How does the Whirlwind attack works on new ranger [Archive]

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 10:16 AM

When you declare to use the ability all enemies within 5' become viable targets and you can make an attack against each one.

If it said "whenever an enemy becomes 5' from you you can make an attack against them" you would be able to do the run around like a madman thing but as worded it prevents people from running all over the battle making 20, 30, 50 or so attacks per turn and removes the possibility of targeting the same enemy twice or more since if you could move, two enemies with a 10' gap between them would mean you can step between and hit one, step to the side and the other is now within 5' so you hit it. You have more movement so you step back and now the other one is now within 5' so you hit it again. Then repeat until your movement is used up.

It's a melee class option equivalent to caster spells like Thunderclap or Arms of Hadar. A cluster buster move. It does mesh very well with the Mobile feat to rush in and swing at a group then rush out, making rangers very nice melee cluster busters and superb at handling the minion swarms.

Sir cryosin

2016-09-14, 10:35 AM

famousringo

2016-09-14, 11:06 AM

Is says ( you can use your action to make melee attackS against any number of creatures within 5 ft of you, whith a separate attack roll for each target.) Is so if I attack everyone around me then move I'm with in 5ft of other people so I can attack again.

Yeah, I'm not buying this interpretation. RAW could be interpreted this way, but then a ranger with Haste could handily attack everybody on the battlefield. Pretty sure that's not RAI.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 11:08 AM

Is says ( you can use your action to make melee attackS against any number of creatures within 5 ft of you, whith a separate attack roll for each target.) Is so if I attack everyone around me then move I'm with in 5ft of other people so I can attack again.

That one you had to move to get to wasn't within 5' of your whirlwind attack, making it an invalid target for it. It's not "when a target comes within 5'" it's for those already there. Otherwise you have to give a caster that uses Thunderclap or Arms of Hadar the ability to cast the spell then run around and effect everyone as well.

brainface

2016-09-14, 11:16 AM

I feel like if they intend it to work in everyone in movement range they can go chew tinfoil, because there are so many better ways to write that.

Tanarii

2016-09-14, 12:24 PM

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 12:32 PM

Here's the rule that is under debate for if it applies to Whirlwind:
Breaking Up Your Move
Moving between Attacks
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.

A few comments:
The requirement is weapon attacks.
It's not limited by action type. (Noting this because the example given is Extra Attack, which requires the Attack Action, but that's not the actual limitation, it's just an example given.)

I don't really have an opinion on RAW or RAI for this one, just interested in getting it in writing, so to speak. And following the debate.

No, you definitely do not. Because the rule allowing you to move in between attacks only applies to weapon attacks.

You are not taking the "attack action" if you use whirlwind attack. You are using your action to use the whirlwind attack ability, which makes a special attack.

It also says you can make the attacks against "enemies within 5'" not "when an enemy comes within 5'" if you have to move to get to them then they were not within 5' of you and thus are not viable targets for the ability.

You also do not get to bounce between 2 targets that are 10' from each other. As you have posted, if you have 30' of movement and are next to only 1 enemy with another 10' to the side of you then you could attack the one next to you 4 times and the other one 3 times with 1 more attack per 5' of movement you have. Or if there is only 1 target you would be able to attack, step back, step up, attack, repeat.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 12:32 PM

Pretty sure Whirlwind falls under the category of "an action that includes more than one weapon attack". So, yes, "you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks".

This is a very simple and straightforward reading of the rules.

Tanarii

2016-09-14, 12:35 PM

You are not taking the "attack action" if you use whirlwind attack. You are using your action to use the whirlwind attack ability, which makes a special attack.The attack action is not required.

Edit: The real point of debate isn't the movement rule alone. It's about the intersection of the movement rule, targeting rules, and declaration of action vs resolution of action. So to speak. That's why I don't have an actual opinion on RAW/RAI yet. I think it's too complicated to be simply interpreted. But the movement rule itself is very clear in what it says.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 12:59 PM

The ability specifically lists you can make an attack against enemies within 5' of you.

It does not say you can make an attack against an enemy whenever they come within 5' of you.

It does not say you can attack someone multiple times by attacking, step away, step up attack again, step away, step up, attack again, step away, step up, attack again, step away, step up, attack again.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 01:23 PM

Applying the same logic to Volley also leads to interesting results and is by far the more superior ability if you want to hit lots of guys.

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.

A longbow's range is 150/600. Volley makes it 160/610 and you are only limited to line of sight since you can "see" every single point within your weapon's range so long as sight isn't blocked.

With a wagon of arrows and on an open plains or desert area a ranger could then fire up to 14,883 arrows per round. 1,088 in normal range and 13,795 at long range. Add in movement and the number only grows. Since you can then walk and continue to fire since you can move between attacks.

Magic Myrmidon

2016-09-14, 01:28 PM

It does not say you can attack someone multiple times by attacking, step away, step up attack again, step away, step up, attack again, step away, step up, attack again, step away, step up, attack again.

Huh. Never heard that counterargument. Good point. The original ability said one attack per enemy, this new rewording, while seeming to allow the movement between whirlwind attacks, also doesn't seem to forbid this.

The volley thing, though, doesn't work that way. It says you're attacking within 10 feet of a point. So 16 squares/enemies, if my math isn't off.

jas61292

2016-09-14, 01:35 PM

The volley thing, though, doesn't work that way. It says you're attacking within 10 feet of a point. So 16 squares/enemies, if my math isn't off.

Not exactly. What he was pointing out was the loose interpretation of the rules. Claiming that "within 5 ft" means something that is at any point within 5 ft, rather than within 5 feet when you activate the ability, is like saying for volley that you can attack everyone within your range +10 ft, because they are all within 10 ft of a point in range. The points in range just happen to be different for each one.

It's a loose reading, that is clearly not intended, but is using the exact same logic as is used to justify moving during a whirlwind attack.

Sir cryosin

2016-09-14, 01:37 PM

No with volley your picking a point. Whirlwind is any creature that's with in 5ft of you.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 01:39 PM

jas61292

2016-09-14, 01:43 PM

No with volley your picking a point. Whirlwind is any creature that's with in 5ft of you.

No. That is an interpretation. The intended one, sure. But it is not the only one.

It never tells you to pick a single point. As such, a potential interpretation of the rules as written would be that th enemies don't all need to be within 10 feet of the same point, so long as each is within 10 feet of some point in your range.

Yes, this is dumb. But the logic it uses ("the point targeting is based on its not static") is the same logic used to say any foe you approach can be targeted with whirlwind attack, even if they are not all within 5 ft at once.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 01:43 PM

Also, with the deflection onto Volley, this conversation just became completely nonsensical.

"Some apples are green."
"That's ludicrous! Applying the same logic to oranges, you'd get green oranges, and everyone knows oranges can't be green!"

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 01:45 PM

No. That is an interpretation. The intended one, sure. But it is not the only one.

It never tells you to pick a single point. As such, a potential interpretation of the rules as written would be that th enemies don't all need to be within 10 feet of the same point, so long as each is within 10 feet of some point in your range.
I'm quoting this so you can't later edit it out once you realize what kind of nonsense you just wrote.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 01:45 PM

Not exactly. What he was pointing out was the loose interpretation of the rules. Claiming that "within 5 ft" means something that is at any point within 5 ft, rather than within 5 feet when you activate the ability, is like saying for volley that you can attack everyone within your range +10 ft, because they are all within 10 ft of a point in range. The points in range just happen to be different for each one.

It's a loose reading, that is clearly not intended, but is using the exact same logic as is used to justify moving during a whirlwind attack.

You get what I was trying to say.

I also forgot rangers also can use dash as a bonus action before they get the multiattack choice. With the movement allowed looseness that would give, say an elven ranger with mobility, the ability to hit everyone you can reach with 80' of movement (60' without mobility) once, or to hit the same target that's next to you up to 9 times, or 7 without mobility. This makes the single extra attack ability more than useless.

jas61292

2016-09-14, 01:50 PM

I'm quoting this so you can't later edit it out once you realize what kind of nonsense you just wrote.

It is totally pedantic, and relies entirely on the multiple definitions of the word "a," but it is not inaccurate. It is not how I would interpret it myself, but it is for that very reason that I also would not interpret whirlwind attack to let you move to new opponents.

tieren

2016-09-14, 01:50 PM

They clarified it was multiple attacks instead of a single attack, so movement between them is now permissible RAW.

The question debated is whether the targets of WA are set when you declare the use of the ability or if you can pick up new targets during the round.

I think the focus of the debate should be on what the 5 foot limitation is for.

IMO there are two chief possibilities for the existence of the limitation:
1. To limit the targets that can be hit so you can't move around and pick up enemies that were initially more than 5 feet from you; or
2. To not let rangers use reach weapons to make this kind of attack.

I note that there is no direct prohibition against using a reach weapon, but if you do you can only make the multiple WA strikes on targets within 5 feet. This could be a logical thought related to the difficulty of using a polearm or something to make multiple attacks this fast, but that doesn't seem consistent with other combat rules. Generally real world physics don't seem to influence rules and abilities much (think of how crossbow expert acts for example).

I also note that in general 1 strike on each of 3 targets is less optimal than 3 strikes on one target.

I am truthfully not sure which way I think is right yet, but I do believe this is where the crux of the argument should lie.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 01:51 PM

multiple definitions of the word "a," Thank you, I'm going to leave that one here as well.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 01:52 PM

The question debated is whether the targets of WA are set when you declare the use of the ability or if you can pick up new targets during the round.
There are no targets. WA doesn't use the keyword "target" at all. There is no need to "declare targets" at all. The ability is "make melee attacks against any number of creatures within 5' of you", you're not declaring anything. Certainly not in advance.

tieren

2016-09-14, 01:57 PM

Gwendol

2016-09-14, 02:07 PM

Let's first acknowledge that regardless of what enemies are eligible targets of WA, you can now move between attacks. This alone allows for some tactical play.

tieren

2016-09-14, 02:12 PM

Let's first acknowledge that regardless of what enemies are eligible targets of WA, you can now move between attacks. This alone allows for some tactical play.

I agree that is RAW, but I am not sure it is RAI.

Suppose the 5 foot limitation was intended to stop you from using reach weapons, and for simplicity lets say there are only 3 enemies all in a row 5 feet in front of you.

You can now start the WA, move back 5 feet so you are out of their reach and then hit all 3 with pole arm strikes 10 feet away.

Tanarii

2016-09-14, 02:12 PM

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 02:28 PM

There are no targets. WA doesn't use the keyword "target" at all. There is no need to "declare targets" at all. The ability is "make melee attacks against any number of creatures within 5' of you", you're not declaring anything. Certainly not in advance.

Let's say you have 5 enemies. #1-4 are within 5' and #5 is 15' away.
You declare you want to use WA.
WA says you can attack any number of enemies within 5'.
You target and attack #1-4.
WA has now ended.
You move next to #5
You can't attack because you used the WA action and attacked all desired targets within 5' of when you used the action.
You didn't use the Attack Action so you don't get to use your Extra Attack feature.

If you attack #1-3 then move to #5 you still can not attack it because it is not within 5' of where WA was activated. You can move back and hit #4, ending WA or end WA without attacking #4. But #5 remains an invalid target.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 02:45 PM

Part of making any attack is declaring the target.
Part of making an attack, but not part of declaring WA. When u declare WA there r no targets. When you make the actual attacks, you declare targets

DwarvenGM

2016-09-14, 02:48 PM

Let's say you have 5 enemies. #1-4 are within 5' and #5 is 15' away.
You declare you want to use WA.
WA says you can attack any number of enemies within 5'.
You target and attack #1-4.
WA has now ended.
You move next to #5
You can't attack because you used the WA action and attacked all desired targets within 5' of when you used the action.
You didn't use the Attack Action so you don't get to use your Extra Attack feature.

