Mike Mearls' Answer to the Whirlwind Attack Question [Archive]

ZX6Rob

2016-09-28, 04:35 PM

In an effort to gain some insight into whether or not the change in wording for the new Ranger's Whirlwind Attack was indicative of an intentional change in use, I decided to join Twitter (shut up) and ask Mr. Mearls himself what the intended ruling was.

In brief:

Whirlwind Attack, in the revised UA Ranger article, now states that you make "melee attacks" against creatures within 5 feet of you when you use it. The wording of the ability is somewhat ambiguous. A conservative reading of the ability indicates that you are standing in a place, and you get to make one melee attack against each critter within 5 feet of your current position. A more liberal interpretation draws on the language of the Attack action in the PHB; specifically the part where you can, if you are allowed to make multiple attacks, use part or all of your movement for the round in between them. Applying this to the Whirlwind Attack, it suggests that you may be able to attack a mook within 5 feet of you, move to a space where you would be within 5 feet of another baddie, and attack him as well. The two attacks are legal so long as none of your attacks are made against dudes that are more than 5 feet away from you at the time you actually make the attack.

"Attack" is starting to sound funny in my head, but I'm trying to be very precise in the language here.

Anyway, I asked Mr. Mearls this question:

New Ranger question, lots of debate on this -- is it intended that you can move between attacks granted by Whirlwind Attack?

And his reply (very timely, might I add!) was this:

you can move, but you determine targets when you use the action - might invalidate some attacks

So, it seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. You determine/declare your targets when you say, "I am using Whirlwind Attack," and you may only make attacks against those targets. You may move between them, such as shifting 5 feet here or there to get a better position, but you may not zip around and attack dudes that were outside your 5-foot reach at the time of declaration.

This is, of course, open to change in your own games, but I think it's good to finally get some confirmation from the designers on exactly how this ability is meant to be interpreted.

Okey-doke, discuss! Or argue, as we tend to do around here...

EDIT

https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/781241597413306368

Link to Mr. Mearls' reply.

tkuremento

2016-09-28, 04:56 PM

Not that I don't believe you or anything, I often have the benefit of the doubt. However, others will question. Perhaps you could link the tweet? :|

ZX6Rob

2016-09-28, 05:11 PM

Not that I don't believe you or anything, I often have the benefit of the doubt. However, others will question. Perhaps you could link the tweet? :|

Good point. Added to the original post.

Ruslan

2016-09-28, 05:20 PM

Whirlwind Attack is not a targeted ability. It has no targets. I appreciate you let us know the design intent, but it was not achieved.

you determine targets when you use the action
The ability named Whirlwind Attack has no targets. Nothing can be determined.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-28, 05:28 PM

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Of course it has targets.
Choosing targets is part of the "making an attack" sequence.
In this case, if targets every creature that you choose within a 5' radius burst.

Ruslan

2016-09-28, 05:32 PM

Whirlwind Attack is not the 'Make an attack' action. 'Make an attack' has a target. Whirlwind Attack does not. It's an ability that grants you the ability to make attacks. When you make those attacks, you choose target(s). When you take the WA action there's no targeting involved.

PS: we had a round of this discussion in a different thread, and I believe it was well-covered. You just seem to be difficult for the sake of being difficult.

tkuremento

2016-09-28, 05:33 PM

Whirlwind Attack is not a targeted ability. It has no targets. I appreciate you let us know the design intent, but it was not achieved.

The ability named Whirlwind Attack has no targets. Nothing can be determined.

"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."

Making an Attack:
"1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location."

tkuremento

2016-09-28, 05:34 PM

Whirlwind Attack is not the 'Make an attack' action. 'Make an attack' has a target. Whirlwind Attack does not. It's an ability that grants you the ability to make attacks. When you make those attacks, you choose target(s). When you take the WA action there's no targeting involved.

"Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure."

Ruslan

2016-09-28, 05:35 PM

"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."

Making an Attack:
"1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location."

Not sure where you're going with this, because that's exactly what I'm saying. WA has no targeting involved. It merely gives you the ability to <do something>, in this case attack. When you attack, THEN you choose targets. QED.

Reosoul

2016-09-28, 06:19 PM

Thanks for digging up an answer from Mearls. I hadn't ran into this issue, and my gut said that a PC whirlwinding across the entire encounter sounded too dumb for the writers to have intended. RAW and RAI actually line up pretty well, once you're not searching for the most broken outcome of the use of Whirlwind.

Not sure where you're going with this, because that's exactly what I'm saying. WA has no targeting involved. It merely gives you the ability to <do something>, in this case attack. When you attack, THEN you choose targets. QED.

You must be a riot at parties.

They asked one of the developers, he lays out how it works, and you say he's wrong? You're taking death of the author a little too seriously.

SpawnOfMorbo

2016-09-28, 06:25 PM

In an effort to gain some insight into whether or not the change in wording for the new Ranger's Whirlwind Attack was indicative of an intentional change in use, I decided to join Twitter (shut up) and ask Mr. Mearls himself what the intended ruling was.

In brief:

Whirlwind Attack, in the revised UA Ranger article, now states that you make "melee attacks" against creatures within 5 feet of you when you use it. The wording of the ability is somewhat ambiguous. A conservative reading of the ability indicates that you are standing in a place, and you get to make one melee attack against each critter within 5 feet of your current position. A more liberal interpretation draws on the language of the Attack action in the PHB; specifically the part where you can, if you are allowed to make multiple attacks, use part or all of your movement for the round in between them. Applying this to the Whirlwind Attack, it suggests that you may be able to attack a mook within 5 feet of you, move to a space where you would be within 5 feet of another baddie, and attack him as well. The two attacks are legal so long as none of your attacks are made against dudes that are more than 5 feet away from you at the time you actually make the attack.

