Blood Wind x Great Cleave combo

[Jowgen]

So it has occured to me that the Blood Wind spell might possibly work in combo with Great Cleave, arguably better than a much similiar idea (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?278813-Bloodstorm-Blade-Cleave) with Bloodstorm blade.

The subject can take a full attack action to use all of its natural weapons or unarmed strikes as if they were thrown weapons with a 20-foot range increment. The subject gestures as if making a melee attack, but the result of the attack affects a target within range. This spell does not actually grant reach, and so does not help provide a flanking bonus or allow the subject to make attacks of opportunity at any range greater than normal. The subject uses its normal melee attack bonuses and deals damage normally if it hits, though the target of the attacks can benefit from cover or concealment

From Cleave, if you attack and cause enough damage to make a target "drop", "you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach".

Now at first glance it might not seem like the two work together. After all, doesn't Blood Wind make your attacks into thrown weapons -i.e. not melee- and Great Cleave requires you attack things within reach -i.e. which Blood Wind clearly doesn't give, right? Much the same issues as with Bloodstorm Blade, apparently.

I think there is more to it than that.

For one, looking at the spell, the fact that Blood Wind doesn't grant you reach is utterly inconsequential. Lots of spells don't grant you reach. It's a simple clarification, not an actual effect.

More importantly: you get to "use" (i.e. not a game term) US/NA "as if they were thrown weapons" with a range increment, but in actuality they are still melee weapons, and more importantly: you are still making a melee attack. The spell never states that you are making a ranged attack, and does state that you use melee attack bonus, anddeal normal (i.e. melee attack) damage. Your melee attack might be gaining certain qualities of a ranged attack (i.e. range increment), but it's never actually changed to one.

And most importantly, then there is this line: "The subject gestures as if making a melee attack, but the result of the attack affects a target within range."

I say: As long as the conditions to make a Great Cleave attack are met, you can "seemingly" exectue that attack against any creature within reach (even yourself), but thanks to blood wind have that (self-)attack actually affect whatever creature within the range increment that you choose.


I think it's a pretty solid argument. The spell changes the targeting mechanics of melee attacks just enough so that you can re-distribute your Cleaves within the range increment limit. It might seem a smidge counter-intituive at first when approached with Rule Lawyering-Weary eyes, but seems to check out. Plus, it makes perfect RAI sense as well, as far as I can tell.


So what are the actual applications/implications of this?

Well for one, assuming your attack bonus and minimum damage on a US/NA is sufficient, this can let you clear literal droves of mooks/commoners in a single turn. Lets say you're standing in a marketplace with literally hundreds of people within the max range (100 ft without range boosters) of your virtual thrown punches. You trigger blood wind, punch out one poor schmuck, and then the cleave chain begins to trigger until you come up against something more durable/harder to hit, or roll a nat 1. Then you move onto your second reiterative attack and it starts all over. By the end of your turn, you will have downed dozens of unsuspecting folks. Maybe even cleared the whole marketplace. Could be you choose to deal non-lethal damage, if you were feeling nice; or maybe you were going for a damn sick killstreak, I dunno.

Other than this kind of scenario featuring a load of targets weak enough to be downed with one hit, the Combo has little balance implication due to the limitation of Great Cleave. You get one extra attack per thing you down, so never more extra hits than you have downable targets available for, and in most scenarios that number will be pretty low. It's mainly a combo for fun.

So criticisms or ideas for further developments, anyone?

[AvatarVecna]

Any method of gaining extra attacks will be a good way of extending the combo out further - every base attack you get is another one that can potentially lead to a cleave. This is particularly good if that method can itself generate cleaves, forming a feedback loop. For example, however willing your DM is to allow Blood Wind + Great Cleave, they are probably less willing to allow Lightning Maces + Roundabout Kick via aptitude weapons. However, if you apply Blood Wind to unarmed strikes, US unambiguously works with both Great Cleave and Roundabout Kick. This is good, because a GC attack could crit (generating a RK attack), an RK attack could kill (generating a GC attack), and a crit on any attack could have decent odds of generating both, depending on what exactly you're attacking.