If you attack #1-3 then move to #5 you still can not attack it because it is not within 5' of where WA was activated. You can move back and hit #4, ending WA or end WA without attacking #4. But #5 remains an invalid target.

This is 100% how I see it.

Your targets are immediately chosen when you declare whirlwind attack and it specifically says "against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you". So any creature beyond 5ft is an unacceptable target. I Really feel that if they wanted you to move they would of worded it differently. Something like "You can move up to your speed and attack any creature that comes within 5 feet of you during that move."

Tanarii

2016-09-14, 02:53 PM

Part of making an attack, but not part of declaring WA. When u declare WA there r no targets. When you make the actual attacks, you declare targets
I agree. Good clarification.

However, if you mean Whirlwind Attack is identical to Extra Attack in this regard, I sorta agree and sorta disagree. The difference Extra Attack has no distance inherently part of it when used, unlike Whirlwind attack. The only distances involved for EA occur during the targeting of attacks. And that's what the debate hinges on, obviously. Does the 5ft apply to when the action is used*, or does it apply to the individual attacks?

*adding another layer, used can mean 'declare the action' or 'Resolve the action'. Not everyone interprets those to be the same thing (or occur at the same point of resolving a turn).

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 02:56 PM

Part of making an attack, but not part of declaring WA. When u declare WA there r no targets. When you make the actual attacks, you declare targets

The only valid targets are those within 5' when you declare you want to use WA. You can move around all you want but only those within 5' when you started your WA are valid. Anything else is an invalid target during WA.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 03:09 PM

From an aesthetic view, WA makes it sound like you spin around, slashing hacking, and poking at every enemy around you.

Running around giving a slash here, a poke there sounds more like a rampage.

Whirlwind:
n. a column of air moving rapidly around in a cylindrical or funnel shape.

Rampage:
v. Rush around in a violent and uncontrollable manner
n. A period of violent and uncontrollable behavior, typically involving a large group of people.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-14, 03:11 PM

I agree. Good clarification.

However, if you mean Whirlwind Attack is identical to Extra Attack in this regard, I sorta agree and sorta disagree. The difference Extra Attack has no distance inherently part of it when used, unlike Whirlwind attack. The only distances involved for EA occur during the targeting of attacks. And that's what the debate hinges on, obviously. Does the 5ft apply to when the action is used*, or does it apply to the individual attacks?
Without further specification on the target's location any target you come across will be targets within 5 feet of you and thus eligible for Whirlwind Attack

Joe the Rat

2016-09-14, 03:11 PM

Tangential to the 60'+ chunnel of chopping, is WA a single action? As in "hold you action" action? As in "use my reaction to Whirlwind whenever I feel like it this round, say once I've been surrounded"?
That's got some utility.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-14, 03:14 PM

Now that i think about it, if it was really that, since Whirlwind Attack has no duration it would mean the first time you ever take such action you can attack each and everyone that will ever be within 5 feet of you, this for the rest of your life!

It has to be those within 5 feet of you at the moment of taking the action otherwise it's plain ridiculous.

Tanarii

2016-09-14, 03:24 PM

The only valid targets are those within 5' when you declare you want to use WA. You can move around all you want but only those within 5' when you started your WA are valid. Anything else is an invalid target during WA.

Now that i think about it, if it was really that, since Whirlwind Attack has no duration it would mean the first time you ever take such action you can attack each and everyone that will ever be within 5 feet of you, this for the rest of your life!

It has to be those within 5 feet of you at the moment of taking the action otherwise it's plain ridiculous.
Nothing in the 5e rules requires that you "take" an action at a specific portion of your turn. It's entirely possible to interpret the rules as taking/using (ie declaring) all actions you take before you start resolving anything, then proceed to resolve all actions / movement mixed up in any order consistent with the rules. In other words, resolving actions isn't necessarily the same thing as taking actions.

So saying you must be within 5ft when you 'take' the action doesn't really make sense, unless you want to be more specific, and define what you mean by 'take/use' an action. Specifically, you need to explain if you mean 'at the start of resolution' or 'for the entire duration of resolution' or what.

Keep in mind that you can move between each and every attack made. That's not in doubt. What's in doubt is who you get to make attacks against. In other words, it's either RAW that you can make attacks again all targets within 5ft of you when you start, moving around them as you wish to make your attacks. Or it's RAW that you can move around, making attacks against anyone that's within 5ft of you at any point during the movement. If you think it's one or the other, you need to explain why it's limited to those 'at the start of resolution', or it applies 'for the entire duration of resolution'.

tieren

2016-09-14, 03:33 PM

Let's say you have 5 enemies. #1-4 are within 5' and #5 is 15' away.
You declare you want to use WA.
WA says you can attack any number of enemies within 5'.
You target and attack #1-4.
WA has now ended.
You move next to #5
You can't attack because you used the WA action and attacked all desired targets within 5' of when you used the action.
You didn't use the Attack Action so you don't get to use your Extra Attack feature.

If you attack #1-3 then move to #5 you still can not attack it because it is not within 5' of where WA was activated. You can move back and hit #4, ending WA or end WA without attacking #4. But #5 remains an invalid target.

I am concurring now that this is the RAW interpretation that makes the most sense with the material we have.

At the same time I don't really like it and I don't think it is RAI. Suppose you have a lot of movement (maybe you are hasted or dashing with your bonus action). You can RAW go run a couple of laps around Enemy #5, but can't hit him, but then can run back and hit #4 because of where he was standing when you started. How does that make sense?

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 03:47 PM

This is 100% how I see it.

Your targets are immediately chosen when you declare whirlwind attack...

The only valid targets are those within 5' when you declare ...
This interpretation completely ignores the fact that WA does not target anything, and does not use the word "target" at all.
The ability of WA itself doesn't have a target at all. Targets cannot be "chosen". Targets cannot be "valid" or "invalid". Because there are no targets relevant to the activation of WA.

All WA does is give me the ability to attack any number of creatures within 5' of me. Oh, look, a creature within 5' of me. I can attack it! Oh, look, there's another one. I can attack it as well. Did I have to "declare" it as target beforehand, when I activated WA? No, I did not. But now it's 5' of me, I can declare an attack against it.

BigONotation

2016-09-14, 03:57 PM

If they wanted you to not move when you performed the Whirldwind Action or wanted it to be from a fixed "square" the language of the ability would have said so. The language is clear, each time a creature is within 5' of you newly as part of your movement, you get to attack it. In some silly situations that might lead to a lot of attacks, and I think that's RAW and RAI.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 04:02 PM

If they wanted the list of creatures you can attack to be "locked in" to those creatures within 5' of your original location, there was a very simple wording option:

"Choose any number of target creatures within 5' of you. As an action, make a melee weapon attack against each of those creatures."

That's it, simple and clear. But they didn't choose this wording option. With the wording option that was actually chosen, there is nothing to support the interpretation of "WA targets are locked in when you declare it".

jas61292

2016-09-14, 04:12 PM

Thank you, I'm going to leave that one here as well.

The way you say that seems to imply you don't think there are multiple definitions of "a."

According to Merriam-Webster, "a" as a word by itself can in fact be 4 different parts of speech (though one is archaic). Of those, the relevant one for this conversation is the indefinite article, which in and of itself has four usages, and the most important one for our conversation has six different definitions. So yeah, there are certainly a lot of definitions of "a."

Now, how this applies is that, if we ignore the four of those six that only refer to proper or mass nouns, that leaves two definitions.

The first of these is "used as a function word before a singular noun followed by a restrictive modifier <a man who was here yesterday>." When used in this way, it would mean a specific instance of something. So, in the case of volley, it would basically mean it is saying that you may attack anyone within 10 feet of a specific point you see in range.

However, the second definition is "any <a man who is sick can't work>." In this case it would be saying that you may attack anyone who is within 10 feet of any point you can see in range, which implies that, so long as you can see them and they are within 10 feet of your max range, you may attack them.

As I have mentioned, I do think the second way of interpreting it is absurd and unintended. However, it is the logical way to interpret it if you believe that whirlwind attack likewise is not tied to where you are at a single point in time. Because if they are not both next to you at the same time, then at some point when you attack one, the other is not a valid target, unless the targeting point is ambiguous, as it is in the absurd volley interpretation.

DwarvenGM

2016-09-14, 04:13 PM

This interpretation completely ignores the fact that WA does not target anything, and does not use the word "target" at all.
The ability of WA itself doesn't have a target at all. Targets cannot be "chosen". Targets cannot be "valid" or "invalid". Because there are no targets relevant to the activation of WA.

All WA does is give me the ability to attack any number of creatures within 5' of me. Oh, look, a creature within 5' of me. I can attack it! Oh, look, there's another one. I can attack it as well. Did I have to "declare" it as target beforehand, when I activated WA? No, I did not. But now it's 5' of me, I can declare an attack against it.

Attacking includes choosing targets... it's literally the very first step in making an attack. Mentioning targets in the write up would of been redundant.

When making rulings I always look for other examples in the same set of rules so let's try that. Spirit Guardians is a spell close to this feature and it specifically says creatures must make the save when they first enter the radius of the spell. If we expand it WA should state that you make the attack on any enemy that comes within 5 ft of you.

Or let's look at previous examples both 3rd edition and 4th had a whirlwind attack and both where designed to be a flurry of attacks to hit those around you. We could speculate that the game designers used a name we are familiar with to bring an a classic maneuver to this edition. If they wanted to make it a highly mobile stab move stab they probably would of used a different name.

Or we can look at this http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/17/whirlwind-attack/ Yes this is for the original rangers WA but the flavor behind the hunter has remained largely unchanged so I seriously doubt they intended a change in this ruling

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 04:32 PM

Attacking includes choosing targets... it's literally the very first step in making an attack.
Yes, and WA is not an attack. It's an action that gives you the option of making attacks. And it has no targets. The attacks granted by WA have targets (and those targets need to be declared when the actual attack is made) but the WA itself is a non-targeted ability.

Or we can look at this http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/17/whirlwind-attack/ Yes this is for the original rangers WA but the flavor behind the hunter has remained largely unchanged so I seriously doubt they intended a change in this ruling
Yes, we can look at this. And we can realize the reason Crawford shut down the movement was because "old WA" was a single attack. Well, "new WA" is clearly consisting of multiple attacks, so it actually supports my argument, not yours.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 04:45 PM

This interpretation completely ignores the fact that WA does not target anything, and does not use the word "target" at all.
The ability of WA itself doesn't have a target at all. Targets cannot be "chosen". Targets cannot be "valid" or "invalid". Because there are no targets relevant to the activation of WA.

All WA does is give me the ability to attack any number of creatures within 5' of me. Oh, look, a creature within 5' of me. I can attack it! Oh, look, there's another one. I can attack it as well. Did I have to "declare" it as target beforehand, when I activated WA? No, I did not. But now it's 5' of me, I can declare an attack against it.

So let's look at this again with the generic elf ranger with options for having mobility or being hasted with being able to attack anyone the comes within 5' at any time on your turn.

