewing arguments on the merits of their evidence (good), and viewing all arguments as equally valid (bad).

Crawford's position as sage does not bestow on him a greater understand of game balance than the average player. And if his rulings are to be believed, then neither does it imply that he knows the rules better than any of us.

Either way, I was talking strictly about opinions on how the game should be run and whether rulings are appropriate. Crawford has shown that his opinion is no more valuable in that regard than any of ours. Nor can it be in a game where rule 0 is in place.

[D.U.P.A.]

What about monsters who have multiattack and opportunity attacks? For example, a monster has Multiattack action, Bite action and Claw action. Multiattack allows it to use both Bite and Claw attack. What can be used for opportunity if PC leaves reach?

Regarding Eldritch blast, Scorching ray and Magic missile follow the same rules? (about targeting, moving and stuff)


Casters can still ready cantrips. However, this wasn't really a ruling, but what the text actually said. It's also something I ignore in my games. If a caster wants to have a spell held and ready to be released, I'm fine with that.

It is also worth noting that in this case high level cantrips are more powerful than single attack, which makes caster stronger in this case.

[Easy_Lee]

What about monsters who have multiattack and opportunity attacks? For example, a monster has Multiattack action, Bite action and Claw action. Multiattack allows it to use both Bite and Claw attack. What can be used for opportunity if PC leaves reach?

Regarding Eldritch blast, Scorching ray and Magic missile follow the same rules? (about targeting, moving and stuff)



It is also worth noting that in this case high level cantrips are more powerful than single attack, which makes caster stronger in this case.

You know, that's weird, too. Strictly by the text, some of Crawford's rules notwithstanding, a caster can ready a spell and hold the action, can cast spells off of opportunity attacks via war caster, and can cast spells as an opportunity attack when creatures enter his reach via war caster + polearm mastery + quarterstaff (used as an arcane focus). As long as the caster has spell slots, and can consistently land spells like gust of wind or repelling eldritch blast, it's easy to imagine a savvy caster being untouchable and dealing very high effective DPR.

Martials beat casters when it comes to single target at-will damage and hit points. Seems like casters best martials in every other way, when played correctly. I haven't had any players interested in being OP. Yet. But I wonder what I'll do if the right wizard or warlock pops into one of my campaigns...

[Pex]

Tricky to handle advantage and disadvantage, though. I'd probably just make it a Reflex save. It seems like a magical ability, anyway. Otherwise, fighters could do it.

Roll a second d20 and use the appropriate higher or lower roll for the particular targets it applies and just the original roll for the ones where it doesn't.

[BurchardOfEn]

1) I believe in equal opportunity, and part of that is equality of opinion. In the US, we have a legal system where everyone's vote counts equally. I extend that policy to everything. I don't think it's fair to say that this person's opinion is more important than that person's. What matters is who makes the stronger argument, and who more people agree with.

How far would I extend this? If the president of WotC said that wizards are balanced, and some bum on the street said they're not, I'd weigh both opinions equally and decide for myself what I thought.

I was meaning "Do you apply this idea to things other than opinions?" I ask because there are obviously things where there is an official ruling that people don't agree with (whatever the case may be), but you can't just ignore it and waive it away as though it effectively doesn't exist. D&D actually gives you a ridiculous amount of leniency that you, for the most part, can choose to just disregard official rulings, but you're being honestly silly if you're going to expect that to mean that people won't take an official ruling as the basic understanding of how something works and then everything else is some form of modification (which can still be similarly as "valid," but you'd look silly if you then claim it isn't a modification/not the official ruling). Like I said before, I haven't really seen anyone that said you just can't allow Whirlwind Attack to do that. Of course you can. It's just not what the developers had in mind when they thought of and wrote up the feature. At worst, there were people who questioned the balance of ruling that you can move throughout Whirlwind Attack, but there hasn't really been anyone who has said "WELL, IT'S OFFICIAL THAT IT DOESN'T, SO YOU CAN'T DO THAT EVER, RAAAA." They're just noting that it's the official ruling while yours is a house ruling. If you have a problem with the official ruling being regarded as the official ruling, then you might want to cast Plane Shift and find a more chaotic realm of existence as I have my doubts that that is going to cease to happen any time soon.

[BurgerBeast]

(snipped, added numbers to address specific points)

1) I believe in equal opportunity, and part of that is equality of opinion....

No, it isn't. If you mean freedom of speech, sure. But then say freedom of speech.


In the US, we have a legal system where everyone's vote counts equally. I extend that policy to everything.

That's a foolish way to view things. The implications are that education meaningless, if you didn't notice. I think most of us agree that education is meaningful. Ever wonder why? Because it improves your ability to form opinions.


I don't think it's fair to say that this person's opinion is more important than that person's.

It is. If you can't think of some examples, then I'll help. When an astronaut is stranded in space, I think a NASA engineer's opinion about how to save the astronaut is more important than my opinion.


What matters is who makes the stronger argument, and who more people agree with.

This idea is so ill-guided that it is more-or-less quantifies the majority of the problems in the U.S.A. and Canada today. It was destroyed over 2000 years ago by Socrates in Plato's work, the Gorgias. I suggest you read it. It will change your opinion on this, and your life as a consequence.

"What matters is who made the stronger argument?" Seriously? So if O.J.'s lawyer argues better, that's more important than the truth of his guilt or innocence?

"who more people agree with?" Seriously? If most people think the world is flat, that's more important than whether it truly is round or flat? I'm sorry. The truth is not determined by consensus. This is dangerously close to naive relativism.


How far would I extend this?

Who cares how far you want to extend a mode of thought that is fruitless?


If the president of WotC said that wizards are balanced, and some bum on the street said they're not, I'd weigh both opinions equally and decide for myself what I thought.

Good. But part of "weighing opinions equally" involves skepticism. Open-mindedness and fairness should not be extended so far that they become gullibility. So the intelligent thing to do is to not entertain either opinion unless you have a good reason. you could start by asking the bum if he knows what Dungeons and Dragons is, and if he's ever played.


2) Official or not, this is my point. People swing the "official" ruling like a bat, weilding the implicit assumption that official rulings are more important than house rulings.

But they're not. That's like saying that official science is no more important than back-yard science. Of course it is. You still take an open-mind to backyard discoveries where relevant, but what makes it "official" it's that it's been pre-screened.


To me, the official rulings are just highly visible house rulings.

Then you're ignoring an important distinction.


And regarding Crawford, specifically, I've made my opinion clear. Little irks me more in a game developer than inconsistency.

Perhaps you should be more forgiving. Everyone makes mistakes. Aside form that, you should make sure you fully understand them before you criticize them.


Crawford's position as sage does not bestow on him a greater understand of game balance than the average player.

Nobody is claiming it does. Crawford's position as a designer of the game, his years of experience in the industry, and his accomplishments bestow on him a greater understanding game balance than the average player.

[Vogonjeltz]

If the intent was clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and he wouldn't have been asked about it on Twitter so many times.

That's not the standard of proof required for something to be clear, it requires no reasonable doubt, not no doubt whatsoever.

Otherwise unreasonable doubt would also indicate that something is not clear, and it does not.


Crawford's position as sage does not bestow on him a greater understand of game balance than the average player. And if his rulings are to be believed, then neither does it imply that he knows the rules better than any of us.

Nobody said a greater unstanding of balance, it's a question of what the rules are.

The author of the rules is always more likely to know those rules than a fan is.