Any method of pumping damage would do you well, since Great Cleave (and thus Cleave) only trigger on a kill. Incidentally, because you can't move while using Cleave/Great Cleave, a method of free movement on a kill or crit or hit would be fantastic. Alternatively, you're going to want as much range and Line Of Sight as possible. There's a lot of obvious ways to extend range increment a great deal (up to and including "infinite") but you'll need to read very carefully.

The only other thing I'll say, which is applicable to Blood Wind, Great Cleave, and a lot of feats/enchantments/etc that affect thrown weapons in some capacity, is to pay careful attention to the difference between melee attack and melee weapon, the difference between ranged attack and ranged weapon...because they are not the same thing.

[Saintheart]

The only other thing I'll say, which is applicable to Blood Wind, Great Cleave, and a lot of feats/enchantments/etc that affect thrown weapons in some capacity, is to pay careful attention to the difference between melee attack and melee weapon, the difference between ranged attack and ranged weapon...because they are not the same thing.

Also see why Point Blank Shot by RAW applies to all the attack and damage rolls -- melee and ranged -- that you can make with a dagger.


So it has occured to me that the Blood Wind spell might possibly work in combo with Great Cleave, arguably better than a much similiar idea (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?278813-Bloodstorm-Blade-Cleave) with Bloodstorm blade.

The subject can take a full attack action to use all of its natural weapons or unarmed strikes as if they were thrown weapons with a 20-foot range increment. The subject gestures as if making a melee attack, but the result of the attack affects a target within range. This spell does not actually grant reach, and so does not help provide a flanking bonus or allow the subject to make attacks of opportunity at any range greater than normal. The subject uses its normal melee attack bonuses and deals damage normally if it hits, though the target of the attacks can benefit from cover or concealment

From Cleave, if you attack and cause enough damage to make a target "drop", "you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach".

Now at first glance it might not seem like the two work together. After all, doesn't Blood Wind make your attacks into thrown weapons -i.e. not melee- and Great Cleave requires you attack things within reach -i.e. which Blood Wind clearly doesn't give, right? Much the same issues as with Bloodstorm Blade, apparently.

I think there is more to it than that.

For one, looking at the spell, the fact that Blood Wind doesn't grant you reach is utterly inconsequential. Lots of spells don't grant you reach. It's a simple clarification, not an actual effect.

More importantly: you get to "use" (i.e. not a game term) US/NA "as if they were thrown weapons" with a range increment, but in actuality they are still melee weapons, and more importantly: you are still making a melee attack. The spell never states that you are making a ranged attack, and does state that you use melee attack bonus, anddeal normal (i.e. melee attack) damage. Your melee attack might be gaining certain qualities of a ranged attack (i.e. range increment), but it's never actually changed to one.

And most importantly, then there is this line: "The subject gestures as if making a melee attack, but the result of the attack affects a target within range."

I say: As long as the conditions to make a Great Cleave attack are met, you can "seemingly" exectue that attack against any creature within reach (even yourself), but thanks to blood wind have that (self-)attack actually affect whatever creature within the range increment that you choose.


I think it's a pretty solid argument. The spell changes the targeting mechanics of melee attacks just enough so that you can re-distribute your Cleaves within the range increment limit. It might seem a smidge counter-intituive at first when approached with Rule Lawyering-Weary eyes, but seems to check out. Plus, it makes perfect RAI sense as well, as far as I can tell.


So what are the actual applications/implications of this?

Well for one, assuming your attack bonus and minimum damage on a US/NA is sufficient, this can let you clear literal droves of mooks/commoners in a single turn. Lets say you're standing in a marketplace with literally hundreds of people within the max range (100 ft without range boosters) of your virtual thrown punches. You trigger blood wind, punch out one poor schmuck, and then the cleave chain begins to trigger until you come up against something more durable/harder to hit, or roll a nat 1. Then you move onto your second reiterative attack and it starts all over. By the end of your turn, you will have downed dozens of unsuspecting folks. Maybe even cleared the whole marketplace. Could be you choose to deal non-lethal damage, if you were feeling nice; or maybe you were going for a damn sick killstreak, I dunno.

Other than this kind of scenario featuring a load of targets weak enough to be downed with one hit, the Combo has little balance implication due to the limitation of Great Cleave. You get one extra attack per thing you down, so never more extra hits than you have downable targets available for, and in most scenarios that number will be pretty low. It's mainly a combo for fun.

So criticisms or ideas for further developments, anyone?