Say you only have one enemy in the area and you start next to it so you use WA to attack then step back 5' so no one is in range. Then you step forward 5' and an enemy is within 5' so you attack again. Rinse, repeat until movement is used up. This gives:

Normal: 4 attacks
Dash: 7 attacks
Haste: 15 attacks

With Mobility
Normal: 5 attacks
Dash: 9 attacks
Haste: 19 attacks.

All on 1 enemy.

Now if you have multiple targets, at least 2 within 10' of each other but able to get to another one with each 5' you go (or just bouncing between 2 with a 5' movement between each) this gives:

Normal: 7 attacks
Dash: 13 attacks
Haste: 27 attacks

With Mobility
Normal: 9 attacks
Dash: 17 attacks
Haste: 35 attacks.

In a hypothetical situation where you are surrounded on all sides by enemies with only space to take 5' of movement back and forth like so with X being a bad guy.

XXXX
XOOX
XXXX

This gives:
Normal: 97 attacks
Dash: 187 attacks
Haste: 369 attacks

With Mobility
Normal: 127 attacks
Dash: 247 attacks
Haste: 489 attacks

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 05:02 PM

Let's not make stuff up here. WA clearly let's you make "an attack" (ie. one attack) against each enemy within 5'. No, you can't run up to an enemy, back up, run up to the same enemy again and get multiple attacks against the same creature.

(unless perhaps you want to start a linguistic argument about the multiple meanings of the word 'an', in which case, go ahead, I can only see good things coming out of this argument)

DwarvenGM

2016-09-14, 05:03 PM

Yes, and WA is not an attack. It's an action that gives you the option of making attacks. And it has no targets. The attacks granted by WA have targets (and those targets need to be declared when the actual attack is made) but the WA itself is a non-targeted ability.

Yes, we can look at this. And we can realize the reason Crawford shut down the movement was because "old WA" was a single attack. Well, "new WA" is clearly multiple attacks, so it actually supports my argument, not yours.

Yes take my 2 weakest arguments.

Alright first of all WA is the attacks. It says use your action to make attacks... the attacks and WA are the same thing the text of WA just explains who you can target with it.

Second off yes the sage advice doesn't help too much with this except it helps explain the intent behind it. But if we are ignoring intent then it is a useless example.

Again other examples that allow what you are claiming WA allows spell it out clearly saying things like "When a creature first enters" or something like that.

Lastly let's look at the standard action economy of 5e they strictly limit extra attacks in general but with WA allowing for countless extra attacks with expanding no resources. A level 11 frenzied barbarian gets 3 attacks around but he has to use his bonus action and gain a level of exhaustion. The fighter at level 11, King of extra attacks, has a total of 3 per round, or 6 if he uses action surge and that's once per a short rest. The Monk can make 3 by level 11 or 4 but they have to expand a ki point. So either WA is a major break from the entire structure of 5e or it doesn't allow you to move.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 05:08 PM

jas61292

2016-09-14, 05:41 PM

No, WA is not "the attacks". Targets are not locked when you declare the WA action. There are other actions that let you make attacks, but unless specified otherwise, the targets for the attacks are not locked in. Can you imagine a DM demanding a fighter with 4 attacks per round declare a target for each of his 4 attacks in advance? Of course not. The targets for the 4 attacks are not locked in, they are declared when the attacks actually happen.

Same thing with WA. Targets are not locked in. Only declared when attack actually happens.

That is not even close to a fair comparison, because Extra Attack does not specify anything about a target. You need to have a target, because it is an attack, but what you can target is based on your weapon.

Whirlwind Attack explicitly calls out who it can target. And unless you are using a convoluted reading of the ability, they absolutely are locked in, because if you move in order for a new creature to be within 5 feet of you, the previous targets no longer are valid.

DwarvenGM

2016-09-14, 05:43 PM

So no comment on action economy? The fact that whirlwind attack has followed my view since the launch of 3.0? Or the fact that it's worded nothing like other features that act the way you think it works?

Extra attack never mentions that a target must be within a certain range so again an example of different language for a different end result. One mentions range so locks in who you can attack on does not and let's you attack creatures further apart.

We can argue all day about the semantics of if WA is the attacks it grants or not but you are ignoring all my other points and focusing on one aspect.

Aside from semantics your interpretation breaks action economy, is drastically different than years of what other editions have set up as the basic idea of whirlwind attack. And implies a style of wording that is found nowhere else in 5e.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 05:48 PM

That is not even close to a fair comparison, because Extra Attack does not specify anything about a target. You need to have a target, because it is an attack, but what you can target is based on your weapon.

Whirlwind Attack explicitly calls out who it can target. And unless you are using a convoluted reading of the ability, they absolutely are locked in, because if you move in order for a new creature to be within 5 feet of you, the previous targets no longer are valid.
For the Nth time, there are no targets involved in activating WA. There is targeting when making the attacks granted by WA, but thats not the same thing.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 05:54 PM

So no comment on action economy?
Ok, I'll byte. The best use of action economy is focus fire on one enemy and kill it asap. Making 5 attacks vs 5 enemies is nice but not gamebreaking because you likely wont kill any of them. In fact sometimes it'll be bettet to make just two attacks, but on the same enemy. So you can kill it. So it cant take actions. Also, running around like this is likely to provoke oa's, giving enemies actions of their own. In summary , not gamebreaking

Laurefindel

2016-09-14, 05:55 PM

So let's look at this again with the generic elf ranger with options for having mobility or being hasted with being able to attack anyone the comes within 5' at any time on your turn.

Say you only have one enemy in the area and you start next to it so you use WA to attack then step back 5' so no one is in range. Then you step forward 5' and an enemy is within 5' so you attack again. Rinse, repeat until movement is used up. This gives:

Normal: 4 attacks
Dash: 7 attacks
Haste: 15 attacks

With Mobility
Normal: 5 attacks
Dash: 9 attacks
Haste: 19 attacks.

All on 1 enemy.

Now if you have multiple targets, at least 2 within 10' of each other but able to get to another one with each 5' you go (or just bouncing between 2 with a 5' movement between each) this gives:

Normal: 7 attacks
Dash: 13 attacks
Haste: 27 attacks

With Mobility
Normal: 9 attacks
Dash: 17 attacks
Haste: 35 attacks.

In a hypothetical situation where you are surrounded on all sides by enemies with only space to take 5' of movement back and forth like so with X being a bad guy.

XXXX
XOOX
XXXX

This gives:
Normal: 97 attacks
Dash: 187 attacks
Haste: 369 attacks

With Mobility
Normal: 127 attacks
Dash: 247 attacks
Haste: 489 attacks

These examples alone convince me that WA does not permit movement between attacks by RAI. IMO, the multiple attacks clause is there to avoid the anti-climatic "I missed every single target with my only roll".

Tanarii

2016-09-14, 06:00 PM

These examples alone convince me that WA does not permit movement between attacks by RAI. IMO, the multiple attacks clause is there to avoid the anti-climatic "I missed every single target with my only roll".His examples were all an illegal use of the Whirlwind Attack ability regardless of interpretation.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-14, 06:00 PM

DwarvenGM

2016-09-14, 06:07 PM

Ok, I'll byte. The best use of action economy is focus fire on one enemy and kill it asap. Making 5 attacks vs 5 enemies is nice but not gamebreaking because you likely wont kill any of them. In fact sometimes it'll be bettet to make just two attacks, but on the same enemy. So you can kill it. So it cant take actions. Also, running around like this is likely to provoke oa's, giving enemies actions of their own. In summary , not gamebreaking

As chaosrhubarb pointed out by your interpretation these attacks don't have to be spread out they could be focused on a few for devastating effects with minimal it's

Even if you spread it out you are still breaking the action economy again a frenzied barbarian must get a level of exhaustion just to get 3 attacks! It makes a large number of low level creatures barely noticeable to the ranger when this edition is suppose to keep creatures a possible threat throughout the levels.

Again this interpretation breaks core concepts of 5e. Why would they aim for that.

Laurefindel

2016-09-14, 06:07 PM

His examples were all an illegal use of the Whirlwind Attack ability regardless of interpretation.

how so? nothing prevents the WA ranger from moving back and forth, each time coming within 5' of the target.

Ruslan

2016-09-14, 06:09 PM

how so? nothing prevents the WA ranger from moving back and forth, each time coming within 5' of the target.
You are still limited to one attack per enemy. "an attack against each ... " etc makes it quite clear.

@DwarvenGM: That's not my interpretation. Nice strawman.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-14, 06:28 PM

His examples were all an illegal use of the Whirlwind Attack ability regardless of interpretation.

So since we can all agree WA does not let you attack an enemy more than once with it, let's take a look at how many attacks we CAN get with only one attack per target if allowed to just keep on moving.

Again, elf with or without Mobility

Max number of targets with nothing blocking movement:

Dash: 32 attacks
Haste: 58 attacks

With Mobility
Dash: 40 attacks
Haste: 74 attacks

Starting surrounded by small mobs and carving your way through, still only 1 attack each but by time you have WA they should be 1hko.

Dash: 44 attacks
Haste: 82 attacks

With Mobility
Dash: 56 attacks
Haste: 88 attacks.

That's just with 1 attack on each and being able to have max targets per step so it's an extreme example but legal if you can just keep moving and attacking whenever a new mob is in 5' reach.

And we all know someone that would jump into the goblin army just to do it, if not do it ourselves.

R.Shackleford

2016-09-14, 06:29 PM

bid

2016-09-14, 07:21 PM

No with volley your picking a point. Whirlwind is any creature that's with in 5ft of you.
Nobody said the point wasn't moving.

Still, you deserve a slow clap for getting 3 pages out of it.

DwarvenGM

2016-09-14, 07:38 PM

You are still limited to one attack per enemy. "an attack against each ... " etc makes it quite clear.

@DwarvenGM: That's not my interpretation. Nice strawman.

How is it a straw man? I pointed out how other classes struggle to get a measly 3 attacks and pointed out an obvious downfall of making low level enemies pathetically easy

MeeposFire

2016-09-14, 07:41 PM

Personally I am not sure that they intended to change the writing on the ability (or did not realize that they did) but as far as this conversation goes I think you really have to either declare that the change was unintentional or a mistake in which case WA is still one attack with many rolls and therefor you can't move with it officially or if you accept that they changed the wording on purpose then you have to accept that it works differently now and it has to be different in some way. If it is multiple attacks then you can move between them. If you don't like that then you really need to come up with how the ability has changed with the language change and probably why. This was answered recently about the old WA so you could make the argument that they did the change on purpose and are less likely to have missed it but I am honestly unsure about that either.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-14, 07:52 PM

You guys are hilarious.
The change in verbiage was unintentional.
Nothing has changed.
It remains a single attack, just like it was before.
You still cannot move between.
Blame bad editing for a playtest element, like we've seen a million times before, and carry on.

My sentiments to a T. No idea why anyone is seriously reading an intended functional change into this except it's what D&D forums do apparently.

Nicrosil

2016-09-14, 08:41 PM

Let's say you have 5 enemies. #1-4 are within 5' and #5 is 15' away.
You declare you want to use WA.
WA says you can attack any number of enemies within 5'.
You target and attack #1-4.
WA has now ended.
You move next to #5
You can't attack because you used the WA action and attacked all desired targets within 5' of when you used the action.
You didn't use the Attack Action so you don't get to use your Extra Attack feature.

If you attack #1-3 then move to #5 you still can not attack it because it is not within 5' of where WA was activated. You can move back and hit #4, ending WA or end WA without attacking #4. But #5 remains an invalid target.