That would just tell us who is more likely to be correct, not who is correct.
It just so happens Crawford is correct based oon the written text.

That that was the most likely outcome is why people tweet questions to him in the first place.

[Sabeta]

I believe in equal opportunity, and part of that is equality of opinion. In the US, we have a legal system where everyone's vote counts equally. I extend that policy to everything.
The fundamental problem with Democracy is that an uneducated man's opinion on how the government should be run is weighted just as heavily as someone who dedicated their life to politics. Do realize that (and this getting a bit off-topic) that Trump's campaign is built on the manipulation of idiotic fears. That's literally the same tactic that Hitler used to become leader of Germany.

Fun Fact: You can become President with approximately 30% Popular Vote. The Electoral College system is deliberately structured to give smaller states more voting power than they deserve so that they feel relevant during election season. So far, it's happened 5 times in our nation's history (with Bush Jr's second term being the most recent). Your analogy falls apart the moment anyone who knows American History shows up.


I don't think it's fair to say that this person's opinion is more important than that person's. What matters is who makes the stronger argument, and who more people agree with.

It is completely fair. Do you know a very dangerous and completely wrong "opinion" that is plaguing America right now? The fact that Vaccines cause Autism. Poor Man's logic dictates that evil Doctors are giving kids Autism to make a quick buck off both the Vaccines and the subsequent Autism Treatment. Trained professionals among the scientific community have debunked every single research document claiming the link between Vaccines and Autism, and yet the masses disregard them because someone posted a picture of a Biohazard symbol while listing off the "dangerous" chemicals that vaccines use. People are not equal, it is in fact possible to be stupid in this world. Stupid people should not be given the same credence in debate as someone who is trained.


How far would I extend this? If the president of WotC said that wizards are balanced, and some bum on the street said they're not, I'd weigh both opinions equally and decide for myself what I thought.

The classes don't need to be balanced. The discrepancy in power (within reason) is entertaining in its own right. Completely off-tangent here, but the 2015 VGC Pokemon Champion used Pachirisu on his team. For those unfamiliar with the franchise, Pachirisu is one of the worst Pokemon in the game, often put in the absolute lowest tier. Point is, a "fun" build can be just as powerful as any fighter or wizard in the hands of a creative individual. That being said, see my previous paragraph for why trusting a homeless man's opinion on Wizards is bad.


Official or not, this is my point. People swing the "official" ruling like a bat, weilding the implicit assumption that official rulings are more important than house rulings.

They are though. That's the point of Official Rulings. You're allowed to disregard them at your own table if you wish; nobody will deny you that right. You can change and adjust the rules however you see fit. That's perfectly fine, and in fact it's encouraged if it will make your table enjoy the game more. However, entering a thread where someone wants to know how an ability works and then spouting off your table's homebrew is just plainly destructive. It is neither RAW nor RAI at that point, it is YOUR homebrew and you are trying to impress it on other people. That's the difference in value when a representative of WotC says something and some Joe on the internet does. You're literally advocating that Homebrew should be taught before rules.


And regarding Crawford, specifically, I've made my opinion clear. Little irks me more in a game developer than inconsistency.

You keep saying this, but I've read through the SA Compendium and everything looks consistent there. Care to give some specific examples so that we can properly refute this point. So help me god if your only example is "le attack roles = le attacks"


What about monsters who have multiattack and opportunity attacks? For example, a monster has Multiattack action, Bite action and Claw action. Multiattack allows it to use both Bite and Claw attack. What can be used for opportunity if PC leaves reach?

Regarding Eldritch blast, Scorching ray and Magic missile follow the same rules? (about targeting, moving and stuff)

I would appreciate it if you bothered to read the OP. Multi-Attacks specifies that the monster makes two attacks. That's part of my logic behind Whirlwind Attack being only one attack, as it specifically says "An attack" versus "multiples attacks". For opportunity attacks, you don't get to use special abilities, so the monster would simply take a standard Attack Action, using whichever natural weapon you feel it should use.

Eldritch Blast and friends were also covered earlier in this thread. Although these spells are classified as Attacks, they don't use the Attack Action. They use the "Cast a Spell" action, and you cannot move while Casting a Spell. Therefore, when casting EB or MM you cannot move in between shots. While I'm at it though; the question that prompted Crawdad to say "If you're making an Attack Roll, you're making an Attack" was about Spell Attacks, as it wasn't 100% clear that you would suffer disadvantage if you attacked in Melee Range with a spell. (which is also why Crossbow Expert works the way it does). It's very clear from that Whirlwind Attack is a special case just from the RAW, and the SA only helped clear up any confusion people might have had.

[BurgerBeast]

Okay, so I think I finally have something convincing to say about this. But there's a story involved and it's long, so I "TLDR"'d it at the bottom.

I was going to say: I finally see the validity in Easy_Lee and Shackleford's point.

I have been thinking about this for a (probably unhealthily) long time. I'd like to thank Easy_Lee for his persistence in answering others (I think he has me on "ignore") and Shackleford for this post:


"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."

With how this is written, there is no way to interpret this other than it being multiple attacks. It doesn't say "make one attack" it says "make a melee attack against any number of creatures" that right there shows you that it is multitle attack rolls which is multiple attacks.

Because as I went back and re-read it, it finally clicked. Now I'm going to take a shot at explaining it to the people who were on my side of this debate. I should warn you that what you're about to read is long (even by my standards), so I've used a "TLDR" for the first time in this post.

First, a little of my thought process: I had considered introducing an idea to this discussion previously. The idea that perhaps the disagreement stems from preconceptions about what is actually happening when a character makes a Whirlwind Attack. Maybe some people envision a character sticking out their blade (for example) and spinning like a top while others envision a character spinning their body and making discrete attacks with their blade at individual targets as they encounter them. I never brought this up because I though people would (rightly, I thought) argue that the fluff isn't relevant to the mechanics. I have since changed my mind, and think this distinction is important because it is not merely fluff. It intrudes on the mechanics of the game.

It's probably also important to note that I was in the camp that pictured the first case, which is I think a result of a similar ability in WOW and how it is implemented in that game.

Okay, so what changed when I re-read Shackleford?

In short, I think he got the relevant text right, but got his emphasis wrong.

What we should be focussing on is:


Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you..."

As anyone who has read the thread knows, I and others have pointed out that is says "attack" (singular), and therefore implies one attack. But I think we made a mistake here. I now see that this is ambiguous, and I'm going to try to show why. Before I do, it's important to point out that is will ultimately hinge upon preconceptions around what an attack is.

Consider these two sentences:

(1) Make a cake for anyone at the party.

(2) Make a cupcake for anyone at the party.

To me, the first sentence seems to clearly imply one cake that might vary in size depending on the number of people. But the second sentence seems to clearly imply that you need to make more or less individual cupcakes based on the number of people despite the fact that it says "a cupcake" (singular).

So why the difference? Well, I have a concept of what a cake is, and I have a concept of what a cupcake is. Those conceptions limit and influence (i.e. bias) the way I understand the sentences.

So, if like me, you thought you could spin around with one big cake and cover all the party-goers, the single attack with multiple rolls makes sense. But if you thought you'd spin around with arms full of cupcakes, doling out one to each person you encounter on the spin, it seems that there must be multiple attacks.

So it comes down to whether you envision an individual attack as a cupcake or a cake, because the act of envisioning it influences the possible meanings of the sentence.