First thing is that I doubt this was RAI.

My doubt is founded in the fact the spell had two versions. The first one, in Savage Species, was pretty clear that you could only use one of your natural weapons as if it were a ranged weapon with a 20 foot increment. The spell had a round/level duration and said every round you could take a full attack action to utilise this, i.e. no punching out full attack combinations at range, you could go rocketfist with one fist and it took you the whole round to do so. That version of the spell you most likely couldn't have gotten Cleave to work with, because it looked to be a lot more specific that you were making a ranged attack as opposed to a melee attack. The effect of the attack always emanates from the subject's location. So if you had tried to get Cleave to work, at best you could've only attacked another target in melee range of you, not in range or reach or whatever of the unfortunate creature hit with your rocketfist.

The Spell Compendium one, like a lot of spells updated, pushes one monster out but lets another one in. Clearly people were whining that it was "not fair" to take a full-round action to make a single thrown weapon attack (despite that, if you're wielding a two-handed weapon, you can't make a thrown weapon attack with it unless it's a full round action), so they said you could use all your natural weapons as if they were thrown weapons in that full attack sequence. But given the previous version of the spell I doubt the RAI was to enable you to teleport your full attack and allow you to apply the attendant feats as such. It was likely intended just to allow you all your attacks in the full-round action rather than one.

As usual, there's also a problem from the SRD: (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm)


Cleave
The extra attack granted by the Cleave feat or Great Cleave feat can be taken whenever they apply. This is an exception to the normal limit to the number of attacks you can take when not using a full attack action.

Which is ambiguous: does it mean that Cleave still applies during a full attack action, or is it only an exception when you're not using a full attack, i.e. Cleave doesn't allow you to pick up extra attacks during a full attack? Because if they were just saying Cleave was an exception to normal number of attack limits, then the phrase "when not using a full attack action" is otiose and therefore had no purpose being there.

If it's the latter interpretation - and it is a matter of interpretation, this is not a clear line - then Blood Wind pretty much doesn't allow you to use Cleave, because a full attack doesn't allow you to Cleave.

Me, I doubt this even works by RAW. Cleave says specifically that the enemy must be "within reach". That's either the reach you have via Size or other features, or by wielding a Reach weapon. You're right that Blood Wind doesn't grant reach, it says so explicitly. And lastly, it doesn't appear you're making an actual melee attack on the target at all. The target gestures as if they're making a melee attack. But they're not making a melee attack. The results of the spell affect the target, but by definition the target is not actually subject to a melee attack. Indeed the spell has to get over that fact by saying that they are permitted to use their melee attack bonuses, but that still doesn't mean the target is being subjected to a melee attack. Quite the contrary; the subject's natural weapons are being treated as if they were thrown weapons, and thrown weapons don't make melee attacks.

[AvatarVecna]

Also see why Point Blank Shot by RAW applies to all the attack and damage rolls -- melee and ranged -- that you can make with a dagger.

It arguably doesn't, and this is exactly the kind of misinformed reading I was warning OP against.


You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.


Melee and Ranged Weapons
Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.

Now admittedly this has a bit of a parsing issue because WotC is amateur hour I guess. That quote can interpreted in one of two ways:


Ranged weapons are {thrown weapons or projectile weapons} that are not effective in melee.

or


Ranged weapons are {thrown weapons} or {projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.}

I tend to assume option 1 is the appropriate reading because A) it requires that the reader also accept that every melee-capable thrown weapon is misplaced as "melee weapon" in every weapon table where one appears, and B) results in things like "point blank shot applies to melee attacks with daggers". Yes, text trumps table, so option 2 isn't necessarily an invalid reading, but I default to assuming option 1 because it's perfectly cromulent with the tables, and doesn't require you to read extra mistakes into the game to make sense.

(Option 1 also means that Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, part of Improved Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Shot On The Run don't actually work with most thrown weapons. This seems to be keeping with designer intent, since everything else in the edition gives the impression that they just kinda didn't bother making thrown weapons function. Fortunately most of this is irrelevant to the OP.)

(Oh also, even if we assume Option 2 is the correct reading, you're still a little bit wrong although it's more of a nitpick: a dagger can be thrown far enough that Point-Blank Shot wouldn't apply, even if we're assuming that it can be applied in the first place.)