"Attack" is starting to sound funny in my head, but I'm trying to be very precise in the language here.

Anyway, I asked Mr. Mearls this question:

And his reply (very timely, might I add!) was this:

So, it seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. You determine/declare your targets when you say, "I am using Whirlwind Attack," and you may only make attacks against those targets. You may move between them, such as shifting 5 feet here or there to get a better position, but you may not zip around and attack dudes that were outside your 5-foot reach at the time of declaration.

This is, of course, open to change in your own games, but I think it's good to finally get some confirmation from the designers on exactly how this ability is meant to be interpreted.

Okey-doke, discuss! Or argue, as we tend to do around here...

EDIT

https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/781241597413306368

Link to Mr. Mearls' reply.

Is it broken to let Whirlwind target each creature you move next to when you use Whirlwind? No, no it's not.

That's all I care about, hell, I wouldn't trust Mike Mearles to explain how to escape from a wet paper bag.

Erys

2016-09-28, 06:32 PM

Not sure where you're going with this, because that's exactly what I'm saying. WA has no targeting involved. It merely gives you the ability to <do something>, in this case attack. When you attack, THEN you choose targets. QED.

Seems a little contradictory.

Whirlwind attack lets you use you action to make an Attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet. Seems you would need to pick targets first, like any other Attack.

Thanks for digging up an answer from Mearls. I hadn't ran into this issue, and my gut said that a PC whirlwinding across the entire encounter sounded too dumb for the writers to have intended. RAW and RAI actually line up pretty well, once you're not searching for the most broken outcome of the use of Whirlwind.

Same.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-28, 06:52 PM

Whirlwind Attack is not the 'Make an attack' action. 'Make an attack' has a target. Whirlwind Attack does not. It's an ability that grants you the ability to make attacks.

You just seem to be difficult for the sake of being difficult.

You're trying to argue that WA is an ability that grants you attacks, but it is has no targets.... And I'm the one being difficult?

Did I say that your comment was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard? I'm sorry, I was wrong. You just topped it.

And once again, you parse and lawyerize until you can't see the forest for the trees.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-28, 07:37 PM

It was instantly obvious that this answer wouldn't satisfy anyone who strongly favours the new liberal interpretation. They can just go, "Of course I'll declare my targets when I use the action, my targets are this-and-that, and I'll move thus-and-so to be within 5' of each one in turn." The answer doesn't contradict that. It's perfectly in line with the permission slip model: requirements only need to be met on execution, not on declaration.

I'm not declaring incompetence as others are, but I'll say clarity isn't on their list of priorities.

tkuremento

2016-09-28, 08:05 PM

Is it broken to let Whirlwind target each creature you move next to when you use Whirlwind? No, no it's not.

That's all I care about, hell, I wouldn't trust Mike Mearles to explain how to escape from a wet paper bag.

With Mobile and 30 base ft becoming 40 feet, if everyone is lined up perfectly that could be 24 attacks. And by having Mobile you can't provoke opportunity even if you don't hit, so you can just do it. It could be even more attacks if certain factors are in place and you buff certain ways but I just figured I'd go with attackable spaces that don't block your movement.

lunaticfringe

2016-09-28, 08:12 PM

Theodoxus

2016-09-28, 08:22 PM

Wow, I haven't heard such lawyering in a long time.

So, the ability requires you to have targets within 5' of you when you activate it. You certainly can't declare the 2 kobolds adjacent to you, AND the bugbear 15' away, in the hopes of rushing over to said b-bear and giving it a b-down.

When you decide to use WA, because it has ATTACK in the freakin' name, it follows every other attack action in the game: designating targets.

So, you can only hit targets that start 5' from you, you can move between attacks (though I don't know why you would), but can still only WA the ones that originally started 5' from you, and can not declare new targets once the action has begun.

How is this not cut and dry again?

I think everyone wants it to be like the Diablo Barbarian, all the while forgetting they're not playing a freakin' barbarian!

Reosoul

2016-09-28, 08:27 PM

So, you can only hit targets that start 5' from you, you can move between attacks (though I don't know why you would), but can still only WA the ones that originally started 5' from you, and can not declare new targets once the action has begun.

The reason why some might want to move between attacks is that some parties are horribly masochistic and like the variant flanking rules, where flanking an opponent grants certain advantages. You can move and flank targets as you attack. The reason this is masochistic is that monsters tend to swarm a lot harder than the PC's in 5e, and the PC's end up getting the short end of the stick most of the time.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-28, 08:28 PM

Tanarii

2016-09-28, 08:29 PM

*reads OP*
Nice! At least we can finally put this issue to re...

*read thread*
Oh goddamn it.

Edit: actually, what I'd really be interested in is how Mearls thinks Whirlwind is balanced. How many targets does he expect it to need to hit with Shortsword, with Rapier, and with Str-build 2H Greatsword attacks for it to be balanced, in his mind? And how likely does he think that is to happen, ie with what frequency?

LordVonDerp

2016-09-28, 08:52 PM

tkuremento

2016-09-28, 09:04 PM

The odds of there being that many enemies lined up like that are about the same as the odds of 4+ enemies being within 5 ft of a ranger. So yes, if you really stretch a situation then the movement option can be somewhat powerful, just like it can make the non movement option a better choice than a normal attack, but neither of those situTions will actually come up in play.