But just now, writing this, I flipped back to thinking I've been right all along. Because now it seems to me that the sentence "Make a cupcake for everyone at the party" literally does mean make ONE cupcake of sufficient size for everyone at the party, despite my knowing that a typical cupcake is not big enough for that. It does, literally, mean one cupcake. Especially when contrasted with the sentence: "make cupcakes for everyone at the party."

So I've come full circle. I think the use of singular "cupcake" (or "attack" as the case may be) implies ONE cupcake or attack.

TLDR: I was going to say: I don't think I'm right any more. I think Easy_Lee and Shackleford are correct to assert their interpretations and that this is, indeed, an ambiguous case. Apologies to Easy_Lee and Shackleford and anyone else who I grouped into the "wrong" category incorrectly. I was wrong. But in the process of writing this I flipped back again to thinking I've been right all along.

[Sabeta]

TLDR: I was going to say: I don't think I'm right any more. I think Easy_Lee and Shackleford are correct to assert their interpretations and that this is, indeed, an ambiguous case. Apologies to Easy_Lee and Shackleford and anyone else who I grouped into the "wrong" category incorrectly. I was wrong. But in the process of writing this I flipped back again to thinking I've been right all along.

I think I said as much in the other thread. I strongly support that One-Attack with Multiple Rolls is both RAW and RAI, but I also think that Shackleford made it expressly clear on why that mistake could be made. Digging through older threads in the Playground and I see that it's a very common mistake, so there is (or rather, was) some ambiguity here. Like I said before though, my experience as a Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG Tournament Judge has given me a keen eye for deciphering text like this. YGO is a franchise where "IF" versus "WHEN" determines how viable a card is.



Sometimes an optional effect can only be activated "when" a condition happens. In this case, you are only allowed to activate the effect when the activation condition being met was the last thing to happen in the game. If something else happened after the activation condition was met, then you have missed the timing (タイミングを逃す Taimingu wo Nogasu), and cannot activate the optional effect, unless it is a certain type of optional Trigger Effect, such as ones phrased "If... you can...". Optional effects which can miss the timing are phrased "When... you can..."

In other words, a card whose effect says "When X you can Y" is often garbage compared to "If X you can Y" because the way effects resolve often means that "When" effects miss the timing and do nothing. A more comparable example to the world of D&D is the interaction between Opportunity Attacks, Mage Slayer, Sentinel, etc in trying to cancel the movement or actions of monsters.

tldr; I see where everyone is coming from, but that doesn't make their interpretation right beyond house rulings.

[BurgerBeast]

In other words, a card whose effect says "When X you can Y" is often garbage compared to "If X you can Y" because the way effects resolve often means that "When" effects miss the timing and do nothing.

I'd be curious to hear more about this with examples. How to do that appropriately on this forum I don't know.

[Easy_Lee]

tldr; I see where everyone is coming from, but that doesn't make their interpretation right beyond house rulings.

That's the conclusion I've reached. I can see how the ability can he read differently, even though I suspect most people read it the same way as I did the first time.

That said, I challenge the notion that Crawford's ruling is "more right" just because it's official.

[georgie_leech]

I'd be curious to hear more about this with examples. How to do that appropriately on this forum I don't know.

While the rules text doesn't use that exact form, think about the difference between the general rules of needing to be able to manage all V, S, and M components to cast spells, why Counterspell can only be cast in response to another spell. The general rules are analogous to the 'If X, you can Y' rules, because they are about certain actions only needing certain parameters to be met in order to take them. Counterspell is analogous to 'When X, you can Y,' because it establishes timing. You can't wait for a spell to be resolved to Counterspell it, it needs to be done when the enemy caster is casting a spell. Like, you can't wait until a Fireball has exploded and done damage before you can counter it.

[Sabeta]

I'd be curious to hear more about this with examples. How to do that appropriately on this forum I don't know.

This is only post I'll make on the subject as it's straying too far off topic. In the interest of simplicity I'm not going to explain basic game rules, and try to keep terminology limited to what the average person could understand with no experience in the game.

Let's say we have three different cards. I'll call these Light, Darkness, and Dragon respectively.

Light, "When you destroy a monster, you can gain 1000 Life Points."
Darkness, "If you destroy a monster, you can gain 1000 Life Points."
Dragon, "When this card is destroyed by an opponent's Monster, destroy that Monster and deal 1000 Life Points damage to your opponent."

We'll assume that you have both Light and Darkness, and your opponent controls Dragon. If Light destroys Dragon then he misses the timing. Even though both cards are "When X", Light says "you can". "You can" means the player must make the choice to resolve the effect, but Dragon's effect is compulsory. Dragon's effect resolves first, killing Light, and denying Light the 1000 Life Points, and causing them to lose 1000. If you had less than 1000 left you would lose now. When Darkness attempts the same thing, he is still destroyed by Dragon's compulsory effect and takes 1000 damage, but that is then restored by Darkness' effect and you didn't lose anything. (Note: If we were under 1000 in this example, you actually still lose). Taking this one step farther, if Light's effect dropped the "You can" part, then its effect becomes compulsory and triggers faster than Dragon's letting you survive the encounter.

Needless to say, Yu-Gi-Oh likes its Keywords.

[Easy_Lee]

If we're talking about timing and clear wording, 5e is lacking in that regard. The same language is used on both Mage Slayer and the Protection fighting style, even though those reactions take place at different times (after for MS, during / interrupt for protection).

The thing is that whirlwind attack could have been read two ways. We had other examples of the multiple attack reading, such as other multiattack abilities and some multiattack spells. And as for one attack with multiple rolls, we could compare it to magic missile, which was ruled to benefit from the Evoker INT mod to spell damage ability only once. However, magic missile uses the keyword "simultaneously." Other abilities that aren't simultaneous, such as eldritch blast, lack that keyword. Notably, eldritch blast gains from CHA mod to spell damage multiple times, reinforcing that it's multiple attacks. The lack of the word "simultaneous" is the main difference between it and magic missile, so we could say that was the indicator of one vs multiple attacks.

If they had used the term "simultaneously" when talking about whirlwind attack, as in "these attacks all hit simultaneously," then things would have been pretty clear. Regardless, it can be ruled multiple ways as written.

[BurgerBeast]

The same language is used on both Mage Slayer and the Protection fighting style, even though those reactions take place at different times (after for MS, during / interrupt for protection).

For me, this doesn't present a problem. I think of it like this: a reaction generally occurs after the trigger it unless it says otherwise. This allows plenty of variety on the basis of differing triggers. For example if the trigger is when an enemy targets an ally, declares and attack, makes an attack, hits, or misses, are all different possibilities and potentially resolve at different times. Additionally, if a particular use of a reaction calls for a use that can only be resolved before the action, then it must resolve first.

For example, an opportunity attack is triggered by moving out of a creature's threat range. typically, because it's a reaction, it would resolve after the movement occurs, but this isn't possible (because the target would be out of reach) so it happens first.

In the case of Mage Slayer, it functions according to its general use. The spell is cast and then the reaction attack occurs.

In the case of Protection style, it specifically calls for a function that can't possibly occur afterward. In other words you can't impose disadvantage on a roll after the roll occurs. Therefore disadvantage applies before the roll.


The thing is that whirlwind attack could have been read two ways. We had other examples of the multiple attack reading, such as other multiattack abilities and some multiattack spells.

I'm starting to think the basis of the confusion here is the difference between Multiattack and Extra Attack. I'm sure this has been discussed before and I'm waiting for a response in a new thread I started, but currently it appears to me that, RAW, movement is never allowed between attacks when using the Multiattack action. So I've been doing it wrong all along and I suspect I'm not the only one.