Not that any of this really matters too much, because OP seems to be going with a strict reading of Blood Wind that makes it very clear they are making ranged attacks with a melee weapon, so my warning is mostly about keeping an eye on the language of mechanics that sounds like it should work with ranged attacks, but specifies that it works with ranged weapons.

[Jowgen]

Any method of gaining extra attacks will be a good way of extending the combo out further - every base attack you get is another one that can potentially lead to a cleave. This is particularly good if that method can itself generate cleaves, forming a feedback loop. [...]

The only other thing I'll say, which is applicable to Blood Wind, Great Cleave, and a lot of feats/enchantments/etc that affect thrown weapons in some capacity, is to pay careful attention to the difference between melee attack and melee weapon, the difference between ranged attack and ranged weapon...because they are not the same thing.

Agreed on all points.

I think there is a damage threshold at the point where your individual attacks have enough oomph to drop level appropriate mooks in one or maybe 2 hits; after which the focus ought to shift to getting more attacks. Probably something like, 5 times your own HD. 25 Average damager per hit at 5th level is doable and ought to reliably trigger Cleave when facing a good number of mooks.

And yeah, I imagine sorting out the language on range boosters is going to be a headache...


First thing is that I doubt this was RAI. [...] But given the previous version of the spell I doubt the RAI was to enable you to teleport your full attack and allow you to apply the attendant feats as such. It was likely intended just to allow you all your attacks in the full-round action rather than one.

I figure they simply realised that the spell didn't work as they'd hoped from first draft. Unarmed Strike (i.e. Monks) and Natural Weapon users rely on having lots of attack, so a spell that cost you a full round action to make a single attack against a ranged target was never gonna get used. So when Swift actions came around and SpC was made, they figured to expand it in exchange by making it one of those hot new Swift action - 1 turn effect spells that book loves so much.

I think the purpose of the spell has always been to let your melee attacks work at range without making them ranged attacks; i.e. you use melee attack bonus and deal melee damage, so effects that apply to melee attacks (e.g. power attack) ought to apply as well per RAI.



Which is ambiguous: does it mean that Cleave still applies during a full attack action, or is it only an exception when you're not using a full attack, i.e. Cleave doesn't allow you to pick up extra attacks during a full attack? Because if they were just saying Cleave was an exception to normal number of attack limits, then the phrase "when not using a full attack action" is otiose and therefore had no purpose being there.

The FAQ actually addresses this to an extent, for what it's worth. According to Sage, it simply meant to reference the fact that you are normally limited to one attack when not full attacking; i.e. simply clarifies that you can Cleave on a standard action, AoO and such. I am personally happy with that explenation.


Me, I doubt this even works by RAW. Cleave says specifically that the enemy must be "within reach". That's either the reach you have via Size or other features, or by wielding a Reach weapon. You're right that Blood Wind doesn't grant reach, it says so explicitly. And lastly, it doesn't appear you're making an actual melee attack on the target at all. The target gestures as if they're making a melee attack. But they're not making a melee attack. The results of the spell affect the target, but by definition the target is not actually subject to a melee attack. Indeed the spell has to get over that fact by saying that they are permitted to use their melee attack bonuses, but that still doesn't mean the target is being subjected to a melee attack. Quite the contrary; the subject's natural weapons are being treated as if they were thrown weapons, and thrown weapons don't make melee attacks.

In regards to the reach issue, I maintain that the spell neatly cricumvents this by effectively transmitting the cleave attack you are legally making against whatever target within reach you choose to another target at range/non-reach.


If anything, I think the question seems to simply boil down to whether you read the spell to have you technically be making a melee or ranged attack.

The glossary isn't all that helpful, as it defines melee attack as just "A physical attack suitable for close combat.", while defining ranged attack as "Any attack made at a distance with a ranged weapon, as opposed to a melee attack.".

If anything, that glossary seems to make the two out to be mutually exclusive, so we can't say compromise that the attack is both.

So I think the only recourse is to look at what the spell changes, and see whether the result exhibits more of the feature of a melee or ranged attack.