I know it was a stretch, it was just how many squares you could attack with no one in your way and moving in a straight line with 40 ft, assuming all squares were filled. People could stretch it and stretch it if they said there were so many PC characters giving X and Y as a buffs, etc. Still though you could more realistically attack two dudes and move and attack two more dudes. That is more attacks than a fighter of equal level, though they can hit the same target with their three attacks and don't need 4 guys to be present. I mean it isn't overly OP to allow the movement but it just seems obvious to me that the movement aspect is nonexistent. I think of Link's spin attack personally, though I know there is one of the LoZ games that he has decent movement during it I think.

JumboWheat01

2016-09-28, 09:17 PM

I know it was a stretch, it was just how many squares you could attack with no one in your way and moving in a straight line with 40 ft, assuming all squares were filled. People could stretch it and stretch it if they said there were so many PC characters giving X and Y as a buffs, etc. Still though you could more realistically attack two dudes and move and attack two more dudes. That is more attacks than a fighter of equal level, though they can hit the same target with their three attacks and don't need 4 guys to be present. I mean it isn't overly OP to allow the movement but it just seems obvious to me that the movement aspect is nonexistent. I think of Link's spin attack personally, though I know there is one of the LoZ games that he has decent movement during it I think.

You're probably thinking of Wind Waker's Hurricane Spin. Lawn mower extraordinaire, but worthless for combat, as noted here, you just don't get enemies lined up good enough for that. Plus the parry mechanic is godly.

tkuremento

2016-09-28, 09:21 PM

You're probably thinking of Wind Waker's Hurricane Spin. Lawn mower extraordinaire, but worthless for combat, as noted here, you just don't get enemies lined up good enough for that. Plus the parry mechanic is godly.

Yes, thank you! It was going to slowly eat me inside out until I figured out which game it was or if when I looked at a video from one gave if the person had the upgrade yet or not, etc.

MeeposFire

2016-09-28, 09:34 PM

With Mobile and 30 base ft becoming 40 feet, if everyone is lined up perfectly that could be 24 attacks. And by having Mobile you can't provoke opportunity even if you don't hit, so you can just do it. It could be even more attacks if certain factors are in place and you buff certain ways but I just figured I'd go with attackable spaces that don't block your movement.

And yet with 24 attacks the ability is still pretty weak (though of course very impressive in its own way) as it is 24 attacks against 24 different targets. Unless you are fighting hilariously weak creatures one attack will not break the encounter and if they are that weak congrats you made the ranger feel really cool in this fight and it will likely not come up again. Also if we are going to point out the crazier situations you could have 24 pixies around you with the current whirlwind attack though of course it is less likely but it is possible.

Remember that for a ranger in order to make whirlwind attack worth it you need a minimum of three targets within range or else you might as well just use an attack action and be ahead of the game. If you two weapon fight or use something like polearm mastery you need 4 targets in range. How often does that happen? In my experience not enough to make whirlwind attack to be much more than a ribbon but this ability is not supposed to be that useless it is supposed to be in the same range as things such as improved smite and extra attack for a third attack.

I understand from a rules standpoint if you want to say whirlwind attack does not work with moving all over the place and attack all sorts of targets but from a balance perspective that one is closer to what it should be than the mostly immobile whirlwind attack. Heck I take volley with my melee primary ranger because I find that I use it more especially in ambushes than I ever get value out of whirlwind attack and that should not be true.

Theodoxus

2016-09-28, 09:39 PM

Feel free to join the discussion on whether two-weapon fighting requires you to hold the offhand weapon when you take the attack action.

Ah yes, the age old 'it's what the rules say, don't bring realistic concepts into my dice game. I don't care if it breaks verisimilitude or not - the devs were smoking when they wrote the rule, but that's the rule.' Yeah, I don't play that game very well, sorry. If you want to name the style "sometimes you have two weapons, sometimes you only have one, but it doesn't matter either way, you're still rolling twice" have a nut. Me, I take the stance that if something calls out something specific (Two-weapons in this case) then you need to wield two weapons to use it. YMMV, have a ball.

Kane0

2016-09-28, 09:55 PM

It's funny, back in the 3.X days people used to get all up in arms about being able to move AND full attack.
Now in 5e everybody can do that all the time, but now moving while attacking everyone adjacent to you once has become a big deal.

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Specter

2016-09-28, 10:05 PM

Is it just me or did this clarification clarify nothing? Apparently they have to shoot a video of it or something.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-28, 10:11 PM

Ah yes, the age old 'it's what the rules say, don't bring realistic concepts into my dice game. I don't care if it breaks verisimilitude or not - the devs were smoking when they wrote the rule, but that's the rule.' Yeah, I don't play that game very well, sorry. If you want to name the style "sometimes you have two weapons, sometimes you only have one, but it doesn't matter either way, you're still rolling twice" have a nut. Me, I take the stance that if something calls out something specific (Two-weapons in this case) then you need to wield two weapons to use it. YMMV, have a ball.

To clarify, you and I seem to have the same view of rules that suggest midnight toking, but it's probably a wise decision not to get into discussions about it.

SpawnOfMorbo

2016-09-28, 10:34 PM

Tanarii

2016-09-28, 10:48 PM

I really wouldn't put too much thought into how Mearles thinks, especially on game balance, he wouldn't know balance if Maria Spelterini was right in front of him.
I do t have a high opinion of his approach to designing, or for that matter explaining, rules either. I'd rather get JC's input. But since he appears to be the one behind the UA ranger tweak, I'd like to know his thoughts on the matter. Is whirlwind intended to be a regularly used combat ability for melee Hunter Rangers, or a nice occasional buff.

For example, I wouldn't be surprised to find out he thinks it's supposed to allow a TFW Hunter Ranger to make his bonus action off-hand attack when using Whirwind. If that were the case, then it'd be a valid option to consider any time you're adjacent to three enemies, TWF or not.