[Citan]

Trying to put an end to the "yet again endless" debate by summarizing all the "hints".


First, as a reminder, PHB:
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.
Whirlwind is a special action (one among many others), completely independant and unrelated from the Multiattack features described in monsters sheet, that makes you do ONE attack with multiple attacks rolls, by RAW. Why?


The only problem with having it be one roll is that the ranger could crit 8 targets at once. It would also raise the issue of advantage/disadvantage (one enemy is paralyzed, another dodging, another is just fighting normally.

If it was 1 roll for all it would unfairly penalize the dodger, and unfairly benefit the paralyzed one.

It has to be done through individual rolls to avoid that problem.
Precisely (you could also mention the opportunity attacks management if you'd allow movement).
That's exactly why they had to precise in the PHB that you make an attack roll for each target.


Multiattack isn't a "keyword". It's a header.

Against the argument "but they have different ruling for Multiattack feature". "Multiattack" for the Ranger is just "we don't know how to give a cool name for this choice of features so we go with pragmatic denomination". You don't gain the "Multiattack" feature, you gain a feature called "Whirlwind attack" that happens to allow you to target several creatures with a single attack.


Again I say, you can have one attack with multiple attack rolls and it doesn't require any mental gymnastics to get there. Just like multiple spell attack rolls from Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray is still a single spell.

If you are making an attack roll you are making an attack =/= if you are making multiple attack rolls you are making multiple attacks. That is a logical leap.

To allow Rangers to move between attack rolls makes any Ranger with Mobile an absurdly OP character.
Indeed. There is no linearity between the number of "attacks" and the number of attack rolls.


That doesn't contradict the idea that a single attack can have multiple attack rolls.

The statement if you a rolling an attack roll you are making an attack remains true whether that's 1 attack with 50 rolls or 50 attacks with 1 roll, 1 attack with 1 roll or 50 attacks with 50 rolls.

In the case of whirlwind attack, you are making an attack, but just one. Every attack roll is an attack, yes, but the same attack.

The only purpose to that statement is to indicate the basic guideline for knowing if you're making an attack for abilities that end or are triggered by an attack.

While I agree that they could have certainly found a better wording, it's clear enough as it is for anyone a bit familiar with 5e.
Because any other comprehension would make this ability OP, as, totally trumping the fighter's lvl 20 4x Attack, especially since it's so easy for a Ranger to increase its movement: Longstrider + Mobile + maybe Monk dip, with base racial speed of 30 feet, means at least 50 feet "reach". Add a friend casting Haste on you (or 5lvl spellcaster dip) and you are golden, 100 feet of "reach" meaning you could easily target most enemies in a crowded battle without any risk (Mobile = no OA), consistently, for every turn of the fight.
How would feel the Fighter, who at this level would be able to attack 3 people per turn max (6/t once with Action Surge)? Or any other Martial in fact?

My great gripe with it though is the 5-feet engraved limitation. Using the reach word would have rewarded players that go beyond the usual Ranger archetype to play with STR reach weapons, or just with whip. But well... Maybe it was purely for balance reasons, or maybe they thought it would help players understand their intent (in which case they obviously failed XD)...

Don't forget though. Anyone can rule out differently as a DM. ;) So if you want to give more power to Ranger (which is a good idea in general ^^), forget about RAW/RAI debate and go for it. But be aware of the unbalance risks and adapt it consequently (putting a max number of enemies, using enemies or spells that affect movement speed etc).

Also, while as is it's strictly inferior to Crossbow Expert + Volley, it can still be useful if teamplayed with characters that can affect enemy movement (Command, Compulsion, Repelling Blast, Grapple/move, etc) or can help you stand your ground while you rush into the heat of the battle (Shield of Faith, Warding Bond, Warding Flare, etc).

[Xetheral]

It's not too surprising that the text of Whirlwind Attack produces so much controversy: from a technical standpoint the rule in question has both an existential qualifier and a universal qualifier, and the rules of English are insufficient to determine the order in which they should be applied. Combining these two types of qualifiers is tricky... it's the same reason epsilon-delta formulations of calculus can be hard to learn.

Let's start by stripping away the parts of the rule that specify the action cost, the distance limitation, and the multiple rolls, because they aren't relevant to the two qualifers. This leaves us with:

You can make a melee attack against any number of creatures.

The existential qualifier is at the beginning: "you can make a melee attack". The structure here is analogous to "there exists a thing you can do". The universal qualifier is at the end: "against any number of creatures" which is analogous to "for all creatures".

This presents two possible interpretations, based on the order of the qualifiers.

There exists a thing, such that you can do it for all creatures For all creatures, there exists a thing you can do

The first interpretation results in a single attack targeting multiple creatures. The second results in an attack for each creature (super-technically, the second interpretation may not result in multiple attacks, but if that were the case interpretation 1 would be better anyway).

We know from Sage Advice that interpretation 1 was intended, but there is no rule of English which we can use to deduce that intent from the text alone. In colloquial usage, the order the qualifiers (or their analgoues) appear does not specify the order in which the qualifiers should be applied. Instead, the reader is left to decide from context which interpretation is stronger, and (as shown by the disagreement) peoples' opinions differ.

Again, this isn't too surprising: the whole reason predicate logic uses dedicated symbols for this sort of thing is because it's very, very hard to unambiguously express the relationship between multiple qualifiers using language alone.

[RickAllison]

it's the same reason epsilon-delta formulations of calculus can be hard to learn.

Don't ever remind me of those monstrosities. Something that only really pops up for dedicated mathematicians should not be so difficult on the engineering track...

[Easy_Lee]

Now that we've established multiple readings are possible, perhaps we should discuss which is actually balanced.

IMO, whirlwind attack needs something in order to be competitive with volley. Movement is one benefit. However, I also believe that both attacks deal too little damage. Certainly the attacks can do high total damage under ideal circumstances, but how many combats actually involve more than four creatures? Four is the number required to compete with a full attack from a level 11 fighter (given that the fighter is likely to get a bonus attack, weild a great weapon, or both). And the hunter is supposed to excel against groups.

[Sabeta]

The simplest buff would probably be to just allow Reach compatibility. Alternatively, if we envision Whirlwind Attack as a large spinning maneuver, then perhaps you add in a Strength Save or be knocked prone feature to make it a little bit stronger. I honestly don't think Whirlwind is terribly weak, nor do I feel Volley is overly strong. Bows in general are stronger in this game to make up for the fact that there may be numerous situations where they simply can't take a shot.

[Cybren]

1) why are we comparing a rangers Action to a fighters Action + Bonus Action
2) why are we assuming a ranger should do as much damage as a fighter all the time?

Theoretically rangers have spells and other features (like colossus slayer) to add a little bit of extra damage. Maybe a better fix is letting colossus slayer work 1/creature per turn instead of just 1/turn. Also, I imagine that in theater of the mind it's easier to visualize situations where 3+ enemies are in range. I find when you start adding minis rooms and a grid rooms tend to inflate in size.

[Citan]

1) why are we comparing a rangers Action to a fighters Action + Bonus Action
2) why are we assuming a ranger should do as much damage as a fighter all the time?