This whole debate may have been a mistake that slipped by editing, but I'm using this at my table. It's funner and more tactically interesting than one attack roll with no movement.

Strill

2016-09-14, 09:18 PM

This whole debate may have been a mistake that slipped by editing, but I'm using this at my table. It's funner and more tactically interesting than one attack roll with no movement.

Yep. From a balance perspective, Whirlwind is garbage compared to volley, so I'm totally fine with being able to move while using it. When you compare original Whirlwind to Volley, Whirlwind has a smaller area, no range, requires you to somehow slip past enemies to place it, and leaves you extremely vulnerable to counter-attack afterwards. It's all drawbacks and no benefits.

Reosoul

2016-09-14, 09:23 PM

This thread has been an interesting and hilarious rollercoaster. Lots of people take pretty sizeable leaps in logic while some of the level-headed folks try to keep some poor DM from being accosted by a rules lawyer in the near future. Trying to define the multiple uses of "a" and "an" in D&D rules. Ah. It's like I'm back at the Pathfinder table.

Naanomi

2016-09-14, 09:25 PM

Kydo

2016-09-14, 09:35 PM

It might be fun but it is clearly not intended to be used while running around the map in a flurry of steel. As stated earlier the wording alone is terrible, there is no clarification on how long said activation lasts or how movement is allowed or not.

Volley is still the superior option but whirlwind allows melee rangers to still have an option. Whirlwind says it is an action which allows you to make attacks against anything within 5 feet of you. It does not say do this until the end your turn, it does not say this grants you one attack on each and every creature you contact with your movement, it does not say you get 80 out more attacks if you happen to fight an army, it does not say that your 11th level character is better than Legolas or Aragon.

JackOfAllBuilds

2016-09-14, 09:49 PM

MeeposFire

2016-09-14, 10:00 PM

It is worded almost verbatim from the first printing of the phb, pre errata. Someone in editing may have goofed. It is not worded in some new different way, just the original verbiage.

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

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

"a melee attack against any"/"melee attacks against any": a>'s

While I certainly believe that the chances of this being a mistake/not intended to be different is fairly high I would point out that the change of wording is significant even if it does not look like much. Remember the reason why movement was explicitly not allowed in teh old wording was due to it being a single attack with multiple rolls. The new wording would seem to state that it is now considered multiple attacks which due to the moving with weapon attack rule means you should be able to move while using the ability.

MeeposFire

2016-09-14, 10:05 PM

I'm comfortable with 'single attack per target, as many targets as you can get within 5' of'. You risk eating a lot of Attacks of Opportunity if you get wild with it; but without the ability to move it is incredibly rare to catch more than 2-3 creatures; an amount of attacks many rangers will have anyways.

My Shillelagh Ranger took it and used it exactly once; against monsters that weren't really a challenge to begin with.

Yea a standard ranger that either uses two weapons, polearms, or otherwise gets a bonus action attack can attack 3 times which means you need at least 4 enemies within 5 feet of you to actually gain a benefit. That is a LOT of enemies to allow to surround you and would likely not be worth the risk.

Also note that in some ways it gets worse when you look at the fighter as it keeps getting more attacks that means the ranger needs even more enemies around him to beat out the fighter at attacking multiple targets and the fighter could choose to attack only one target and deal more damage unlike whirlwind attack.

Naanomi

2016-09-14, 10:15 PM

Exactly Meepos... I hope you are fighting clouds of pixies surrounding you in three dimensions or you will be really hard pressed to ever use the more limited interpretation of the ability. It gets even worse when the ranged ranger with swift-quiver up shoots 4-5 people at hundreds of feat away without using a keystone subclass feature to do it

R.Shackleford

2016-09-14, 10:53 PM

While I certainly believe that the chances of this being a mistake/not intended to be different is fairly high I would point out that the change of wording is significant even if it does not look like much. Remember the reason why movement was explicitly not allowed in teh old wording was due to it being a single attack with multiple rolls. The new wording would seem to state that it is now considered multiple attacks which due to the moving with weapon attack rule means you should be able to move while using the ability.

The idea that the original Ranger didn't allow movement is hilariously not RAW.

Because the attack gave you multiple attack rolls (and when making an attack roll you are making an attack) you could always move with whirlwind.

Unless we start saying that an attack roll isn't an attack of course... Which in that case, have fun with the game using that ideology. The RAI may not have been with moving Whirlwind but the raw sure as hell was.

Now, the original Whirlwind could have been written wrong to begin with, since it doesn't match it's RAI, but unless you just hate nonmagical abilities being good there is no other way to read original Whirlwind than multiple attacks.

MeeposFire

2016-09-14, 10:56 PM

The idea that the original Ranger didn't allow movement is hilariously not RAW.

Because the attack gave you multiple attack rolls (and when making an attack roll you are making an attack) you could always move with whirlwind.

Unless we start saying that an attack roll isn't an attack of course... Which in that case, have fun with the game using that ideology. The RAI may not have been with moving Whirlwind but the raw sure as hell was.

Now, the original Whirlwind could have been written wrong to begin with, since it doesn't match it's RAI, but unless you just hate nonmagical abilities being good there is no other way to read original Whirlwind than multiple attacks.

I am purposefully avoiding that whole conversation since we do not need to get into an argument that sounds like is moot now.

Personally I like having movement with whirlwind attack since it makes it useful.

JackOfAllBuilds

2016-09-15, 12:48 AM

It never originally restricted movement, that was in an errata/Q&A/sage advice addendum

georgie_leech

2016-09-15, 12:55 AM

It never originally restricted movement, that was in an errata/Q&A/sage advice addendum
There was a discussion in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?492954-Whirlwind-attack-with-glaive) that started about 6 posts in and spiraled from there. Suffice to saw that movement being allowed between attacks or not was very much ambiguous before.

Now we just have to worry if you can make attacks at creatures not originally in reach instead. :smallamused:

Gwendol

2016-09-15, 01:57 AM

The idea that the original Ranger didn't allow movement is hilariously not RAW.

Because the attack gave you multiple attack rolls (and when making an attack roll you are making an attack) you could always move with whirlwind.

Unless we start saying that an attack roll isn't an attack of course... Which in that case, have fun with the game using that ideology. The RAI may not have been with moving Whirlwind but the raw sure as hell was.

Now, the original Whirlwind could have been written wrong to begin with, since it doesn't match it's RAI, but unless you just hate nonmagical abilities being good there is no other way to read original Whirlwind than multiple attacks.

I fully agree. As it is worded now, even more so. You will have to make quite a word pretzel to explain away some very specific rules about movement between attacks.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-15, 05:06 AM

Nothing in the 5e rules requires that you "take" an action at a specific portion of your turn. It's entirely possible to interpret the rules as taking/using (ie declaring) all actions you take before you start resolving anything, then proceed to resolve all actions / movement mixed up in any order consistent with the rules. In other words, resolving actions isn't necessarily the same thing as taking actions.Can you quote the rules supporting that? Because AFAIK when you take an action, you do X and the only way to delay is with the Ready Action for spells. Now exceptions exist to take bonus action, reactions or even move during the resolution of an action, but that doesn't mean you can declare actions and then move or delay they resolution on your own without exceptions. The rules for Breaking Up Your Move says you normally move before and after your action and movement in between only happen if you have multiple attacks as an exception (or some bonus action or reaction that would exceptionally let you do so).

Breaking Up Your Move: You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action.

Tanarii

2016-09-15, 06:33 AM

Can you quote the rules supporting that?
All the rules. There's no rules that specify taking an action means it is an in-game world event.

See pretty much every JC ruling on bonus action order in cases of 'when you take action blah blah you make blah as a bonus action' for example. None of those ruling make sense if you strictly envision that 'take an action' means it corresponds with an in-game time, as opposed to meaning a declaration of what you're doing on your turn.

In other words, take an action is something you do in the abstract meta game. They aren't in-world events. Technically even resolution is abstract, but it drives in-game-world events so resolution order is what matters.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-15, 07:41 AM

All the rules. There's no rules that specify taking an action means it is an in-game world event.

See pretty much every JC ruling on bonus action order in cases of 'when you take action blah blah you make blah as a bonus action' for example. None of those ruling make sense if you strictly envision that 'take an action' means it corresponds with an in-game time, as opposed to meaning a declaration of what you're doing on your turn.

In other words, take an action is something you do in the abstract meta game. They aren't in-world events. Technically even resolution is abstract, but it drives in-game-world events so resolution order is what matters.They are. Every actions you take is followed by what you do i.e as an action you do X....or when you take X action, you do Y etc....

When you take the Attack action, you attack. You must move before or after taking an action according to Breaking Up Your Move, but you could move during such action if you can make multiple attacks according to Moving Between Attacks. This makes it an exception, a specific rule vs the general rule.

Similarly when you take an action you do X but you could do other things during such action if you have a specific game elements letting you do so, such as a bonus action or reaction, also making it an exception.

So can you quote the general rule that say you don't have to perform an action at the moment of taking it?

Without specific rule letting you do things or move during an action, you perform the action when you take it according to how they're generally worded.

tieren

2016-09-15, 09:37 AM

Now we just have to worry if you can make attacks at creatures not originally in reach instead. :smallamused:

Keep in mind reach is a different issue. even if you have a reach weapon you can only WA creatures within 5 feet of you.

Which raises another question for me.

Lets say you happen to be a ranger with a polearm. You are standing in the middle of a ring of 20 goblins, standing in a circle around you, said circle has a 10 foot radius. You can not move and hit 2 of them with attack and extra attack. You can step 5 feet north and hit the 5 goblins on the northern portion of the circle who are now 5 feet away with WA. Or under the interpretation where more targets are acquired as you move you could move 5 feet north, attack 5, then move to the eastern side, hit those 5, then the southern side hit those 5 and then the western side and hit those 5 (with diagonal movement probably only 20 feet of movement used).

What was the point of the 5 foot limitation? Was it to force you to move about and risk OA's. It certainly wasn't effective at making you not use a reach weapon.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-15, 09:42 AM

What was the point of the 5 foot limitation? Was it to force you to move about and risk OA's. It certainly wasn't effective at making you not use a reach weapon.

The point of the 5' limitation is that you aren't making separate attacks at each enemy. You are making one large circular attack in a sweeping motion that hits everything surrounding you.
Think Legend of Zelda, Link's spin attack. That's what Whirlwind Attack is.
It's a melee range 5' AoE.
In 4e terms, it would have been a 5' melee burst attack.
One attack that has multiple targets and rolls to hit each individually (so you can't crit/miss everything with a single roll).

Plaguescarred

2016-09-15, 09:44 AM

Keep in mind reach is a different issue. even if you have a reach weapon you can only WA creatures within 5 feet of you.
Yeah since it gives a specific range, weapon reach should be irrevelant.

georgie_leech

2016-09-15, 09:52 AM

Yeah since it gives a specific range, weapon reach should be irrevelant.

Point. I should have said 'enemies are within 5' of you,' instead. Or possibly Range. /overanalysingfeebleattaemptathumour

Tanarii

2016-09-15, 01:07 PM

So can you quote the general rule that say you don't have to perform an action at the moment of taking it? Can you quote the general rule that says taking actions occurs at a 'moment'? And resolution occurs at the same point in the abstract 'turn' as resolution?