Arkhios

2016-09-29, 12:10 AM

MeeposFire

2016-09-29, 12:46 AM

Ok, so... If a ranger with Mobile could make 24 attacks with a rapier or greatsword, for example, how about with reach weapon?
I'm AFB, but I don't recall WA having a reach limit of any kind (except that of the weapon).

If WA would allow attacks being spread out during your movement, wouldn't that multiply the potential targets quite remarkably, making reach weapons absolutely broken for WA?

Reach weapons do not help at all with WA as it specifies 5 foot range.

Even so adding more targets helps make it useful remember what is normally powerful is to do a lot of damage to one target rather than weak damage to a bunch. Full HP or 1 HP is essentially the same in terms of effectiveness and WA does not allow a ranger to deal a lot of damage to any given target. Combine that with its standard limitations on who you can use it against (5 feet upon initiation) and essentially you almost never use it as your attack action will be as good or better. That is pretty sad for a level 11 feature.

The problem with this idea is not really power related. Being able to hit a bunch of enemies for slight damage can be situationally useful but unlikely to be encounter breaking, however the real issue is that it will essentially turn the ranger into a whirling dervish as your party could well be tempted to build around the strategy (WA then use a bunch of other AOE on them like the old 4e sorc and monk combo). While this is cool I do not think it is supposed to define the fighting strategy of the ranger that much.

If they want WA to be useful but not used all the time by making it THAT useful then they really need to beef up the damage on each attack used with it or something similar. WA needs to be better than your attack action (with or without bonus action attacks) whenever you have several enemies near (and not just when you are completely surrounded because that is way too situational).

Lollerabe

2016-09-29, 06:00 AM

Can someone help me out here, if RAI is as Mike M tweeted then WW is the same as in the PHB right? Pretty trash tier, if you are a TWF ranger with hordebreaker you still need 4+ enemies for it to be interresting no?

Isidorios

2016-09-29, 06:10 AM

Is it broken to let Whirlwind target each creature you move next to when you use Whirlwind? No, no it's not.

Yes yet it is, it was always "broken" to interpret the ability in such an advantageous manner, all the Munchkins dreaming of whipping around in their Boots of Speed stabbing the entire cave-chamber are just going to have to get over it.

(edit) "I take my Rogue bonus action to disengage, and with my boots of speed, I start along this course (like Billy from Family Circus) now the rest of you might as well go use the restroom while I use my Ranger whirlwind to attack 24 times against this mob of orcs."

Nah, it was never going to pan out that way kids.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-29, 06:12 AM

Can someone help me out here, if RAI is as Mike M tweeted then WW is the same as in the PHB right?

Yeah.
It's almost as if the change in verbiage were a completely unintentional minor editing error and that nothing had changed at all.

...
...
...

Exactly like I've been saying since the darn thing was published.

Isidorios

2016-09-29, 06:17 AM

Exactly like I've been saying since the darn thing was published.

Yes, that's how reasonable people who aren't trying to "win" D&D saw it from the beginning.

Lollerabe

2016-09-29, 06:54 AM

Oh I never thought the 'hit 24 people with WW' was an intended change of wording. I just thought it was strange that it wasent changed somehow - seeing as the ability is rather lackluster, I guess the overall buffing of the revised ranger makes up for that though.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-29, 06:55 AM

Yes yet it is, it was always "broken" to interpret the ability in such an advantageous manner, all the Munchkins dreaming of whipping around in their Boots of Speed stabbing the entire cave-chamber are just going to have to get over it.

(edit) "I take my Rogue bonus action to disengage, and with my boots of speed, I start along this course (like Billy from Family Circus) now the rest of you might as well go use the restroom while I use my Ranger whirlwind to attack 24 times against this mob of orcs."

Nah, it was never going to pan out that way kids.
Nope, as I pointed out earlier, there's no way you could WW 24 enemies in a real game, even with mobility and no OAs. How often does a line of 24 enemies show up in a real game? Probably about as often as 3+ enemies surrounding a single player, or only if you specifically rig the situation to make WW more useful than normal.

Compare a non-moving WW with Volley, which lets you attack more targets, more accurately, for more damage, without endangering yourself.

R.Shackleford

2016-09-29, 07:00 AM

Yes yet it is, it was always "broken" to interpret the ability in such an advantageous manner, all the Munchkins dreaming of whipping around in their Boots of Speed stabbing the entire cave-chamber are just going to have to get over it.

(edit) "I take my Rogue bonus action to disengage, and with my boots of speed, I start along this course (like Billy from Family Circus) now the rest of you might as well go use the restroom while I use my Ranger whirlwind to attack 24 times against this mob of orcs."

Nah, it was never going to pan out that way kids.

Weapon Damage isn't broken. It never had been.

You.could do 300 points of damage per round and it is always able to be mitigated. Which is why in each edition of D&D big old scary numbers for damage (so spooky!) has never really been broken.

Moveable Whirlwind has never been broken. If you can't deal with it as a DM then you are just lazy.

Anyone who thinks moveable Whirlwind is broken need to actually play the game with it instead of practicing in the white room.

DwarvenGM

2016-09-29, 07:08 AM

Thank you ZX6Rob It's nice to have an official answer.

Though I new when I first saw the topic people would still be fighting against it. Honestly in a hobby that attracts creative freethinkers it's really no surprise at all when they view rules in a creative manner. Thankfully we can all run games as we wish at our table, the only thing this ruling does for me is gives me another resource when my min maxer player tries to argue .

Lollerabe

2016-09-29, 07:25 AM

The strange part for me is just that they left it as it was - which is pretty garbage. At the very least the movement between WW attacks opened up for some creative builds and/or ways to utilize the feature. If the 'hitting 345345 creatures' is what scared them they could've just put a cap on. 'You can't attack more than X targets with this feature' or whatever.

hymer

2016-09-29, 08:06 AM

Is it just me or did this clarification clarify nothing? Apparently they have to shoot a video of it or something.