Theoretically rangers have spells and other features (like colossus slayer) to add a little bit of extra damage. Maybe a better fix is letting colossus slayer work 1/creature per turn instead of just 1/turn. Also, I imagine that in theater of the mind it's easier to visualize situations where 3+ enemies are in range. I find when you start adding minis rooms and a grid rooms tend to inflate in size.
I have to plus this strongly prior to any other comment. Also, we have to not forget that Hunter will probably use its bonus action on Hunter's Mark which is a very fair bonus, so keeping action to action comparison seems fairer to me. Also, I agree with Ranger being fine as "lesser" than Fighter in damage dealing. With that said...


The simplest buff would probably be to just allow Reach compatibility. Alternatively, if we envision Whirlwind Attack as a large spinning maneuver, then perhaps you add in a Strength Save or be knocked prone feature to make it a little bit stronger. I honestly don't think Whirlwind is terribly weak, nor do I feel Volley is overly strong. Bows in general are stronger in this game to make up for the fact that there may be numerous situations where they simply can't take a shot.
I 100% agree with this, and would always houserule this if I had Hunters in games I dm.
Not sure about the knocked prone feature, seems not very adapted fluff-wise to me, but I'm biaised into seeing Ranger with slashing weapons mainly so... ;)
I would probably just give a flat +2 on the attack rolls, justifying it by the fact the enemy didn't expect this kind of move, or something like this. This would make it on par with Volley + Archery and worth it even when there is only two enemies reachable, and much more rewarding when the player manages to optimize his placement to target 3+ enemies at once.
While not totally phagocyting Extra Attack in case the Ranger prefers using shove/grapple or focus on one enemy.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's not too surprising that the text of Whirlwind Attack produces so much controversy: from a technical standpoint the rule in question has both an existential qualifier and a universal qualifier, and the rules of English are insufficient to determine the order in which they should be applied. Combining these two types of qualifiers is tricky... it's the same reason epsilon-delta formulations of calculus can be hard to learn.

Let's start by stripping away the parts of the rule that specify the action cost, the distance limitation, and the multiple rolls, because they aren't relevant to the two qualifers. This leaves us with:

You can make a melee attack against any number of creatures.

The existential qualifier is at the beginning: "you can make a melee attack". The structure here is analogous to "there exists a thing you can do". The universal qualifier is at the end: "against any number of creatures" which is analogous to "for all creatures".

This presents two possible interpretations, based on the order of the qualifiers.

There exists a thing, such that you can do it for all creatures For all creatures, there exists a thing you can do

The first interpretation results in a single attack targeting multiple creatures. The second results in an attack for each creature (super-technically, the second interpretation may not result in multiple attacks, but if that were the case interpretation 1 would be better anyway).

We know from Sage Advice that interpretation 1 was intended, but there is no rule of English which we can use to deduce that intent from the text alone. In colloquial usage, the order the qualifiers (or their analgoues) appear does not specify the order in which the qualifiers should be applied. Instead, the reader is left to decide from context which interpretation is stronger, and (as shown by the disagreement) peoples' opinions differ.

Again, this isn't too surprising: the whole reason predicate logic uses dedicated symbols for this sort of thing is because it's very, very hard to unambiguously express the relationship between multiple qualifiers using language alone.

That the sentence is ordered as #1 and is not ordered as #2 is why #1 is correct.

If 2 were intended, then phrasing it as 1 would be incorrect, fortunately we know the intent which aligns with the wording perfectly.

you're also dividing the wording up at the wrong point, "make a melee attack against all creatures within 5 feet" is all one part, you can use your action to, would be the first half.

[Easy_Lee]

I question whether the low damage is acceptable for either volley or whirlwind attack. Hunter Rangers are supposed to excel against groups, but in fact are inferior to even a blade pact warlock for anything besides fighting an entire army over the course of a full day. For standard combat, they bring nothing special to the table vs groups.

[Sabeta]

Sorry, where is the low damage? I've read it, and it simply says make an attack to anyone in range. Would that not be a full-powered attack? If you have four enemies around you it would be just a bit behind what a Fighter could do.

[Lombra]

Why is this thread so long? What's so hard about "an attack on every creature within 5 feet of you each of which requires a separate attack roll" it's clear and whoever disagrees with it only wants to increase his "posts per day" value. Designers could have wrote it better but all you need is a second glance to understand both the intent and the writing.

[MeeposFire]

The simplest buff would probably be to just allow Reach compatibility. Alternatively, if we envision Whirlwind Attack as a large spinning maneuver, then perhaps you add in a Strength Save or be knocked prone feature to make it a little bit stronger. I honestly don't think Whirlwind is terribly weak, nor do I feel Volley is overly strong. Bows in general are stronger in this game to make up for the fact that there may be numerous situations where they simply can't take a shot.

Whirlwind attack is VERY weak. Compare it to just the attack action of the ranger.

One enemy attack action better.

2 enemy attack action better.

3 enemy attack action is just as good if you are going classic 2 weapon or have some other bonus action attack or the like.

A ranger needs 4 targets to be better. If you were a same level fighter you would need 5! How often are you surrounded by 4+ creatures? If so is it really worth the risk considering you get no special benefits on the attack?

Remember volley has essentially no special risk since it is at range. Whirlwind attack requires you to be put into a really bad situation to even get a benefit. Something so risky should grant bonus relative to that risk but it does not.

More often than not you are as good or better using the attack action. A level 11 ability should be much more useful than the level 5 ability of your class at its own shtick.

[Easy_Lee]

Whirlwind attack is VERY weak. Compare it to just the attack action of the ranger.

One enemy attack action better.

2 enemy attack action better.

3 enemy attack action is just as good if you are going classic 2 weapon or have some other bonus action attack or the like.

A ranger needs 4 targets to be better. If you were a same level fighter you would need 5! How often are you surrounded by 4+ creatures? If so is it really worth the risk considering you get no special benefits on the attack?

Remember volley has essentially no special risk since it is at range. Whirlwind attack requires you to be put into a really bad situation to even get a benefit. Something so risky should grant bonus relative to that risk but it does not.

More often than not you are as good or better using the attack action. A level 11 ability should be much more useful than the level 5 ability of your class at its own shtick.

The main thing that bothers me is when I compare it to other AoE. The spell Fireball, for instance, does 8d6 damage (half on a save) at spell level 3. That's a level five wizard doing more damage per target than a level 20 ranger can with whirlwind attack. Sure, spells may cost a spell slot. But the opportunity to attack a group of creatures comes up infrequently.

It's not hard to see that, if we're trying to build a character who excels against groups of weak mobs, hunter ranger is not the way to go. Fiend-pact warlock would probably be our choice, with its AoE blasting, short rest slots, and bonus temp HP every time it kills something. But groups are exactly where the hunter is meant to shine. Whirlwind Attack / Volley, the Hunter's primary means of AoE damage, fails to be competitive at any level.

[MeeposFire]

The main thing that bothers me is when I compare it to other AoE. The spell Fireball, for instance, does 8d6 damage (half on a save) at spell level 3. That's a level five wizard doing more damage per target than a level 20 ranger can with whirlwind attack. Sure, spells may cost a spell slot. But the opportunity to attack a group of creatures comes up infrequently.

It's not hard to see that, if we're trying to build a character who excels against groups of weak mobs, hunter ranger is not the way to go. Fiend-pact warlock would probably be our choice, with its AoE blasting, short rest slots, and bonus temp HP every time it kills something. But groups are exactly where the hunter is meant to shine. Whirlwind Attack / Volley, the Hunter's primary means of AoE damage, fails to be competitive at any level.