1. "use [..] as if they were thrown weapons with a 20-foot range increment"
2. "as if making a melee attack, but the result of the attack affects a target within range"
3. being within "range" does not cause creatures to be considered within "reach" for the purpose of flanking et al.
4. "uses its normal melee attack bonuses and deals damage normally if it hits"
5. "target of the attacks can benefit from cover or concealment"

I think 3 and 5 are utterly inconsequential. Of course the creatures in range aren't within reach, the spell doesn't give you reach so things operate as normal. Cover and Concealment apply to both melee and range, so of course they can. These 2 just state the normal/obvious for clarity.

What reading these did make me realise though is that the spell doesn't make any mention of you getting penalties for attacking into melee, as you would with a ranged attack.

1 and 2 are both "as if" clauses, and they somewhat contradict each other. What we get from 1 is that it should allow you to treat your US/NA as having range increments, which 2 clarifies determines the range within which targets can be subject to your attack's effect.

I would say 1's range incremenent doesn't factor into the Cleave question. Lots of thrown weapons are also melee weapons, what matters is what kind of attack you are making with the weapon. It does however come with another question: do range increment penalties even apply to a Blood Wind attack? Any reaonsable interpretetion would say yes, but the RAW seems screwy.

2's "affect target within range" clause is the crux of the combo-ability with cleave, as aforementioned. Only extra note I have is the phrasing doesn't require you to actually have the creature that you target with your attack roll be the same creature that is affected by the result of the effect. You can be gesturing strikes at a guy 5 ft in front of you, but have the result affect a different target 20 ft behind you.

4 just straight up supports the idea that you're making a melee attack that is modified to be affecting a target that happens to be at range.


Considering how complex combat mechanics are, there's probably a bunch of other finer points that this spell somehow messes up, but I think that about covers the main points unless you have something to add?


Lastly, just a thought, while we can't have it be both a melee and ranged attack simultaneously, maybe there is a thrid option of classing it purely as a spell effect? The reasoning would be is that by making a melee attack, you are meeting the conditions for the spell to damage the another creature as if it had been hit by that effect? This might be cleaner.

[Gruftzwerg]

So it has occured to me that the Blood Wind spell might possibly work in combo with Great Cleave, arguably better than a much similiar idea (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?278813-Bloodstorm-Blade-Cleave) with Bloodstorm blade.

The subject can take a full attack action to use all of its natural weapons or unarmed strikes as if they were thrown weapons with a 20-foot range increment. The subject gestures as if making a melee attack, but the result of the attack affects a target within range. This spell does not actually grant reach, and so does not help provide a flanking bonus or allow the subject to make attacks of opportunity at any range greater than normal. The subject uses its normal melee attack bonuses and deals damage normally if it hits, though the target of the attacks can benefit from cover or concealment

From Cleave, if you attack and cause enough damage to make a target "drop", "you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach".

Now at first glance it might not seem like the two work together. After all, doesn't Blood Wind make your attacks into thrown weapons -i.e. not melee- and Great Cleave requires you attack things within reach -i.e. which Blood Wind clearly doesn't give, right? Much the same issues as with Bloodstorm Blade, apparently.

*snip*
First on a sidenote, I wanna clear up "reach" before solving your question:

1)
Reach != Natural Reach

Reach involves your Natural Reach plus any additional reach from possible reach weapons or other effects that improve/change your reach.
In game terms reach is the distance where you may make melee attacks. Which means melee attack rolls.

2)
Sadly with Blood Wind you aren't doing "melee attacks". You may use your unarmed strike/natural weapon as thrown weapon and thus are doing ranged attack rolls.
It mentions that you may still make use of "melee bonuses", but that doesn't change that the attack is still a ranged attack.

Bloodstorm Blade explicitly calls out that you may "... treat your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons as melee attacks for the rest of your turn.".
Blood Wind misses any such pharse/condition and such your are doing ranged attacks with melee bonuses.


= Since Cleave doesn't work with ranged attacks, Blood Wind doesn't work with it too. BSB's ability is a special exception to this, since it lets your ranged attacks count as melee again.

[AvatarVecna]

First on a sidenote, I wanna clear up "reach" before solving your question:

1)
Reach != Natural Reach

Reach involves your Natural Reach plus any additional reach from possible reach weapons or other effects that improve/change your reach.
In game terms reach is the distance where you may make melee attacks. Which means melee attack rolls.