That's the feeling I was left with, too.

Gwendol

2016-09-29, 09:12 AM

"Determine targets when using the action" isn't a very clear statement when coupled with "you can move".

Can you have a 5' conga line of targets?

georgie_leech

2016-09-29, 09:29 AM

Yeah.
It's almost as if the change in verbiage were a completely unintentional minor editing error and that nothing had changed at all.

...
...
...

Exactly like I've been saying since the darn thing was published.

Quibble, it also changes whether certain features enhance the whole WA, or just the first attack of the lot. IIRC there were a couple of really weird ones. Like, as awesome as the image of a Shadow Monk Hunter teleporting into the midst of a group of enemies and WAing with advantage against everyone is, it's stretching the benefit out further than was likely intended. Even if it didn't clarify very well on the number of attacks (and I'm one who interpreted it as not allowing a roving circle of attacks as well), the new wording at least puts that other debate to rest.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-29, 09:38 AM

"Determine targets when using the action" isn't a very clear statement when coupled with "you can move".

Can you have a 5' conga line of targets?

He's saying that you choose the targets within 5' of you when you activate it. You can move if you want to (for some weird reason), but your targets are still those same ones that you had when you activated it.
You can't prance around the battlefield hitting everything that ends up within your 5' reach.

Is still a 5' AoE melee burst.

If you don't believe me, just wait for an answer. (https://mobile.twitter.com/calebrus44/status/781506911904600064)

N810

2016-09-29, 09:50 AM

P = player

M = monsters

MMM
MPM <- you may attack up to 8 monsters standing in any of these positions.
MMM

you may move between attacks if desired.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-29, 09:55 AM

The above is correct.

JumboWheat01

2016-09-29, 10:03 AM

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.

Just re-read this thing for a good few more times, and you know, the way I'm reading that, is it doesn't matter if you can move between attacks, as you're not using your Action for the Attack Action, which you have two attacks and can move between. You're taking your Action on the Whirlwind Attack Action, where you do a spin attack and slash things around you. After you take the Whirlwind Attack Action, there are no further attacks to be had, so any movement is to... well.. move, not attack.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-29, 10:23 AM

is it doesn't matter if you can move between attacks, as you're not using your Action for the Attack Action, which you have two attacks and can move between. You can move between attacks that any action includes, not just the Attack action.

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.

Gwendol

2016-09-29, 10:24 AM

Just re-read this thing for a good few more times, and you know, the way I'm reading that, is it doesn't matter if you can move between attacks, as you're not using your Action for the Attack Action, which you have two attacks and can move between. You're taking your Action on the Whirlwind Attack Action, where you do a spin attack and slash things around you. After you take the Whirlwind Attack Action, there are no further attacks to be had, so any movement is to... well.. move, not attack.

Moving between attacks isn't linked to the attack action, so not sure what line of thought you are trying to promote?

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.

That you can move between the attacks shouldn't even be debated as that is without question true. The question is if all targets have to be within 5' at the start of the first attack, a 5' conga line, or something else? Also if a reach weapon will expand this to 10'?
It looks like we will end up with the first alternative, but that is so weak it's hardly worth it.

tkuremento

2016-09-29, 10:33 AM

You can move between attacks that any action includes, not just the Attack action.

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.

Wait, so then if I have a sling and some Magic Stones with an extra attack, can I move between attacks or not?

Gwendol

2016-09-29, 10:44 AM

No, because Magic Stone makes it a spell attack even when using a sling. If that is intentional or no I can't tell.

tieren

2016-09-29, 10:45 AM

P = player

M = monsters

MMM
MPM <- you may attack up to 8 monsters standing in any of these positions.
MMM

you may move between attacks if desired.

But consider:
O = empty space
underline is a wall

OMMMO
OOOOO
OMPMO
OMMMO
OOOOO

Player can hit the 2 monsters next to him then run around the wall and hit the 3 that were behind it but within 5 feet of him when he started, but he can not choose instead to take a step and hit the 3 who were right in front of him but 10 feet away at the start. it doesn't make much logical sense.

N810

2016-09-29, 10:54 AM

pretty much.

but you could hit enemies as you went around the wall ending up in front of the top 3 monsters.
X= MONSTER ATTACKED

OMMMO
OOOOO
OMPMO
OMMMO

OMMMO
OOOOP
OMOXO
OMMMO

OMMMO
OOOOO
OMOXO
OMMXP

OMMMO
OOOOO
OMOXO
OMXXO
OP

OMMMO
OOOOO
PMOXO
OXXXO

OMMMO
OPOOO
OXOXO
OXXXO

OMMMO
OOPOO
OXOXO
OXXXO

Of course that depends on whether your DM lets you hit the 3 on the other side of the wall or not.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-29, 11:08 AM

But consider:
O = empty space
underline is a wall

OMMMO
OOOOO
OMPMO
OMMMO
OOOOO

Player can hit the 2 monsters next to him then run around the wall and hit the 3 that were behind it but within 5 feet of him when he started, but he can not choose instead to take a step and hit the 3 who were right in front of him but 10 feet away at the start. it doesn't make much logical sense.

This is basically the same lack of distinction between "within range" and "reachable" that leads to strange things in special situations involving opportunity attacks. Maybe "within 5 feet" should just be read to imply "and reachable".

N810

2016-09-29, 11:31 AM

On second though.... Most DM's will make their walls at least 5' thick for convince...
So this scenario is unlikely to come up.