I try to avoid comparing to spells since it is hard to get everybody on board when comparing at will with a daily ability. That is why I compare it directly with its in class competition. If whirlwind attack cannot claim a significant benefit over the standard attack action then it really does not deserve to be an ability that stands alone at its level (or it needs to be buffed up).

[ClintACK]

The main thing that bothers me is when I compare it to other AoE. The spell Fireball, for instance, does 8d6 damage (half on a save) at spell level 3. That's a level five wizard doing more damage per target than a level 20 ranger can with whirlwind attack. Sure, spells may cost a spell slot. But the opportunity to attack a group of creatures comes up infrequently.

Depends.

Fireball: 8d6 (avg: 28).

Ranger Whirlwind w/ GWM: 1d10+15 (avg: 20.5) -- so it looks inferior, but wait...
- Hunter's Mark adds 1d6 to the priority target
- Colossus Slayer adds another 1d8 --> 28.5 total average
- or Horde Breaker adds another full attack --> 44.5 total average

In most cases 20.5 to every enemy and 44.5 to the boss will be better than 28 to every enemy. Especially when you can pick which enemy to target with the Horde Breaker bonus attack after you see who's still standing.

And we haven't even considered that an 11th level Ranger might have a magic weapon.


Still, yeah, the Melee Hunter Ranger is *not* the most combat effective Ranger (the ranged hunter is better) or the most combat effective melee fighter, even against groups. If it were, then *that* would be terribly unbalanced -- Fighter should be better at straight out fighting to balance out all the spells and skills Rangers get.

The *real* problem with Rangers is that the skill-features they get aren't really doing the job they are supposed to. Give them Expertise in Survival, Perception, Stealth, and Nature -- spread out over the current "ribbon" levels -- and I think they'd be a lot closer to what we expect them to do.

[Xetheral]

That the sentence is ordered as #1 and is not ordered as #2 is why #1 is correct.

If 2 were intended, then phrasing it as 1 would be incorrect, fortunately we know the intent which aligns with the wording perfectly.

you're also dividing the wording up at the wrong point, "make a melee attack against all creatures within 5 feet" is all one part, you can use your action to, would be the first half.

The order the qualifiers appear in English does not necessarily correlate to the order in which they are applied in a logical structure. As an example, consider the statement: "There exists an answer to any question". Note that, as in interpretation 1, above, the existential qualifier precedes the universal qualifier, yet the statement itself is ambiguous as to whether it is referring to one answer or many. (Indeed, I would guess that almost everyone would interpret that statement as involving multiple answers, despite the order the qualifiers appear in.) The logical order of the qualifiers simply cannot be unambiguously determined from the text.

As to how I'm dividing up the sentence, the grouping you propose is the exclusively "correct" one only if we also assume interpretation 1 is somehow "correct" in the first place. Considering that I am claiming that their is no method from the text to unamiguously choose either 1 or 2, I certainly am not willing to make that assumption.


Why is this thread so long? What's so hard about "an attack on every creature within 5 feet of you each of which requires a separate attack roll" it's clear and whoever disagrees with it only wants to increase his "posts per day" value. Designers could have wrote it better but all you need is a second glance to understand both the intent and the writing.

Obviously, there are posters in this thread who disagree with you on this question of textual interpretation. Either you respect their opinions or you don't. If you do respect their opinions, then the existence of a disagreement as to what the text means should be enough to prove that the text isn't clear. If you don't respect their opinions, what possible value could there be in conversing with them?

[Easy_Lee]

Ranger Whirlwind w/ GWM: 1d10+15 (avg: 20.5) -- so it looks inferior, but wait...
- Hunter's Mark adds 1d6 to the priority target
- Colossus Slayer adds another 1d8 --> 28.5 total average
- or Horde Breaker adds another full attack --> 44.5 total average

In most cases 20.5 to every enemy and 44.5 to the boss will be better than 28 to every enemy. Especially when you can pick which enemy to target with the Horde Breaker bonus attack after you see who's still standing.

And we haven't even considered that an 11th level Ranger might have a magic weapon.


Still, yeah, the Melee Hunter Ranger is *not* the most combat effective Ranger (the ranged hunter is better) or the most combat effective melee fighter, even against groups. If it were, then *that* would be terribly unbalanced -- Fighter should be better at straight out fighting to balance out all the spells and skills Rangers get.

The *real* problem with Rangers is that the skill-features they get aren't really doing the job they are supposed to. Give them Expertise in Survival, Perception, Stealth, and Nature -- spread out over the current "ribbon" levels -- and I think they'd be a lot closer to what we expect them to do.

Rangers don't get the great weapon fighting style and are unlikely to take it. GWM results in a miss, rather than +10 damage, in most cases. Anyone who actually uses that feature of GWM likely hasn't done the math. The real way to optimize whirlwind damage is to multiclass or find a very good magic weapon. Even then, hunters will be left in the dust by others.

Hunter rangers should outdamage fighters when fighting large groups (4+). The reason why is simple: that's the hunter's schtick. If other classes and archetypes are better at doing this, then the hunter doesn't have one. Furthermore, the ranger in general should match or beat a fighter's damage when fighting against his favored enemy. Neither of these things is the case except at very low levels.

The real issue with rangers, and the reason why their entry in the book was written so poorly, is that nobody actually knows what the role, what their niche, is supposed to be.

[Cybren]

Rangers don't get the great weapon fighting style and are unlikely to take it. GWM results in a miss, rather than +10 damage, in most cases. Anyone who actually uses that feature of GWM likely hasn't done the math. The real way to optimize whirlwind damage is to multiclass or find a very good magic weapon. Even then, hunters will be left in the dust by others.
I think part of the problem with rangers is they are theoretically still married to the "archer vs twf" paradigm of older editions, but don't give them much to make twf all that good. Even ignoring volley vs whirlwind attack there's not much reason to play a ranger if you want to be a dual wielder.


Hunter rangers should outdamage fighters when fighting large groups (4+). The reason why is simple: that's the hunter's schtick. If other classes and archetypes are better at doing this, then the hunter doesn't have one.

Agreed. I do still think it's easier to "visualize" hitting 4+ enemies with whirlwind attack when you aren't playing on a grid, but it should have higher rewards for sending you into what should be a sticky situation (having 4+ enemies in melee range). That said, I've never played a ranger, so I have no frame of reference for how bad it feels.



Furthermore, the ranger in general should match or beat a fighter's damage when fighting against his favored enemy. Neither of these things is the case except at very low levels.

I'm not sure I agree with those. A lot of DMs seem reluctant to outwardly hostile to the idea of tailoring their adventures to a PCs abilities (something I think should be done, since a PC taking an ability is a bit of a statement that they would like it to be relevant). I like that favored enemy confers mostly non-combat bebefits, I just don't like that they're not particularly impressive non-combat benefits



The real issue with rangers, and the reason why their entry in the book was written so poorly, is that nobody actually knows what the role, what their niche, is supposed to be.

I think it's pretty clear their niche is supposed to be the survivalist/tracker type that uses stealth and outdoorsy abilities to both help the party survive, navigate, and explore the world, and also to use those abilities to maximize their combat potential. A ranger shouldn't be as good a a fighter as a fighter, because they have more non-fighting stuff to do, but they should be able to use a lot of their tricks to act as a force multiplier, both for themselves and the party

[Citan]

Rangers don't get the great weapon fighting style and are unlikely to take it. GWM results in a miss, rather than +10 damage, in most cases. Anyone who actually uses that feature of GWM likely hasn't done the math. The real way to optimize whirlwind damage is to multiclass or find a very good magic weapon. Even then, hunters will be left in the dust by others.