Plaguescarred

2016-09-15, 02:07 PM

Can you quote the general rule that says taking actions occurs at a 'moment'? And resolution occurs at the same point in the abstract 'turn' as resolution?If you read carefully actions are usually at present tense i.e "when you take X action you do X..." or "as an action you do X..." so if you say you don't do it at this moment it says but can be delayed then the burden is on you to quote the rule saying that.

For exemple, you cannot move during an action unless you are specifically allowed by it, a bonus action or a reaction, otherwise you must do so before or after it, according to Breaking Up A Move. What you advocate break this general rule if anyone can take an action, move and resolve the action at later moment on their turn, without a specific bonus action or reaction (or Moving Between Attacks rule) letting you do so.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-15, 04:21 PM

Blame bad editing

On reflection I'm not sure it's even bad editing. What I figure is, someone thought, "This ability has always been confusingly written. Why does it say 'a melee attack' when the purpose is obviously to make several of them, as the ability goes on to say? Let's just change it to what it is, an unspecified number of 'melee attacks', to make this read more smoothly."

A few threads on the internet later, this same person is incapacitated from excessive facepalming.

tieren

2016-09-15, 04:29 PM

The point of the 5' limitation is that you aren't making separate attacks at each enemy. You are making one large circular attack in a sweeping motion that hits everything surrounding you.
Think Legend of Zelda, Link's spin attack. That's what Whirlwind Attack is.
It's a melee range 5' AoE.
In 4e terms, it would have been a 5' melee burst attack.
One attack that has multiple targets and rolls to hit each individually (so you can't crit/miss everything with a single roll).

I get its a spin attack, but why can't you spin and hit all enemies within reach of your weapon (my proposed 10' radius circle if you wield a reach weapon).

Is it just for style? (ie that move would be too difficult with a pole arm)
Is it to limit the number of targets? (we we don't want to have too many enemies hit what if they are standing 2 rows deep one at 10 feet and one at 5 feet).

There aren't many moves that are mechanically limited for style reasons. If it was to limit the number of targets they probably don't want you running around getting more targets. I really think if you figure out the reason for the 5 foot limitation it will guide the rest of your position on the topic.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-15, 05:38 PM

I get its a spin attack,
Then why were you talking about running around and provoking OAs?

but why can't you spin and hit all enemies within reach of your weapon (my proposed 10' radius circle if you wield a reach weapon).

Physics.
If two trees are one behind another, and you try to hit them both with a broomstick, you're going to hit the one closest to you with the haft and then your broomstick will stop moving.
Because physics.
If you try to do the same in a circle of trees with a machete, you can slice them all without any problems.

Kydo

2016-09-15, 05:43 PM

Well there are a few things that would limit a polearm striking like that, the large part being that the head of the polearm is usually the only damaging part. That wooden haft slapping the people not at reach wouldn't hurt overly much and would make the rest of the attack almost pointless.

Besides that, rangers aren't designed to be using polearms. They are stealthy, sneaky characters. They are not the guy running through the woods with a halberd. Besides that look at their fighting styles, do you see great weapon on their list. Archery, Defense, Duelist, Two-Weapon fighting. They are a light, fast skirmisher and not a great weapon combatant. One or two one-handed weapons or a bow are the weapons of choice, which makes the 5 foot limitation just reinforce the primary role.

Naanomi

2016-09-15, 05:49 PM

What about a whip instead of a pole arm, does that change the visuals for anyone?

Kydo

2016-09-15, 06:36 PM

No, whip only makes it worse. Better in the face it is one handed... But literally double the work to attack each creature.

Sword parallel to the ground, check. Footing, check. Spin to win, check.

Whip back over head, check. Whip forward toward monster, check. Whip crack, check. Whip back over head, check. Whip forward toward monster, check. Whip crack, check. Whip back over head, check. Whip forward toward monster, check. Whip crack, check. Whip back over head, check. Whip forward toward monster, check. Whip crack, check.

End result, each guy hit 4 monsters.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-15, 06:36 PM

What about a whip instead of a pole arm, does that change the visuals for anyone?

A whip causes slashing damage because of the extreme change in velocity from forward to reverse.
That isn't happening in a spin attack.
I'd simply rule that WA doesn't work with a whip... Because it truly wouldn't.

Naanomi

2016-09-15, 06:47 PM

Ok what if I'm a strength ranger and I don't do any of that fancy 'whipping' stuff with my whip, I just flog people?:smalltongue:

Tanarii

2016-09-15, 08:33 PM

If you read carefully actions are usually at present tense i.e "when you take X action you do X..." or "as an action you do X..." so if you say you don't do it at this moment it says but can be delayed then the burden is on you to quote the rule saying that.but on many of those, we've got JC ruling that you can actually do them in any order. For example Shield Master, you can do the bonus action before the action that gives it to you. That doesn't work under your interpretation.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-15, 08:49 PM

Yes, i've said that bonus actions can occur during an action. That doesn't mean you can delay any action you take and move or do something else without taking a bonus action or move during it if its not an action leting you do multiple weapon attacks. Looking at the rules and their respective exemple clearly shows you cannot break up your movement even further during an action under normal circuanstance unless it's one that include multiple melee attacks.

Breaking Up Your Move: You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.

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

For exemple, if a 2nd level fighter use an action, he will only be able to move before or after it unless that action includes more than one weapon attack, and he will only be able to take another action after it. If he has a bonus action he can take he could take it at any time on his turn though as it specifically say so for them.

In comparison to a bonus action you have, a regular action, reaction and movement cannot specifically be taken at any time during your turn if you prefer, other rules regulate their use.

Tanarii

2016-09-16, 08:29 AM

Yes, i've said that bonus actions can occur during an action. That doesn't mean you can delay any action you take and move or do something else without taking a bonus action or move during it if its not an action leting you do multiple weapon attacks. Looking at the rules and their respective exemple clearly shows you cannot break up your movement even further during an action under normal circuanstance unless it's one that include multiple melee attacks.You can break up all movement around any action, so I'm not sure what your point is here? The only thing you can't do is break up a single action (ie casting a spell) with movement. And that's a pure resolution rule.

But, for example, let's take a War Magic EK using Poison Spray and a Greatsword attack.

Using action declaration + JC style ruling on War Magic:
1) Declare you will cast a cantrip, this creates a bonus action to attack.
2) (Possibly Move.) Resolve greatsword attack. (Possibly Move.) Resolve Poison Spray.

Alternately, if you declare & resolve as you do them, JC's ruling doesn't work. You must:
1) (Possibly Move.) Declare cast a cantrip & resolve Poison Spray. Generates a bonus action to attack. (Possibly Move.) Declare attack & Resolve Greatsword Attack.

Even though this seems like a tangent, it actually has important implications for if the 5' part of Whirlwind attack is something that applies to "when you use the action". Obviously if action declaration has nothing to do with resolution, this cannot be the case. If it applies to action resolution, then you have to argue why it applies to start of resolution instead of throughout the resolution, given that the resolution must allow movement in between attacks. Due to a specific rule.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 08:58 AM

You can break up all movement around any action, so I'm not sure what your point is here? The only thing you can't do is break up a single action (ie casting a spell) with movement. And that's a pure resolution rule.

But, for example, let's take a War Magic EK using Poison Spray and a Greatsword attack.

Using action declaration + JC style ruling on War Magic:
1) Declare you will cast a cantrip, this creates a bonus action to attack.
2) (Possibly Move.) Resolve greatsword attack. (Possibly Move.) Resolve Poison Spray.
You could not possibly move in this situation because the action you take is not an action that include miltiple melee weapons, so as the rule for Breaking Up A Move says, you'd have to move before or after the action to cast a centrip, and being allow to attack once as a bonus action anytime in between.

Alternately, if you declare & resolve as you do them, JC's ruling doesn't work. You must:
1) (Possibly Move.) Declare cast a cantrip & resolve Poison Spray. Generates a bonus action to attack. (Possibly Move.) Declare attack & Resolve Greatsword Attack.JC ruling is only regarding the usage of a bonus action, not that you can move anytime on a turn, other rules gouvern that, and its Breaking Up a Move and Moving Between Attacks , when applicable. Here it's not applicable since you're not taking an action that include multiple melee attacks.

I think people have been jumping to false conclusion by applying Jeremy Crawford's ruling about the intention of War Magic (or Shield Master) bonus action usable even during the action (RAI), and applying this about any action or movement when its not the case.

TentacleSurpris

2016-09-16, 09:27 AM

This is an excellent question and good points to raise next month when WOTC takes a survey on the Ranger. Just ask then for clarification and it will be clarified by the time it actually gets published in a book, if not earlier on twitter. We can argue with each other until we're blue in the face like an ogre mage, but it's a simple thing for MM to answer.

Tanarii

2016-09-16, 09:32 AM

You could not possibly move in this situation because the action you take is not an action that include miltiple melee weapons, so as the rule for Breaking Up A Move says, you'd have to move before or after the action to cast a centrip, and being allow to attack once as a bonus action anytime in between.There is no restriction on moving in between actions and bonus actions. Only on moving within an action.

JC ruling is only regarding the usage of a bonus action, not that you can move anytime on a turn, other rules gouvern that, and its Breaking Up a Move and Moving Between Attacks , when applicable. Here it's not applicable sinc eyou're not taking an action that include multiple melee attacks.Ignore the movement part as a seperate issue then. His ruling that bonus action resolution can come 'before' resolution of action that creates/permits the bonus action only makes sense if the actions are first declared (creating the bonus action), then resolved (in whatever order desired).

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 09:43 AM

There is no restriction on moving in between actions and bonus actions. Only on moving within an action.The restriction of Breakign Up A Move that apply to moving before and after action still apply when you take a bonus action or reaction in the middle of an action.

Ignore the movement part as a seperate issue then. His ruling that bonus action resolution can come 'before' resolution of action that creates/permits the bonus action only makes sense if the actions are first declared (creating the bonus action), then resolved (in whatever order desired).His ruling create another problem in that the action that enabled the bonus action could be invalidated. Say you (declare as you say) cast a cantrip, attack first and then move before even taking an action to cast the spell, there is a chance you'd get hit by an OA and become incapacitated for exemple, being incapable of actually even taking the action that allowed you to take a bonus action!

There is no action declaration step, followed by action resolution, like there was in AD&D 2nd edition. When its your turn you take action and do stuff, which can potentially allow you to take further action. Yes Jeremy Crawford clarified (note that its not a written rule in any books though, just RAI) the intention was that you can take a bonus action before the action that allowed it, as if it was interruptng it before it can resolve.

But that doesn't mean you can declare action, and resolve them later and move in between if not allowed and do other action if not taking a bonus action specifically enabled.

Tanarii

2016-09-16, 09:55 AM

The restriction of Breakign Up A Move that apply to moving before and after action still apply when you take a bonus action or reaction in the middle of an action.How are you defining bonus actions as occurring 'in the middle of an action'? You're begging the question just by making such a statement. You've already assumed that use/take an action = resolving said action. If it does not, there is no 'middle of an action', and movement rules apply to internal resolutions of individual actions.

There is no action declaration step, followed by action resolution, like there was in AD&D 2nd edition. When its your turn you take action and do stuff, which can potentially allow you to take further action.When it's your turn, you state what you're doing (action taken, etc), then you figure out how it all resolves. That's effectively a declaration step followed by a resolution step. Even if it's not called that. I'm using the terms for clarity, exactly because people are stuck in the mindset of conflating the two concepts. Because that's how they got used to doing it in 3e/4e.