Shining Wrath

2016-09-29, 12:00 PM

With Mobile and 30 base ft becoming 40 feet, if everyone is lined up perfectly that could be 24 attacks. And by having Mobile you can't provoke opportunity even if you don't hit, so you can just do it. It could be even more attacks if certain factors are in place and you buff certain ways but I just figured I'd go with attackable spaces that don't block your movement.

We're talking Rangers here. Rangers get Dash as a bonus action at level 8, 3 levels before they could choose Whirlwind Attack. If you're using Whirlwind Attack you don't need your bonus action for a TWF attack, and you probably don't have an urgent need to switch Hunter's Mark around or some other use of your bonus action. So we should figure base is 60' movement, 70' for the common wood elf racial choice, and if you are building your character around the liberal interpretation of Whirlwind, both the Mobile feat and Monk / Barbarian dips might come into play.

I'd use 70' of movement as a benchmark, although a ranger's move with Dash could plausibly be greater. Also, even without Mobile, Escape The Horde plus a good AC (20 Dex, studded leather, shield = 19) can make receiving 10 opportunity attacks worth the trade if you're going to hit 7 out of 10 foes - especially if some of them are concentrating on something.

Is it broken? Given Mobile, probably. In lots of plausible encounters a Ranger with Mobile could turn this into an at-will attack on every enemy on the battlefield. Would a version of Chain Lightning that let a wizard do 1d8 + 5 to every enemy on the battlefield be too strong for a cantrip?

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-29, 12:03 PM

JumboWheat01

2016-09-29, 12:09 PM

So it's a good ol' fashioned Spin Attack. Nothin' wrong with that.

ZX6Rob

2016-09-29, 12:14 PM

He's saying that you choose the targets within 5' of you when you activate it. You can move if you want to (for some weird reason), but your targets are still those same ones that you had when you activated it.
You can't prance around the battlefield hitting everything that ends up within your 5' reach.

Is still a 5' AoE melee burst.

If you don't believe me, just wait for an answer. (https://mobile.twitter.com/calebrus44/status/781506911904600064)

There it is, folks. It's a 5-foot AOE Burst, you can move around when you do it, but the only dudes you can attack are the ones of which you started out within 5 feet.

You cannot zip around the battlefield and attack everyone who ends up at some point being within 5 feet of you.

You are welcome to change it to allow you to target additional creatures beyond those that are within 5 feet of your starting point, but that isn't how the ability is meant to work as it's written.

Gwendol

2016-09-29, 12:48 PM

Quite right. Although as noted it can lead to some odd corner cases: the wall may not be a good example, but a bar fence could be.

JumboWheat01

2016-09-29, 12:49 PM

Then teach that fence a lesson for getting in your way when you do your Whirlwind Attack. We won't cotton to no snarky barriers around here!

tkuremento

2016-09-29, 01:08 PM

No, because Magic Stone makes it a spell attack even when using a sling. If that is intentional or no I can't tell.

Yea that seems absurd, "I sling and move all the time but these magical rocks, can't move, must sling from the same spot"

Gwendol

2016-09-29, 01:31 PM

I agree, and suspect many DM's would rule you can.

Waffle_Iron

2016-09-29, 01:34 PM

Answered.
True.
Debate over.

Aw, that's cute. :) You think people care about what MM says.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-29, 01:48 PM

Aw, that's cute. :) You think people care about what MM says.

I think it's pertinent when he or JC makes it clear what the intent was, yes indeed.

Waffle_Iron

2016-09-29, 01:55 PM

I think it's pertinent when he or JC makes it clear what the intent was, yes indeed.

My observation is that you do not think it's pertinent. My observation is that you think it's debate ending.

"Debate ending" implies final authority.
I do not recognize MM as a final authority. His track record is grossly inadequate for that.

JumboWheat01

2016-09-29, 02:20 PM

My observation is that you do not think it's pertinent. My observation is that you think it's debate ending.

"Debate ending" implies final authority.
I do not recognize MM as a final authority. His track record is grossly inadequate for that.

Then you rule your way, Zero will rule their way, and my DM willl rule as Rule of Cool demands. Everyone wins! YAY!

Talderas

2016-09-29, 03:21 PM

You can move between attacks that any action includes, not just the Attack action.

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.

Weapon attacks so no moving between attack rolls from eldritch blast or another spell for an example, and to cue an argument.... you can't move between the attacks when using your unarmed attacks because they are explicitly called out as unarmed attacks and not weapon attacks and the rule only permits you to move between weapon attacks.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-29, 03:22 PM

My observation is that you do not think it's pertinent. My observation is that you think it's debate ending.

"Debate ending" implies final authority.
I do not recognize MM as a final authority. His track record is grossly inadequate for that.

It is debate ending.
JC ruled on the pre-reviwed version.
MM ruled in the post-reviewed version. he happens to be the one that designed the reviewed version.
Both rulings are the same.
The ability hasn't changed.
Debate over.

Shining Wrath

2016-09-29, 04:20 PM

The ability to attack everyone adjacent to your space, at-will, is nothing to sneeze at. The "melee holds the door" scenario is far from unheard of.

Gwendol

2016-09-29, 04:43 PM

The ability to attack everyone adjacent to your space, at-will, is nothing to sneeze at. The "melee holds the door" scenario is far from unheard of.

Correct, but a fighter with a polearm and tunnel fighter will do it so much better.

Shining Wrath

2016-09-29, 05:23 PM

Correct, but a fighter with a polearm and tunnel fighter will do it so much better.

Not every party has every possible class / equipment combination. This allows a melee ranger to do a good job of "blocking choke point while inflicting decent damage". And since it seems Whirlwind Attack is essentially unchanged from the PHB, this doesn't rely on possibly-never-going-to-be-official UA like Tunnel Fighter.