Hunter rangers should outdamage fighters when fighting large groups (4+). The reason why is simple: that's the hunter's schtick. If other classes and archetypes are better at doing this, then the hunter doesn't have one. Furthermore, the ranger in general should match or beat a fighter's damage when fighting against his favored enemy. Neither of these things is the case except at very low levels.

The real issue with rangers, and the reason why their entry in the book was written so poorly, is that nobody actually knows what the role, what their niche, is supposed to be.

Have to partially disagree with this. We know the Ranger niche: it's being the scout, survivalist, the one that leads the party through jungle, desert or caverns and ensure the path is safe while providing provisions and such.
And being either the best Archer (although it's debatable considering Fighter's 4 attacks ;)) or a dual-wielder (although dual-wielding is made less-interesting) fight-wise.
Being good at fighting groups comes as a consequence of being the one most susceptible to fall in a trap or be surrounded while scouting.

Where I join you is on the fact that the "Favored Enemy" aspect feels underexploited. It should give mechanical bonus much earlier, even if not a big one (something like advantage on attack WIS times per short rest could have been nice, or critical on 19).

And more generally, Ranger is much more dependent on DM's goodwill to get a chance to exploit its features. It's a bit annoying, but with a good DM it's normally manageable.

[ClintACK]

The real issue with rangers, and the reason why their entry in the book was written so poorly, is that nobody actually knows what the role, what their niche, is supposed to be.

That's fair.

I'd like to see the Ranger filling the Wilderness scout and tracker role. If the Fighter is strictly better in combat, the Ranger should make that up on the ability to track down the enemy and sneak up on it.

But a wilderness-built Rogue can soundly trounce the Ranger at that role -- with expertise in every single skill that a Ranger should excel at. At 6th level, both with 18 dex and 14 wis, a wilderness-scout rogue has +10/+8/+8/+7 in Stealth/Perception/Survival/Nature compared to the Ranger's +7/+5/+5/+4.

The Ranger only catches up at all when using spells.

Honestly -- if you build a Wilderness Scout subclass for Rogue -- with 1/3-casting from the Ranger spell list, the entire Ranger class would be strictly inferior at every part of its own shtick.

[Easy_Lee]

Druids have Rangers beat when it comes to wilderness scouting. Between speak with animals as a ritual and wildshape, the druid can scout outdoors much more easily than a ranger.

I can see what WotC was trying to do with Rangers; they just didn't get there. Same with hunters: the archetype is too strong at level 3-5 if it takes TWF, but quickly slows from there. It never really gets better.

Volley and whirlwind attack might work as written if they were part of the attack action, rather than a replacement for it.

[RickAllison]

Fun thing that the Hunter can do that Fighters cannot: Ready their Multiattack to use it on someone else's turn. Extra Attack has the restriction of being limited to one's own turn, but that language doesn't appear to exist with Multiattack.

[Easy_Lee]

Fun thing that the Hunter can do that Fighters cannot: Ready their Multiattack to use it on someone else's turn. Extra Attack has the restriction of being limited to one's own turn, but that language doesn't appear to exist with Multiattack.

Technically true. And that's a weird limitation of the attack action, since held spells and cantrips with multiple attacks go off just fine.

[RickAllison]

Technically true. And that's a weird limitation of the attack action, since held spells and cantrips with multiple attacks go off just fine.

Those have the disadvantage of taking up concentration (woe befall those who forget that fact and lose concentration on their Animate Objects...) and thus are interrupt-able. Even worse if the caster Readied a leveled spell, because they still use the spell slot.

[Easy_Lee]

Those have the disadvantage of taking up concentration (woe befall those who forget that fact and lose concentration on their Animate Objects...) and thus are interrupt-able. Even worse if the caster Readied a leveled spell, because they still use the spell slot.

Only according to Crawford. The rules say otherwise, unless the whole automatically lose a readied spell thing was errata'd in.

[Cybren]

Only according to Crawford. The rules say otherwise, unless the whole automatically lose a readied spell thing was errata'd in.
????
The rules explicitly state that you lose concentration.


When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell’s magic requires concentration (explained in chapter 10). If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken.

I'm not sure where you get that readying a spell doesn't cost concentration...

[georgie_leech]

????
The rules explicitly state that you lose concentration.


I'm not sure where you get that readying a spell doesn't cost concentration...

Dissapates isn't an explicit indication that the spell slot is lost, and if you squint hard enough at the first part you don't lose your spell slot until after casting, so it wouldn't be lost unless the spell actually takes effect. I think it's very much a stretch of the wording, and I'm firmly in the camp of 'spell slot is used as soon as you cast any part of the spell,' but the wording could have been more clear.

[RickAllison]

????
The rules explicitly state that you lose concentration.


I'm not sure where you get that readying a spell doesn't cost concentration...

I think he was more talking about how he didn't think it cost the spell slot, but your quote covered that too:


When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell’s magic requires concentration (explained in chapter 10). If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken.

[Easy_Lee]

I think he was more talking about how he didn't think it cost the spell slot, but your quote covered that too:

Huh, I've been all over the place on this ruling. I thought the spell was lost, then found out it wasn't, then that some people think it is and some think it isn't. Whatever. I generally rule in a way that benefits the players. If I was holding a spell, and then had to cast something else, I wouldn't want to lose the slot.

As stated, the intent could be more clear.

[Cybren]

Huh, I've been all over the place on this ruling. I thought the spell was lost, then found out it wasn't, then that some people think it is and some think it isn't. Whatever. I generally rule in a way that benefits the players. If I was holding a spell, and then had to cast something else, I wouldn't want to lose the slot.

As stated, the intent could be more clear.

To be honest I don't get the intent behind "you have to start casting the spell"... i suppose it's a balance thing, but I don't see what the harm would be in letting someone ready a spell while concentrating on another spell.

[RickAllison]

To be honest I don't get the intent behind "you have to start casting the spell"... i suppose it's a balance thing, but I don't see what the harm would be in letting someone ready a spell while concentrating on another spell.

I think a big part of it is flavor. In the case of a spell like Fireball, it doesn't require much to release the power instantly. Trying to keep it stable and ready for attacking for the perfect moment? Requires far more attention. Have to keep the energy of the spell alive while also keeping it from igniting in your hand.

[Cybren]

I think a big part of it is flavor. In the case of a spell like Fireball, it doesn't require much to release the power instantly. Trying to keep it stable and ready for attacking for the perfect moment? Requires far more attention. Have to keep the energy of the spell alive while also keeping it from igniting in your hand.

Why are you 'pre-casting' the spell at all? The time differential between casting a spell on your turn vs as a reaction doesn't make much sense. All the individual turns are an overlapping 6 seconds

[RickAllison]

Why are you 'pre-casting' the spell at all? The time differential between casting a spell on your turn vs as a reaction doesn't make much sense. All the individual turns are an overlapping 6 seconds

That is an aspect of the system that is handwaved for simplicity. To use it in response to a trigger one has to be be able to respond instantly. If you are saving a Fireball for when the maximum damage can be done, waiting till your arm-waving is done could mean that the formation has split up again.

Now that I think about it, I think I'll start up a thread to discuss how people handle readied spells...