2)
Sadly with Blood Wind you aren't doing "melee attacks". You may use your unarmed strike/natural weapon as thrown weapon and thus are doing ranged attack rolls.
It mentions that you may still make use of "melee bonuses", but that doesn't change that the attack is still a ranged attack.

Bloodstorm Blade explicitly calls out that you may "... treat your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons as melee attacks for the rest of your turn.".
Blood Wind misses any such pharse/condition and such your are doing ranged attacks with melee bonuses.


= Since Cleave doesn't work with ranged attacks, Blood Wind doesn't work with it too. BSB's ability is a special exception to this, since it lets your ranged attacks count as melee again.

This isn't 100% right, or 100% wrong.


If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.

The attack that triggers the Cleave doesn't have to be a melee attack, it's just that the Cleave attack itself has to be made with the same weapon, and must be a melee attack. Blood Wind can still trigger Cleave, you just can't make a ranged attack using that Cleave. At least not by default.

[Jowgen]

Okay, if Blood Wind results in one making ranged attacks then yeah, doesn't work; but what is it that has you respectively so convinced that it is ranged attack?

Like, yes, you are make an an attack and the result affects a creature at range, "as if" using a thrown weapon, but everything else is consistent with Melee attacks.

Ranged Attacks provoke attacks of opportunity, use ranged attack rolls, suffer penalties for range penalties and prone targets, normally do not add any ability mods to damage, cannot be used to Coup De Grace unless adjacent, and are "made at range with a ranged weapon".

The spell doesn't mention any of that. It certainly doesn't specificy that you are making a ranged attack; and if a spell doesn't say it does something, it doesn't do it.

Also, if a mechanic is unclear, the basic adjucating guidline is to extrapolate from the closest similar example afaik, and the only other instance of an effect that lets you make melee attacks that affect targets at range is Blood Storm Blade afaik, which does specify that it's melee.

[Gruftzwerg]

Okay, if Blood Wind results in one making ranged attacks then yeah, doesn't work; but what is it that has you respectively so convinced that it is ranged attack?

Like, yes, you are make an an attack and the result affects a creature at range, "as if" using a thrown weapon, but everything else is consistent with Melee attacks.

Ranged Attacks provoke attacks of opportunity, use ranged attack rolls, suffer penalties for range penalties and prone targets, normally do not add any ability mods to damage, cannot be used to Coup De Grace unless adjacent, and are "made at range with a ranged weapon".

The spell doesn't mention any of that. It certainly doesn't specificy that you are making a ranged attack; and if a spell doesn't say it does something, it doesn't do it.

Also, if a mechanic is unclear, the basic adjucating guidline is to extrapolate from the closest similar example afaik, and the only other instance of an effect that lets you make melee attacks that affect targets at range is Blood Storm Blade afaik, which does specify that it's melee.

"..as if they were thrown weapons... "
The exception is that you may use your US/NA as thrown weapons. > you don't make a melee attack anymore if you use your US/NA as thrown weapons.

"This spell does not actually grant reach..." is another indicator.
You make melee attacks within your reach. If it is not within your reach, you have to rely on ranged attacks. This is the general differentiation between those two things. Be it in d&d or real life. No hidden rules here ;)

Bloodstorm Blade specifically calls out that your ranged attack counts back as a melee attack:

As a swift action, you can choose to treat your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons as melee attacks for the rest of your turn.
Further it restricts the ability to end of "your turn", so that you may not profit from the extended reach it gives for AoO (which would have been the chase if it would last until end of the round).


"The subject uses its normal melee attack bonuses and deals damage normally if it hits, though the target of the attacks can benefit from cover or concealment"
Only changes the bonuses you may use but the not the attack type from ranged to melee. Not the same as BSBs ability.

[Jowgen]

"..as if they were thrown weapons... "
The exception is that you may use your US/NA as thrown weapons. > you don't make a melee attack anymore if you use your US/NA as thrown weapons.

Upon re-reading, I'll have to disagree that the spell actually grants the US/NA a range increment as to make them thrown weapons. The spell describes giving you the ability to use them as if they were such, but it does not make them so, or have you actually use any of the thrown weapon mechanics as part of the spell's effect. It's functionally similar on the surface level but not in essence. A common feature of spell descriptiosn actually, in that the first line tries to convey the general if inaccurate idea of the spell, which is then properley clarified after.