Theodoxus

2016-09-29, 05:26 PM

Correct, but a fighter with a polearm and tunnel fighter will do it so much better.

But a ranger with PAM and Sentinel will do it even better. Anything that gets through his spikiness gets whirlwind. Sure, it's a bit more feat taxing than a fighter, given 1 fewer feats by 11th, but nothing states they can't do it...

LordVonDerp

2016-09-29, 05:45 PM

The ability to attack everyone adjacent to your space, at-will, is nothing to sneeze at. The "melee holds the door" scenario is far from unheard of.
If you're holding a door than only up to 3 enemies can be within 5 ft of you, but if you're a melee ranger than you can already make 3 attacks per round anyway.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-29, 05:47 PM

It is debate ending.
JC ruled on the pre-reviwed version.
MM ruled in the post-reviewed version. he happens to be the one that designed the reviewed version.
Both rulings are the same.
The ability hasn't changed.
Debate over.
The debate doesn't end until you get one of them to explicitly state that Whirlwind Attack is supposed to be a ribbon/useless. Until that time we must assume that it was intended to actually see use.

MeeposFire

2016-09-29, 07:43 PM

We're talking Rangers here. Rangers get Dash as a bonus action at level 8, 3 levels before they could choose Whirlwind Attack. If you're using Whirlwind Attack you don't need your bonus action for a TWF attack, and you probably don't have an urgent need to switch Hunter's Mark around or some other use of your bonus action. So we should figure base is 60' movement, 70' for the common wood elf racial choice, and if you are building your character around the liberal interpretation of Whirlwind, both the Mobile feat and Monk / Barbarian dips might come into play.

I'd use 70' of movement as a benchmark, although a ranger's move with Dash could plausibly be greater. Also, even without Mobile, Escape The Horde plus a good AC (20 Dex, studded leather, shield = 19) can make receiving 10 opportunity attacks worth the trade if you're going to hit 7 out of 10 foes - especially if some of them are concentrating on something.

Is it broken? Given Mobile, probably. In lots of plausible encounters a Ranger with Mobile could turn this into an at-will attack on every enemy on the battlefield. Would a version of Chain Lightning that let a wizard do 1d8 + 5 to every enemy on the battlefield be too strong for a cantrip?

Honestly I would probably take it but I am not sure how much I would get to use it. 1d8+5 is a pittance of damage at level 11. Also remember that you also need to put yourself into a vulnerable position to use it and you need to take a feat or you will be killed by opportunity attacks.

Would you spend a feat, put yourself in danger, and deal only small damage just so you can target a large number of enemies with one kind of attack only? Most of the time you can get much more by using standard spells which do require slots but actually can affect the outcome of a fight in a significant way.

Tanarii

2016-09-29, 09:02 PM

But a ranger with PAM and Sentinel will do it even better. Anything that gets through his spikiness gets whirlwind. Sure, it's a bit more feat taxing than a fighter, given 1 fewer feats by 11th, but nothing states they can't do it...seems like a ranger with GWM / Greatsword is the way to go for a Whirlwind ranger. Still get to use your bonus action if you drop an enemy, and each individual attack does a lot more damage than TWF. And you're not using reach anyway.

Combine with a warlock with Repelling and a Druid with thorn whip to maneuver enemies into position.

Specter

2016-09-29, 10:59 PM

Things I think you need to make WA work:

- Mobile: Get in and get out.
- Fighter 2: ActionSurge for two whirlwinds.
- A fighting style to add damage (Dueling or GWF)
- War Cleric 1: Divine Favor for an extra 1d4 to all folks (much better than Hunter's Mark)
- Horde Breaker (one more tap)

Assuming longsword and shield, a Ranger 11/Fighter 2/Cleric 1 could score 1d8+1d4+2+4+5 (avg19) against a circle of favored enemies, twice. After that, hit one of them again. Sweet.

Kane0

2016-09-29, 11:25 PM

Well, my group will still be using the good ol' Blender Ranger interpretation regardless. Swords for everyone! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6femF3zHbtA)

Theodoxus

2016-09-29, 11:27 PM

seems like a ranger with GWM / Greatsword is the way to go for a Whirlwind ranger. Still get to use your bonus action if you drop an enemy, and each individual attack does a lot more damage than TWF. And you're not using reach anyway.

Combine with a warlock with Repelling and a Druid with thorn whip to maneuver enemies into position.

Eh, maybe. But reach weapons don't force you to use the reach property. You can grab GWM and PAM and still have all the benefit of attacking them at 10' out, until they swarm you, then you WA the lot - getting your bonus action attack if you crit/KO an opponent...

Isidorios

2016-09-29, 11:53 PM

The debate doesn't end until you get one of them to explicitly state that Whirlwind Attack is supposed to be a ribbon/useless. Until that time we must assume that it was intended to actually see use.

You can assert that your farts smell like peaches until your cat tells you otherwise, if it pleases you.
It's been clarified for AL play. Neither myself, MM or anyone one else cares what you or your DM allow in your game or theory-craft.
It's rather pointless to argue about what rules are allowed in your home-game, since whatever you want is allowed.
Just realize you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to AL play or a new DM who plays by the official rules.
Yes, you can pout about it.

Zalabim

2016-09-30, 04:04 AM

Weapon attacks so no moving between attack rolls from eldritch blast or another spell for an example, and to cue an argument.... you can't move between the attacks when using your unarmed attacks because they are explicitly called out as unarmed attacks and not weapon attacks and the rule only permits you to move between weapon attacks.
Not an argument, but you can use unarmed strikes to make melee weapon attacks when you don't have a weapon. It's been clarified plentifully in sage advice articles.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-30, 07:20 AM

You can assert that your farts smell like peaches until your cat tells you otherwise, if it pleases you.