Or you can decide to continue conflating the concepts into one, and do it as "I state what I'm doing, then figure that out, then state additionally what I'm doing, then figure that out, then state ...", but if you do you break several assumptions and end up disagreeing with the designers on how they say it's supposed to work, as shows by various JC rulings.

Yes Jeremy Crawford clarified (note that its not a written rule in any books though, just RAI) the intention was that you can take a bonus action before the action that allowed it, as if it was interruptng it before it can resolve.Except there is no 'interrupting'. Again, you're begging the question. You're assuming that use/take an action = resolve action.

But that doesn't mean you can declare action, and resolve them later and move in between if not allowed and if not taking a bonus action.Sure you can. It's really simple: You say what you're doing on your turn, and if clarification is needed what actions that uses. Then you figure out the in-game affect of doing all that. Done and done. It's not an executable program you run on your turn, making decisions at each point ... Move, take Action A, Resolve Action A, Generate Bonus Action, take Bonus Action, Move. It's "I'm going to approach the orc and attack with my dagger, then move over to blast the goblin with poison spray. Using my Action to cast a spell, and my bonus action from war magic to attack." Followed by making attack rolls and figuring out damage.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 10:35 AM

How are you defining bonus actions as occurring 'in the middle of an action'? You're begging the question just by making such a statement. You've already assumed that use/take an action = resolving said action. If it does not, there is no 'middle of an action', and movement rules apply to internal resolutions of individual actions.

Except there is no 'interrupting'. Again, you're begging the question. You're assuming that use/take an action = resolve action.If when you do X you can take an action, you must interrupt it when Jeremy Crawford clarify that it can be before it because since otherwise you don't have a bonus action yet since you only have it until when you do X.

Bonus Action: You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take.

When it's your turn, you state what you're doing (action taken, etc), then you figure out how it all resolves. That's effectively a declaration step followed by a resolution step. Even if it's not called that. I'm using the terms for clarity, exactly because people are stuck in the mindset of conflating the two concepts. Because that's how they got used to doing it in 3e/4e.

Sure you can. It's really simple: You say what you're doing on your turn, and if clarification is needed what actions that uses. Then you figure out the in-game affect of doing all that. Done and done. It's not an executable program you run on your turn, making decisions at each point ... Move, take Action A, Resolve Action A, Generate Bonus Action, take Bonus Action, Move. It's "I'm going to approach the orc and attack with my dagger, then move over to blast the goblin with poison spray. Using my Action to cast a spell, and my bonus action from war magic to attack." Followed by making attack rolls and figuring out damage.OK i guess we play differently then, i never DMed, played or watch video with people requiring you to declare all your turn before actually taking it, but rather taking actions and moving as you go along. That must explain why we see things differently. Like you said its not written in the books and the rules certainly don't require you to declare everything you want to do on your turn before resolving actions.

Your Turn: On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first.

Tanarii

2016-09-16, 11:38 AM

If when you do X you can take an action, you must interrupt it when Jeremy Crawford clarify that it can be before it because since otherwise you don't have a bonus action yet since you only have it until when you do X.

Bonus Action: You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take.But he didn't say that. You can take your bonus action shield attack before your attack, before here meaning 'resolve first'.

And exactly. If you insist on action/resolution being one thing, it's impossible for that to happen.

OK i guess we play differently then, i never DMed, played or watch video with people requiring you to declare all your turn before actually taking it, but rather taking actions and moving as you go along. That must explain why we see things differently. Like you said its not written in the books and the rules certainly don't require you to declare everything you want to do on your turn before resolving actions.

Your Turn: On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first.Right. I'm not saying it must be a 'declare all actions first, resolve entire turn' or 'declare any number of actions, resolve any number of actions' or 'use action (which includes both declaration & resolution) all in one go'. Because the book doesn't require them. Including that last quote, which applies to any of those interpretations.

I'm saying all of them are legal, and the only one that clearly isn't JC's RAI is the last one. If you interpret using/taking an action to be both the declaration and immediate resolution, you cannot possibly end up matching his declared RAI. That doesn't mean you can't do it RAW though.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 12:09 PM

But he didn't say that. You can take your bonus action shield attack before your attack, before here meaning 'resolve first'.

I'm saying all of them are legal, and the only one that clearly isn't JC's RAI is the last one. If you interpret using/taking an action to be both the declaration and immediate resolution, you cannot possibly end up matching his declared RAI. That doesn't mean you can't do it RAW though.
He says it can come before the Attack action, at which point you don't have a bonus action to take yet according the rules on bonus action itself. So the only possible way it could happen the way he interpret it is if you can take it before the Attack action resolve otherwise you don't even have a bonus action to take yet.

@JeremyECrawford As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.

Right. I'm not saying it must be a 'declare all actions first, resolve entire turn' or 'declare any number of actions, resolve any number of actions' or 'use action (which includes both declaration & resolution) all in one go'. Because the book doesn't require them. Including that last quote, which applies to any of those interpretations.That what you said let me quote it for you;

Nothing in the 5e rules requires that you "take" an action at a specific portion of your turn. It's entirely possible to interpret the rules as taking/using (ie declaring) all actions you take before you start resolving anything, then proceed to resolve all actions / movement mixed up in any order consistent with the rules. In other words, resolving actions isn't necessarily the same thing as taking actions.

Tanarii

2016-09-16, 12:16 PM

That what you said let me quote it for you;Yes. I was describing one possible way to interpret the rules. I've not meant to claim that your possible interpretation isn't RAW. Although I do tend to speak with certainty a lot, so sometimes things I post come across that way.

Edit: Or am I missing your point, and you're trying to say there is some other inconsistency between my statements. Because as far as I can see they're both consistent, and both consistent with the part I was responding too in the case of the first quote.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 12:34 PM

Yes. I was describing one possible way to interpret the rules. I've not meant to claim that your possible interpretation isn't RAW. Although I do tend to speak with certainty a lot, so sometimes things I post come across that way.

Edit: Or am I missing your point, and you're trying to say there is some other inconsistency between my statements. Because as far as I can see they're both consistent, and both consistent with the part I was responding too in the case of the first quote.It's cool i think i also often come accross this way. What i think is that you came to different conclusion on how one take action and move based on JC's interpretaion about the intention at which bonus action can be taken. I originally asked you to quote the rules that you use to interpret it this way and come to such conclusion and you haven't done and even agreed that the book doesn't require them. That must be the inconsistency i observe.

EDIT In my actual gameplay experience things would probably go down this way;

DM: Bob it's your turn.
Bob: Ok i move to the orc shaman (Bob moves his miniature). I attack it with my sword. Oh i will try knock it prone with my shield before i do. #rolling
DM: Sure
Bob: AC 17 does it hit?
DM: Yes the orc shaman is knocked prone in a big CLUNK sound. Go ahead and roll your other attacks #rolling
Bob: Critical 20! #rolling.... 22 slashing damage.
DM: Your sword goes down the orc's head and chop it neatly while blood flies around. What are you doing next?
Bob: I will move toward the orc sentry with the rest of my movement. (Bob moves his miniature) I'm done.
DM: Greg your turn.

(Note that Bob didn't have to declare all movement and action prior to start doing anything)

tieren

2016-09-16, 12:54 PM

Then why were you talking about running around and provoking OAs?

Physics.
If two trees are one behind another, and you try to hit them both with a broomstick, you're going to hit the one closest to you with the haft and then your broomstick will stop moving.
Because physics.
If you try to do the same in a circle of trees with a machete, you can slice them all without any problems.

I get that in the case of enemies at both 5 foot distance and 10 foot distance, but what about the example of a circle of enemies all of whom are 5 feet from you.

I understand real world it would be an ungainly move and rangers aren't supposed to be GWM fighters, but in this case they specifically put that 5 foot rule and didn't say within reach.

Note also there is no language about obstructions, if there is a vertical iron bar at every corner of your square you can still WA and hit 6 enemies standing just further away than those bars, so I don't really buy the "spin blocked by closer enemy/obstruction" argument.

The part about OA's goes to the crux of this argument, are you supposed to be able to move during it or not. They don't want you spinning clandestinely and hitting those 20 goblins 10 feet away, I think they want you to move around in the circle so they are only 5 feet away, which would require you to move about potentially taking OA's which appear to be the best limitation on that interpretation.

As to the posters saying the 5 feet is because rangers don't use reach weapons, keep in mind the limitation only stops the reach ability of the pole arm not the ranger's ability to use it. Under the RAW he can WA with the pole arm and hit everyone within 5 feet, which might be even harder to explain with real world knowledge of the weapon/physics.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 01:21 PM

I think they gave a range rather than using weapon reach this to limit it only creatures within 5 feet of the ranger, therefore only affecting targets in spaces around above and below him. While most weapon reach are 5 feet using a 10 feet reach weapon could have otherwise potentially affect considerably more spaces or squares (in 3D); 125 instead of 27.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-16, 03:03 PM

The part about OA's goes to the crux of this argument, are you supposed to be able to move during it or not. They don't want you spinning clandestinely and hitting those 20 goblins 10 feet away, I think they want you to move around in the circle so they are only 5 feet away, which would require you to move about potentially taking OA's which appear to be the best limitation on that interpretation.

You clearly still don't get it.
You can't run around in your hypothetical 20' circle of goblins to get them all within 5' of you.
It's a spin move.
It is not a "turn into a cyclone of spinning death and attack everything you can get within range of" move.
You can move before you do the spin. You can move after you do the spin. You cannot move during the spin. You use Whirlwind Attack to make one attack roll at every enemy surrounding you.
That's what the 5' limitation represents, and I've already explained why reach weapons don't work.

Tanarii

2016-09-16, 03:27 PM

It's a spin move.Based on what? You're personal way of envisioning the in-game execution of the abstract mechanic?

Edit: Sorry I missed there was a whole series of back-and-forths on the spinning maneuver thing. Had my blinders on to parts of the convo not related to potential separation of declaration/resolution.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-16, 04:00 PM

I'm curious how the people voting WA targets are only limited by your movement speed would rule this situation. Trying to wrap my mind around their viewpoint so I'm also wondering how they view the other multiattack option.

Party is in the woods, group of 5 mobs is hiding in a small cluster of trees. You can move between the trees or around them but you can only ever have line of sight on one at a time as the trees would block the view of the others.

If I'm understanding right, your argument would be you can use WA and use movement speed to go through the trees and hit each one, one after another then leave.

Now, how would you rule if they use Volley instead? Since it also gives multiple attack rolls with a weapon can they just circle the wood and fire as they move until they shoot at each one? Or do you find Volley to be different and they wouldn't be able to?

Myself, and I'm sure at least some others that see them as no movement between attacks, see them as WA is a spinning move (hence the name Whirlwind and not rampage) and Volley is like Robin Hood shooting multiple arrows with one draw. (Hence volley instead of barrage)

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-16, 04:40 PM

So my understanding is you can break up your attacks and move in between them. The way the wording for the new ranger whirlwind is you can make a attack on anyone with in 5ft of you so you can run around the battlefield attack anyone. So the mobile feat ranger is going to be a crowd control duty.

Yes, if the new wording isn't a typo it would change the ability from 1 attack with many targets (and each on the end of an individual attack roll) to many attacks against many targets.

The core change would be to enable motion between those attacks, whereas when it was only 1 attack using many rolls it was not possible to move until all the rolls were resolved.

As to if that means anyone who becomes within 5 feet during movement is also an eligible target, that's just one unintended consequence of the wording change.