[Vogonjeltz]

The order the qualifiers appear in English does not necessarily correlate to the order in which they are applied in a logical structure. As an example, consider the statement: "There exists an answer to any question". Note that, as in interpretation 1, above, the existential qualifier precedes the universal qualifier, yet the statement itself is ambiguous as to whether it is referring to one answer or many. (Indeed, I would guess that almost everyone would interpret that statement as involving multiple answers, despite the order the qualifiers appear in.) The logical order of the qualifiers simply cannot be unambiguously determined from the text.

As to how I'm dividing up the sentence, the grouping you propose is the exclusively "correct" one only if we also assume interpretation 1 is somehow "correct" in the first place. Considering that I am claiming that their is no method from the text to unamiguously choose either 1 or 2, I certainly am not willing to make that assumption.

That you had to tortuously rewrite the sentence in order to get a different meaning out of it is exactly why order of wording in English does correlate to distinct meanings.

In point of fact, the statement you made, "There exists an answer to any question", is VSO, which is only shared by 9% of languages, English not being one of them. Statements phrased in an unusual manner are more likely to be misunderstood, and I've found no sentence in the PHB which shares that unusual sentence structure.

You've artificially distorted the meaning of Whirlwind Attack by omitting parts of the sentence.

I am not seeing any sunlight between that and claiming that the sentence means "The sun rises at midnight in the west." based on the words having alternative definitions that you've invented for this purpose.

[NNescio]

That you had to tortuously rewrite the sentence in order to get a different meaning out of it is exactly why order of wording in English does correlate to distinct meanings.

In point of fact, the statement you made, "There exists an answer to any question", is VSO, which is only shared by 9% of languages, English not being one of them. Statements phrased in an unusual manner are more likely to be misunderstood, and I've found no sentence in the PHB which shares that unusual sentence structure.

That can't be VSO. There's no object there (pun intended, this sentence also doesn't have an object, because "is" here is a copula).

"There exists an answer to any question" is basically a simple "SV" order "An answer to any question exists." inverted by there-insertion. This can be interpreted as a Subject-Predicator-Predicative Complement (the predicator and the predicative complement together acts as a verbal phrase, so again, this is still SV) order if one analyzes the components positionally.

[BurgerBeast]

That can't be VSO. There's no object there (pun intended, this sentence also doesn't have an object, because "is" here is a copula).

Are you sure about this? The word "exists" is used (not "is"), and to my knowledge the word exists cannot function as a copula in English.


"There exists an answer to any question" is basically a simple "SV" order "An answer to any question exists." inverted by there-insertion. This can be interpreted as a Subject-Predicator-Predicative Complement (the predicator and the predicative complement together acts as a verbal phrase, so again, this is still SV) order if one analyzes the components positionally.

This is beyond me, but I can, at least, see that it is SV.

[NNescio]

Are you sure about this? The word "exists" is used (not "is"), and to my knowledge the word exists cannot function as a copula in English.

Oh, I was talking about my sentence, "There's no object there." 'though strictly speaking I was incorrect because is/'s here functions as a negated existential verb instead of the usual copula usage.

[Sabeta]

I think we've gotten a bit off topic, so I'll round it off with this. Whirlwind Attack is One Attack with Multiple Swings according to RAI. I still feel it's RAW, but if you don't at least I can understand how you made that connection. If you would rather play by your version of RAW than RAI that's fine too.

If you want to continue discussing the nuances between spell holding and reactions or whatever, I would implore that you make a topic for it.

[Xetheral]

That you had to tortuously rewrite the sentence in order to get a different meaning out of it is exactly why order of wording in English does correlate to distinct meanings.

In point of fact, the statement you made, "There exists an answer to any question", is VSO, which is only shared by 9% of languages, English not being one of them. Statements phrased in an unusual manner are more likely to be misunderstood, and I've found no sentence in the PHB which shares that unusual sentence structure.

You've artificially distorted the meaning of Whirlwind Attack by omitting parts of the sentence.

I am not seeing any sunlight between that and claiming that the sentence means "The sun rises at midnight in the west." based on the words having alternative definitions that you've invented for this purpose.

While the linguistic analysis that resulted from my example "There exists an answer to any question" is fascinating, I'm going to bypass it and change my example to an even simpler one (or three, actually):

I have an answer to any question. I have a cure for any disease. I have a key for any lock.
In each of these examples, the existential qualifier precedes the universal qualifier. Note however, that the logical order of the qualifiers is ambiguous. Personally, I think most people would read example 1 as referring to multiple answers (i.e. the logical order is the reverse of the text order), example 2 as referring to a single panacea (i.e. the logical order matches the text order), and example 3 referring to either one key or many depending on whether I work in a hardware store or am ominously holding a sledgehammer (i.e. context dependent). Whether my intuition is correct or not, each is arguable, and the underlying point is that these examples show that the order in which the qualifiers appear in a sentence is insufficient to determine the logical order in which the qualifiers should be applied.

As for "tortuously rewriting the sentence" (paraphrased), I'm not sure whether you're referring to my discussion of where the qualifiers appear in the rules of Whirlwind attack, or if you were referring to my (now changed) example. If the latter, presumably you find the new examples less tortuous. If the former, I broke down the rule in whirlwind attack for illustrative purposes, to show how the sentence contains two qualifiers. Do you agree that whirlwind attack contains both an existential qualifier and a universal qualifier? If so, the particular way I broke down the sentence to try to demonstrate that fact doesn't really matter. If not, let me know why you disagree and I'll do my best to either explain my claim differently or respond to your specific objections.

[Vogonjeltz]

That can't be VSO. There's no object there (pun intended, this sentence also doesn't have an object, because "is" here is a copula).

"There exists an answer to any question" is basically a simple "SV" order "An answer to any question exists." inverted by there-insertion. This can be interpreted as a Subject-Predicator-Predicative Complement (the predicator and the predicative complement together acts as a verbal phrase, so again, this is still SV) order if one analyzes the components positionally.

Verb: Exists
Subject: Answer (answer is being used as a noun, not a verb)
Object: Question (same as with answer)

Exists is the Action; What's acting? An Answer; To what thing? A Question. VSO.

Rearranged as SVO = An answer exists for every question.

OVS (rare because it's usually nearly unintelligible in english) = Questions exist there answers.

[NNescio]

Verb: Exists
Subject: Answer (answer is being used as a noun, not a verb)
Object: Question (same as with answer)

Exists is the Action; What's acting? An Answer; To what thing? A Question. VSO.

Rearranged as SVO = An answer exists for every question.

OVS (rare because it's usually nearly unintelligible in english) = Questions exist there answers.

There: Subject (dummy subject in this case, because it has no semantic meaning)
exists: Verbal/Predicator
an answer: Predicative Complement (English grammar is dependent on position, so there-insertion changes this from the main subject to a complement(
to every question: Adverbial Clause

"every question" cannot be an object, because there's no verb acting on it, direct or otherwise.

[BurgerBeast]

I drew a sentence diagram but don't know how to link the image.

I came up with:

Subject: answer
Verb: exists

So, the sentence is a SV sentence.

[Vogonjeltz]

There: Subject (dummy subject in this case, because it has no semantic meaning)
exists: Verbal/Predicator
an answer: Predicative Complement (English grammar is dependent on position, so there-insertion changes this from the main subject to a complement(
to every question: Adverbial Clause

"every question" cannot be an object, because there's no verb acting on it, direct or otherwise.

That's what "for" in the verbal phrase "exists for" is indicating.