Irrelevant nonsense.

It's been clarified for AL play. Neither myself, MM or anyone one else cares what you or your DM allow in your game or theory-craft.

And no one cares about yours either. Until you can prove that WW isn't intended to be useful, we must assume that it is.

It's rather pointless to argue about what rules are allowed in your home-game, since whatever you want is allowed.

Then why do you continue to do so?

Just realize you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to AL play or a new DM who plays by the official rules.
Yes, you can pout about it.
I have done nothing but state the facts of the case, it seems you have a problem with that.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-30, 07:46 AM

His point is that he doesn't care if you personally and subjectively believe that it's useless.
The ability is what the ability is.

RickAllison

2016-09-30, 07:51 AM

Mobile+WW is still remakably effective. Go from being surrounded by enemies to attacking them all and effectively Disengaging.

Strill

2016-10-11, 02:11 AM

So it's a good ol' fashioned Spin Attack. Nothin' wrong with that.

Except that it's much worse than Volley.

Arkhios

2016-10-11, 05:14 AM

Yeah, sure. In a 15x15 ft. Square area there are always nine targets for Volley, and eight targets for Whirlwind Attack. No exceptions, no way!

Seriously, even the DMG's monster customization and average area damage calculation method assumes that a area damage ability assumedly hits TWO targets.
In that perspective Whirlwind Attack and Volley are perfectly in balance, any potential leftover be damned.

Strill

2016-10-11, 05:46 AM

Yeah, sure. In a 15x15 ft. Square area there are always nine targets for Volley, and eight targets for Whirlwind Attack. No exceptions, no way!Volley hits more than a 15x15 square (http://www.superdan.net/gaming/dnd3/spellar/images/rad10.gif). That's one reason why it's so much better.

Volley: Hits 12 tiles
Whirlwind: Hits 8 tiles

Volley: Can be placed anywhere within longbow range
Whirlwind: Can only be placed point-blank, even if you have a reach weapon.

Seriously, even the DMG's monster customization and average area damage calculation method assumes that a area damage ability assumedly hits TWO targets.
In that perspective Whirlwind Attack and Volley are perfectly in balance, any potential leftover be damned.

If Whirlwind or Volley hits only 2 targets, they're worse than Extra attack, and therefore useless. You need at least 3 targets before they're even worth considering.

Arkhios

2016-10-11, 07:28 AM

Volley hits more than a 15x15 square (http://www.superdan.net/gaming/dnd3/spellar/images/rad10.gif). That's one reason why it's so much better.

Volley: Hits 12 tiles
Whirlwind: Hits 8 tiles

Volley: Can be placed anywhere within longbow range
Whirlwind: Can only be placed point-blank, even if you have a reach weapon.

12 tiles, 9 tiles... that's besides the point. It's just not likely that in all those tiles there's always a one creature in one tile.

If Whirlwind or Volley hits only 2 targets, they're worse than Extra attack, and therefore useless. You need at least 3 targets before they're even worth considering.

it doesn't really matter whether the area is 12 or 8 tiles if targets are spread wide. (seriously, when have you seen creatures stacked up into 12 tiles side by side? It's more than likely that you'll hit more or less equal amount of targets as a whirlwind attack would in 8 tiles.

And more to the point. 2 or 3 targets. Big deal. it's still more than likely than to have all 12 or 8 targets. How much will attacking an empty tile help your damage? Nothing.

Tanarii

2016-10-11, 11:53 AM

If Whirlwind or Volley hits only 2 targets, they're worse than Extra attack, and therefore useless. You need at least 3 targets before they're even worth considering.Size of the area affected aside, this is absolutely true. The DMG a guidelines for an area attack the size of volley is 2 targets, plus or minus 1d3, plus more if they're particularly bunched up. (Since 5e rules don't assume 'tiles', this is a potentially relevant number.)

Which comes back to my question: Do the designers assume this is a situation, that there will be 3+ targets available for Volley/Whirlwind, that will be the 'default' and come up frequently? Assuming the DMG guidelines are indicative of their thinking (dangerous!), the answer would be NO, they think it'll be an exceptional situation in which a Ranger suited for that particular style of combt would shine.

Strill

2016-10-11, 03:53 PM

12 tiles, 9 tiles... that's besides the point. It's just not likely that in all those tiles there's always a one creature in one tile.

it doesn't really matter whether the area is 12 or 8 tiles if targets are spread wide. (seriously, when have you seen creatures stacked up into 12 tiles side by side? It's more than likely that you'll hit more or less equal amount of targets as a whirlwind attack would in 8 tiles.

And more to the point. 2 or 3 targets. Big deal. it's still more than likely than to have all 12 or 8 targets. How much will attacking an empty tile help your damage? Nothing.

I never said that their areas will be completely covered in enemies and I don't know who you're trying to argue against.

Ruslan

2016-10-11, 05:21 PM

If Whirlwind or Volley hits only 2 targets, they're worse than Extra attack, and therefore useless. You need at least 3 targets before they're even worth considering.I would assert that even if they hit 3 targets they are still pretty much useless. Because it's an 11th level ability, damn it. And at the same level you could have been a Fighter and had 3 attacks naturally, without having to spread them between different enemies and without waiting for said enemies to align themselves into a proper configuration.

For Whirlwind Attack (and Volley) to be worthwhile, they should at least once in a while hit 4 targets or more. Now, Volley has a lot more chance to catch 4+ targets than WA (10' radius of any square vs. 5' radius of you), so I would assert that (if played by Mearls' rules), Volley is somewhat useful and WA is hardly useful at all.