Either it's a typo or it's a design change, if it's the latter it's a bad change, the consequences are ridiculous. Also, and I'm not thinking of a particular feature, now that it's multiple attacks abilities which affect an attack won't apply to all the rolls, only one of them.

So, yes, you can actually move during Volley, but the point doesn't move.

Not as worded, Volley is a single attack with multiple attack rolls. So it can benefit from Lightning Arrow to all targets (works on the next ranged weapon attack) whereas if it were multiple attacks, Lightning Arrow would only work on one subject of the Volley. That'd be a huge nerf.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 04:41 PM

You cannot move during the spin.The isse is that WA doesn't say that, so being an action that let you make multiple attacks allow movement between those attacks according to Moving Between Attacks.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-16, 04:48 PM

The isse is that WA doesn't say that, so being an action that let you make multiple attacks allow movement between those attacks according to Moving Between Attacks.

To which I reply:

You guys are hilarious.
The change in verbiage was unintentional.
Nothing has changed.
It remains a single attack, just like it was before.
You still cannot move between.
Blame bad editing for a playtest element, like we've seen a million times before, and carry on.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 04:57 PM

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-16, 05:06 PM

Intentional or not it is what it is. Its not just a typo, its the removal of a ''a'' and the addition of a ''s'' so the change seems deliberate concerning its a revision to the class regarded as underpowered.

No, it doesn't seem deliberate. It seems like he was reading a description and typing it into a word doc and made a tiny mistake, and now everyone thinks that the ability works in a manner that is diametrically opposed to the way it worked before.

UA is playtest material, remember? We all know that pretty much every single thing that has ever been in the playtest phase is rife with simplistic (s opposed to detailed) descriptions. The detail comes later (if it ever becomes core).

I'm laughing my butt off over here with the level of rules lawyering happening with respect to UA material.
Seriously, WTF guys?
You know it's the same ability that it was before. It's lunch at the courthouse. Take a break and stop lawyering for a couple of minutes.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 05:10 PM

Its a revision document, so changes are expected and therefore any change from the existing published texts should be considered deliberate until expressely told otherwise.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-16, 05:13 PM

The document first page says;

''With our course set for a revision, we’ve spent
the past year experimenting and gathering
feedback. We believe that if something doesn’t hit
the mark the first time, we need to take our time
and make sure our path to a solution is the right
one. So our tinkering with the ranger led us here,
to this latest update.
Our next step, which begins now, is verification.
Are these fixes correct? Do they solve problems at
your table? Do you, as the community of D&D
players and DMs, accept them? I expect another
revision or two to be made to the class, but I’m
confident that the scope and direction of these
changes fit in with what the community is looking
for''

Its its been revised, verified and implemented that way. Its not just some first draft of an internal document here for those who still might think it was just a typo....

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-16, 05:16 PM

So that means editing errors are impossible.
Gotcha.

The PHB wasn't a first draft either. How'd that one go over? No errors either?
I thought so.

Ruslan

2016-09-16, 05:17 PM

Naanomi

2016-09-16, 05:43 PM

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-16, 05:50 PM

Naanomi

2016-09-16, 06:04 PM

Unless there are four or more enemies in your movement range the ability isn't any better than most melee ranger's three attacks... Which is why 'basic' whirlwind is almost never worth using. It seems like there needs to be a way to make it not broken but also not virtually worthless.

A melee ranger is already giving up the safety of distance and the support of many spells for what usually amounts to a marginal damage increase; I would like for this ability to represent a reason to become a melee ranger (or drop the concept all together and define ranger as an archer class). Ironically the 'classic' twf ranger suffers most of all from the limitations of whirlwind

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-16, 07:14 PM

Regardless of intent, I have three questions:

1) how often has anyone been in a situation in a real game where whirlwind defined as 'no moving' was useful?

2) how often has anyone been in a situation in a real game where whirlwind defined as 'move between attacks' been obviously broken?

3) what situations do people envision whirlwind as defined as 'no moving' ever equals or exceeds volley in effect?

As a working document, one open for future revision (in fact whose intent is to explore future revision), I think the conversation needs to move from 'how is it intended now' to 'what is the most functional in the future'

1. Almost every session my current game has had.
2. Same as 1.
3. Anywhere close quartered or with LoS obstacles.

Our 3-4 man group has been facing many situations where fights are against 10+ enemies. Either ambushes in the sewers or zombie hoard in a mansion or the woods. Soon a hobgoblin army in the mountains and mines.

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-16, 07:23 PM

I'm sorry, WHY exactly would it be the same ability as before? There are many changes to the Ranger, and they are all deliberate . In fact, the raison d'etre of the document is to ... let's say it together, boys and girls ... CHANGE ... THE ... RANGER.

Now DivisibleByZero is zooming in on one CHANGE in a document written with the purpose of CHANGING THE RANGER, and claims, that, oh, it's not a real change. "It doesn't matter what they wrote, it only matters what I read into it." DivisibleByZero is the one being hilarious.

Edit: And now, I see, DivisibleByZero have been routed all the way to the last line of defense - "an editing error is not impossible, ergo it must be an editing error" - where he will make his last stand. Good luck with that.

Not every ability changed, Volley for example retains the same language as before; while the new whirlwind just so happens to share the language of the beast companion ability also at 11th level.

So now the paths are even more similar great, super. If it wasn't for Volley being balanced by limited ammunition (still only 20 arrows in a quiver), and Whirlwind having no such limits, it might be reasonable to make such a change.

tieren

2016-09-16, 11:42 PM

Regardless of intent, I have three questions:

1) how often has anyone been in a situation in a real game where whirlwind defined as 'no moving' was useful?

2) how often has anyone been in a situation in a real game where whirlwind defined as 'move between attacks' been obviously broken?

3) what situations do people envision whirlwind as defined as 'no moving' ever equals or exceeds volley in effect?

As a working document, one open for future revision (in fact whose intent is to explore future revision), I think the conversation needs to move from 'how is it intended now' to 'what is the most functional in the future'

1. Few for me, our group rarely saw foes so bunched, if they did the casters would clear them out.

2.we never played it that way but hard to say. There were many cases when it would have meant the ranger getting significantly more attacks than the fighter.

3.I'm not sure it should, volley is a much better ability

Zalabim

2016-09-17, 02:36 AM

Not as worded, Volley is a single attack with multiple attack rolls. So it can benefit from Lightning Arrow to all targets (works on the next ranged weapon attack) whereas if it were multiple attacks, Lightning Arrow would only work on one subject of the Volley. That'd be a huge nerf.
I actually looked this up a month or two ago and the answer is that Lightning Arrow transforms a piece of ammunition (or weapon) into a bolt of lightning, and you use separate ammunition for each target. So it does not apply to every target of Volley. That's the answer I found, anyway.

Not every ability changed, Volley for example retains the same language as before; while the new whirlwind just so happens to share the language of the beast companion ability also at 11th level.

So now the paths are even more similar great, super. If it wasn't for Volley being balanced by limited ammunition (still only 20 arrows in a quiver), and Whirlwind having no such limits, it might be reasonable to make such a change.
Storm of Claws and Fangs uses the PHB whirlwind attack wording. It's not the same as the UA whirlwind attack.

Gwendol

2016-09-17, 05:17 AM

The explanation for one attack-many attack rolls was strained already. The new ranger ability seem to correct that. I've never pictured a whirlwind being stationary, so this change just makes the ability fit my vision of it.

It's a cool, unique, ability that for the most part will be a niche attack. And if it synergizes well with escape the horde, more power to the ranger! Non-magical area attacks could use some love.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-17, 08:42 AM

georgie_leech

2016-09-17, 09:48 AM

I completely disagree with absolutely every single thing you just typed.

So he actually believed that Whirlwind was stationary? :smalltongue:

Vorpalchicken

2016-09-17, 09:58 AM

Regardless of intent, I have three questions:

1) how often has anyone been in a situation in a real game where whirlwind defined as 'no moving' was useful?

2) how often has anyone been in a situation in a real game where whirlwind defined as 'move between attacks' been obviously broken?

3) what situations do people envision whirlwind as defined as 'no moving' ever equals or exceeds volley in effect?

As a working document, one open for future revision (in fact whose intent is to explore future revision), I think the conversation needs to move from 'how is it intended now' to 'what is the most functional in the future'

1) Never. Not that we ever had an 11th level ranger. But at that level and higher, never once did we have an encounter where a) four or more enemies were positioned to be hit like that and b) they were weak enough that focus firing on one enemy wasn't a better choice- even if it meant fewer total number of attacks.

2) Same deal. First-run Rangers always multiclassed out, so never had the ability. However, "a bunch of orcs" encounters didn't happen at 11+, so this ability even in its useful form would have been rarely used . Not broken.

3) Hmmm maybe if there is some windy sort of spell in effect, but practically never.

Kydo

2016-09-17, 11:19 AM

1) Whirlwind isn't super powerful, but again it's an option to not pidgeon-hole melee rangers into taking volley. Also I don't see a long sword ranger being terrible. Get into the middle of your favored enemies and spin for 1d8+6 (with dueling) before STR mod.

2) A lot. Anytime you can meet 8-10 attacks in a turn it gets broken. I've played repeated games with armies involved, if of been making upwards of 20 attacks a turn in most of those.

3) Since 3rd edition when it was introduced.

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

Seriously doubt the concept has changed or they wouldn't continue to use the same name.

Naanomi

2016-09-17, 11:31 AM

How many people took the 3e whirlwind feat? No one with an eye for actual power levels that I know, exempting when it was free from something or as a prerequisite... And only used when using reach enhancing abilities (which don't exist and wouldn't work here)

Limiting the number of attacks (say to +3 attacks, limited to one per target, takes a bonus action) but allowing movement... Or find a way to increase the effect to make it 'worth the trade off' (especially in a way to allow twf to have an effect) if you are standing still (a defensive boost since people can't approach your spinning self? Two attacks per target in range of you are dual wielding?)... It needs to feel like more than 'well you can't use volley, so take this worse version instead! Feel lucky we didn't give you nothing, like we gave you no melee spells!'

Kydo

2016-09-17, 11:38 AM

Naanomi

2016-09-17, 11:42 AM

My hope is that they would change it now because they are specifically looking to change the class for the better... I can house rule things any way I want, yes, but I'd prefer (and the community would benefit from) rules that seek fun and balance when we explicitly have the chance.

Kydo

2016-09-17, 11:49 AM

It could be better yes, but unlimited running circles and attacking is to much. As people have said already if that is what they want, which I highly doubt I'd the intent, a hasted mobility wood elf wins at attacks per round.

They would need some form of limit that isn't just "hit everything you can reach."

Gwendol

2016-09-17, 11:56 AM

I completely disagree with absolutely every single thing you just typed.

And I don't believe you actually mean that. Show me a stationary whirlwind, for example.

Gwendol

2016-09-17, 11:59 AM

I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying they have left it the same since it's inception, why would that change now? I'm just simply answering your "who ever saw it this way" question, and the answer is anyone who ever saw it as well as wotc.

There is also always the beauty of just house ruling it with your group to say it works however you want it to.

Because they want the ability to actually work? The JC vision of the original ability was extremely situational, and rarely better than just using a regular attack (with extra attack).

Oh, and "unlimited running around" is a bit of a hyperbole.