As clarified in the following lines, all you're doing is making melee attack rolls to hit and doing melee attack damage, with the spell's benefit being that the result affects creatures that are within the range a thrown weapon with the aforementioned range increment would permit. None of the ranged combat rules are referenced (it is in fact something that was intentionally removed compared to the old version), no ranged attack is ever called for.

Even if it were judged that the spell actually grants the weapons a range increment (or at least for some intents and purporses), they'd just be thrown weapons that are also melee weapons, being used to make melee attacks that affect non-reach targets per the spells effect.



"This spell does not actually grant reach..." is another indicator.
You make melee attacks within your reach. If it is not within your reach, you have to rely on ranged attacks. This is the general differentiation between those two things. Be it in d&d or real life. No hidden rules here ;)

As per my OP, the line about not granting reach is a mere clarification that has no actual bearing on the spells effect.

Neither do general/irl differentiations between what constitutes melee or range, as they are defined game terms being interpreted in the context of game rules; the realm wherein people can make reasonable arguments that a Feat called Rapid Shot -intended to make you better at ranged attacks- actually benefits melee attacks with thrown/melee weapons.

Or to put it differently, one could use the same general/irl logic to argue that if you're rolling dice as if making a melee attack and are dealing melee damage then you're clearly making a melee attack, with no hidden rules there. Surely you can see that this sort of argument has no merit in the realm of RAW.


Bloodstorm Blade specifically calls out that your ranged attack counts back as a melee attack

Bloodstorm Blade is only relevant insofar as to serve as an example of a similar melee attack at range ability, i.e. to showcase that this is something the designers consider generally permissable within the context of the game.

Beyond that, any argument as to whether the designers added in that line because they wanted to differentiate it from its distant predecessor like you suggest, or they just got better at writing out such effects in a manner that leaves less room for misinterpretetion is ultimately a fruitless RAI debate.


"The subject uses its normal melee attack bonuses and deals damage normally if it hits, though the target of the attacks can benefit from cover or concealment"
Only changes the bonuses you may use but the not the attack type from ranged to melee. Not the same as BSBs ability.

As aforementioned, the attack type was never set to ranged to begin with. Out of the words "Melee" and "Ranged", only melee is even mentioned in the spell. They are in fact called out as being "as normal", i.e. clarification that the spell is operating with the melee mechancis as its frame of baseline reference. It thought that part was clear from the get go.

At most one could argue that the US/NA can be considered as having a range increment for the benfit of effects that require the presence of such; which would not extend to effects that require you to be making ranged attacks.

[Gruftzwerg]

Upon re-reading, I'll have to disagree that the spell actually grants the US/NA a range increment as to make them thrown weapons.
...
*snip*
...

ok, let's be nit-picky ^^

1. K, It doesn't change your weapon into a thrown weapon. It just gives you the option to use it as a thrown weapon with the described range increment. Which means, that it is still fully functional as normal melee weapon but may also be used as thrown weapon for the duration of the spell.

2. To be able to use a weapon as throwing weapon the default rule is to use a ranged attack.

3. Blood Wind only allows you to use melee bonuses, but never changes the attack type from ranged to melee.

The outcome won't change since it never mentions that you may do melee attack rolls. Just because you may use melee bonuses doesn't turn it automatically into a melee attack.

For a melee attack, the attack needs to be within your (*melee*) range, and Blood Wind explicitly mentions that it doesn't do that. It gives you an range increment as ranged attacks have without changing the attack type (as BSB does it for reference).

and it doesn't need to call out that you are making ranged attacks, because you have the option to throw your weapon which is by default a ranged attack.


I don't see any evidence that you may use Blood Wind with melee attacks.

[Jowgen]

So if I got this right, your reasoning for it being a ranged attack is built on the inference is that, since the spell mentioned using US/NA "as if" they were thrown weapons with a range increment, the spell expects you treat the ranged combat rules as the default and use them unless otherwise specified.

My position remains that the "as if" reference to thrown weapons with the listed range increment is merely a visualisation aid for the spell's effect; like is done at the start of a lot of spell descriptions, like Air Walk ("can tread on air as if walking on solid ground") or Flame Blade ("wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar.") as two random PHB examples. The spell permits you to do something "as if" a certain thing were the case, but the spell makes it clear that said thing is not the case, while explaining how you are actually doing the thing it seems like you're doing, though you're not.