Naanomi

2016-09-17, 11:59 AM

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-17, 12:08 PM

... Or find a way to increase the effect to make it 'worth the trade off' (especially in a way to allow twf to have an effect) if you are standing still (a defensive boost since people can't approach your spinning self? Two attacks per target in range of you are dual wielding?)...
Thats already something I considered, giving two attacks at everything surrounding you while dual wielding. One for each weapon.
I think that's where the ability needs to be.
Normally ou're doing around 10 or 11 damage per target (1d6+4~7.5 on the low end, 1d8+9~13.5 on the high end).
Double that with this tweak.

It could be better yes, but unlimited running circles and attacking is to much.
Understatement of the thread.

And I don't believe you actually mean that. Show me a stationary whirlwind, for example.
So now you're going to tell me what I agree and disagree with?
We'll I don't really care what you believe, as the two of us are quite obviously of differing mindsets here.

Kydo

2016-09-17, 12:09 PM

And nothing has changed, even the original was multiple attacks which didn't allow movement.

If you want the best argument however how is this one, if the new new Whirlwind attack was supposed to send you across the battlefield why not just just give a bunch of extra attacks as per fighter.

Oh, that's right, because fighter is supposed to be the king of attacks, not rangers. Disregard my question, it's been answered.

TheOldCrow

2016-09-17, 12:39 PM

Kydo

2016-09-17, 12:44 PM

Volley can hit something like 21 squares, so roughly the same # of targets.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-17, 12:56 PM

Volley can hit something like 21 squares, so roughly the same # of targets.

The huge, glaring problem with that (and with allowing Whirlwind movement at all) is that Volley needs to be centered on a point.
How often do you see 15-20 mobs all clustered up like that in combat? The true (reasonable) cap is much lower.
Whirlwind, if movement is allowed, removes the "centered on a point" bit and becomes much much, MUCH
stronger. A Wood elf with mobility (and Dash as a bonus action) can attack every creature he comes into contact with along his 90' of movement, at will, without using any resources, and without taking any OA's along the way.
Bloody ridiculous.
And people should be ashamed of themselves for thinking this even might be what was intended.
It clearly isn't.

Whirlwind Attack is the DnD equivalent of Link's spin attack. It's a melee range 5' AoE burst.
You use your action to attack everything surrounding you in a 5' range.
No movement.

One more time, folks:

You guys are hilarious.
The change in verbiage was unintentional.
Nothing has changed.
It remains a single attack, just like it was before.
You still cannot move between.
Blame bad editing for a playtest element, like we've seen a million times before, and carry on.

Kydo

2016-09-17, 01:05 PM

Oh, I agree Divide. Whirlwind is not intended to be used while moving. I think it needs to be stronger than it currently is, but not wood elf, haste, dash, mobility strong.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-17, 01:10 PM

Oh, I agree Divide. Whirlwind is not intended to be used while moving. I think it needs to be stronger than it currently is, but not wood elf, haste, dash, mobility strong.

And it will primarily be used by TWFers, hence the tweak I have been considering, allowing one attack per target within 5' of you when the ability is activated, for each melee weapon held.
That makes it two attacks per target for most Rangers that would take it, keeps it stationary (like it's supposed to be), and means that if you even have two targets adjacent it is better than using the Attack Action.... all without breaking it (or having the DM punch you).

Kydo

2016-09-17, 01:15 PM

But watching the punch people, or hit them with DM lightning, is hilarious.

Gwendol

2016-09-17, 01:15 PM

So now you're going to tell me what I agree and disagree with?
We'll I don't really care what you believe, as the two of us are quite obviously of differing mindsets here.

I didn't tell you anything. Nor did I ask for your opinion on my views. Not sure why, but you are coming across as rather aggressive.

Naanomi

2016-09-17, 01:19 PM

Two attacks if you are dual wielding and allow it to use reach if you have it (equal then to volley's area of effect, getting small damage boost of most reach weapons compared to boss to balance out the risks of being surrounded in melee) would be a great version of immobile whirlwind

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-17, 01:20 PM

I didn't tell you anything. Nor did I ask for your opinion on my views. Not sure why, but you are coming across as rather aggressive.

Let me refresh your short memory.

I completely disagree with absolutely every single thing you just typed.

And I don't believe you actually mean that. Show me a stationary whirlwind, for example.

So now you're going to tell me what I agree and disagree with?
We'll I don't really care what you believe, as the two of us are quite obviously of differing mindsets here.

TheOldCrow

2016-09-17, 01:46 PM

Volley can hit something like 21 squares, so roughly the same # of targets.

I think at least three foes standing within an area of 21 squares wouldn't be unusual. In an army situation like was brought up that could be 21 foes packed in a formation, and the volley has range and the ability to avoid OA. If anyone is having a problem with whirlwind, then volley needs a similar reigning in.

Maybe the best solution is to give an area limitation for whirlwind too. Since the ranger has to run around and risk OA, rather than automatically getting a shot at anything in the area, the area can be larger than that for volley, like anything within 20' of your starting point can be a target if you van reach them.

Tanarii

2016-09-17, 01:53 PM

Volley is a sphere with a 10ft radius. According to the DMg guidelines for area attacks, that should on average hit about 2 creatures.

Which would, of course, make it something you don't use regularly. Checks out, otherwise Volley would be the go-to move.

Edit: Obviously if you're playing on a battle mat the correct answer is 'it hits all creatures within 10ft of a point I select, which is specific to this particular battle'. No real generic / white-room assumption can be made. The DMG guideline is an aide to DMs running ToTM.

Gwendol

2016-09-17, 02:17 PM

Let me refresh your short memory.

Please indicate when I told you what to agree with?

TheOldCrow

2016-09-17, 02:53 PM

Maybe just add to whirlwind, "You may move between each attack, as long as the total movement during this action is no more than 30'." This keeps forms of extra movement in check

Kydo

2016-09-17, 03:08 PM

I still think at that point they might as well just give Hunter 4 attacks and pull both volley and whirlwind.

Which could be interesting/fun with colossus slayer and twf.

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-17, 03:26 PM

I actually looked this up a month or two ago and the answer is that Lightning Arrow transforms a piece of ammunition (or weapon) into a bolt of lightning, and you use separate ammunition for each target. So it does not apply to every target of Volley. That's the answer I found, anyway.

Storm of Claws and Fangs uses the PHB whirlwind attack wording. It's not the same as the UA whirlwind attack.

You're right, they cut and pasted then either retyped or altered it.

So now this Beastmaster is getting 4 attacks by level 5? (2 from ranger, 2 from beast) huh.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-17, 03:32 PM

Please indicate when I told you what to agree with?

When I tell you that I disagree, and you tell me that you don't believe me, you are in effect telling me that you think I do not disagree, which is akin to you telling me what I do and do not agree with.
Dance around it all you want to.
I don't care one bit what you believe with regards to my claim of disagreement. I tell you what I agree or disagree with, and you accept it.

Kydo

2016-09-17, 03:33 PM

If you go two weapon fighting and want to use your pets reaction for an attack like that yes. Your pet though is also going to pretty much always hit that resistance of anything that needs magic to hurt it.

brainface

2016-09-17, 04:25 PM

I feel like "You can, as an action, make a melee attack against each creature within ten feet of you. You may not move between attacks." would be truer to the spirit of old whirlwind attack and perfectly worth using."

Kydo

2016-09-17, 04:59 PM

That might have been toward the spirit of a fighter or barbarian who was using it. As it stands though this is a ranger, who we'd have a hard time explaining how his short or long sword managed to hit those enemies at 10 feet while using whirlwind but can't figure out how to do so normally.

Syll

2016-09-17, 09:58 PM

I agree that in some campaigns, running between enemy lines of soldiers and getting a few hundred attacks is excessive; capping it at some absolute number is completely reasonable; maybe 3 attacks, 5 if dual wielding; only one per target, maybe takes your bonus action?

Perhaps just fundamentally change the wording; something akin to 3.5 Dervish Dance. One attack per 5' of movement, cannot return to a square you just exited, and cannot attack the same creature twice. Limited by your -base- speed. Now you're looking at a maximum of 7 attacks, if for some reason all the mobs are standing neatly in a line in front of you.

Dervish Dance I might add is described by its fluff text as 'becoming a whirling dancer of death'.

On a side note, I think this insistence that Whirlwind Attack's imagery is akin to a 'Link Spin' is silly; If I ever used it with the belief that I was pirouetting with my sword arm out as a combat maneuver I'd feel compelled to roll a Con save or die of embarrassment.

I've always pictured it as a cornered ranger lashing out at any and all foes in range to keep them at bay.

Syll

2016-09-17, 10:12 PM

When I tell you that I disagree, and you tell me that you don't believe me, you are in effect telling me that you think I do not disagree, which is akin to you telling me what I do and do not agree with.
Dance around it all you want to.
I don't care one bit what you believe with regards to my claim of disagreement. I tell you what I agree or disagree with, and you accept it.

Hmm...

The explanation for one attack-many attack rolls was strained already. The new ranger ability seem to correct that. I've never pictured a whirlwind being stationary, so this change just makes the ability fit my vision of it.

It's a cool, unique, ability that for the most part will be a niche attack. And if it synergizes well with escape the horde, more power to the ranger! Non-magical area attacks could use some love.

And Yet, by 'completely disagreeing with absolutely ever single thing you just typed' you are in effect, telling Gwendol you don't believe them when they say how they pictured whirlwind. Which is akin to you telling them how they do or do not picture whirlwind.

Dance around it all you want to; Gwendol tells you how they picture whirlwind, You accept it.

Zalabim

2016-09-18, 03:09 AM

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-18, 05:52 AM

Hmm...

And Yet, by 'completely disagreeing with absolutely ever single thing you just typed' you are in effect, telling Gwendol you don't believe them when they say how they pictured whirlwind. Which is akin to you telling them how they do or do not picture whirlwind.

Dance around it all you want to; Gwendol tells you how they picture whirlwind, You accept it.

I didn't say that I don't believe that he thinks that.
I said that I disagree.

Nice try.

Tanarii

2016-09-19, 06:15 PM

Those guidelines also say to add or subtract 1d4 targets if the enemies are tightly packed or loosely dispersed. So it's -2 to 6 targets.So what happens when you try to volley -2 targets? :smallbiggrin:

Gwendol

2016-09-29, 08:59 AM

From the UA revised ranger thread:

Btw, found this: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/09/28/...-faq-insights/

(((Mike Mearls)))
‏@mikemearls
@ZX6Rob you can move, but you determine targets when you use the action - might invalidate some attacks

So, sounds like the ranger will have to trace a path in which the "enemies within 5'" is upheld.
It is certainly not a "spin attack".

georgie_leech

2016-09-29, 09:04 AM

From the UA revised ranger thread:

So, sounds like the ranger will have to trace a path in which the "enemies within 5'" is upheld.
It is certainly not a "spin attack".

Unfortunately, that still leaves room for 'everything within 5 feet at the start of the action,' as what you can attack. Clear as mud IMO. :smallsigh:

Gwendol

2016-09-29, 09:13 AM

Ah, just saw a new thread dedicated to this topic. Let's not keep resurrecting this one.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-29, 10:19 AM

LordVonDerp

2016-09-29, 11:28 AM

To answer your question: The ability to attack every enemy anywhere along your movement path, at will, using zero resources, would be broken in every single round of every single combat for the future of the character as soon as you hit level 11.
The sole exception would be when there is only a single enemy (or a single enemy remaining).
The ability to do 9 damage per round to every enemy in an encounter (if you can actually manage that) is neither overpowered nor particularly useful at level 11+.