My reasoning for for it being a melee attack is built on the the primary line: "uses its normal melee attack bonuses and deals damage normally". In game terms, "normal" refers to the default state of something, meaning an aspect of a mechanic that isn't changed in the given context. If the spell was operating under the assumption of ranged combat rules -which are the Normal for thrown weapons- it wouldn't be referring to the melee attack/damage as the Normal, instead it would be pointing out that you are using those in spite of the normal ranged combat rules for thrown weapons (or at least leave the references to "normal" out and thus leaving the matter open). I see it as being clear that the spell is operating under melee rules as the base, but specifying what parts are different from "normal", which does emphatically not include changing the attack type to ranged.


I also favour it being melee to avoid dysfunctions. Having something be a ranged attack but using melee stats is not something that exists in game and is bound to cause unfroseen rule conflicts and effect interactions that'll bring nothing but headaches.

[daremetoidareyo]

What if you weapon grafted a javelin to your arm and took the tormtor school feat?

[Gruftzwerg]

So if I got this right, your reasoning for it being a ranged attack is built on the inference is that, since the spell mentioned using US/NA "as if" they were thrown weapons with a range increment, the spell expects you treat the ranged combat rules as the default and use them unless otherwise specified.

My position remains that the "as if" reference to thrown weapons with the listed range increment is merely a visualisation aid for the spell's effect; like is done at the start of a lot of spell descriptions, like Air Walk ("can tread on air as if walking on solid ground") or Flame Blade ("wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar.") as two random PHB examples. The spell permits you to do something "as if" a certain thing were the case, but the spell makes it clear that said thing is not the case, while explaining how you are actually doing the thing it seems like you're doing, though you're not.

My reasoning for for it being a melee attack is built on the the primary line: "uses its normal melee attack bonuses and deals damage normally". In game terms, "normal" refers to the default state of something, meaning an aspect of a mechanic that isn't changed in the given context. If the spell was operating under the assumption of ranged combat rules -which are the Normal for thrown weapons- it wouldn't be referring to the melee attack/damage as the Normal, instead it would be pointing out that you are using those in spite of the normal ranged combat rules for thrown weapons (or at least leave the references to "normal" out and thus leaving the matter open). I see it as being clear that the spell is operating under melee rules as the base, but specifying what parts are different from "normal", which does emphatically not include changing the attack type to ranged.


I also favour it being melee to avoid dysfunctions. Having something be a ranged attack but using melee stats is not something that exists in game and is bound to cause unfroseen rule conflicts and effect interactions that'll bring nothing but headaches.

(sry for the late respone. didn't had tiem the last 2 weeks.. but I still want to cleat this topic up^^)

"as if"
This therm is always used to refer you to rules that you should apply in a certain situation.
Examples of this are:
- unarmed strikes in regards to enhancing them count as martial/natural weapons
- hand/light crossbows apply the rules for light weapons when using TWF

in our chase "as if they were thrown weapons" refer you to the the rules for ranged throwing weapons. And there is no dysfunction here if you apply the rules correctly. It just makes another "exception" that you may still use your melee bonuses to attack and dmg your targets (instead of your ranged attach/dmg bonuses). Everything is mentioned there.

Further the text explicitly calls out that it doesn't grant you reach, which you would need to attack a distant target with a melee attack. Everything points out that it is a ranged attack where you may still use melee bonuses and nothing else.

[TheCount]

I lean towards the first option, because the spell enables to make melee attacks at range with US/NA.
Otherwise, why the hell waste time and spell slot for it? Easier to just throw rocks in a pinch. Or shurikens.

Actually, scratch that, if it doesn't work for blood storm blade, same here.

That aside, taking BSB and the spell both is kinda redundant imo..... Though, that way you should also get the master thrower tricks:P

[Gruftzwerg]

I lean towards the first option, because the spell enables to make melee attacks at range with US/NA.
Otherwise, why the hell waste time and spell slot for it? Easier to just throw rocks in a pinch. Or shurikens.

Actually, scratch that, if it doesn't work for blood storm blade, same here.

That aside, taking BSB and the spell both is kinda redundant imo..... Though, that way you should also get the master thrower tricks:P

Bloodstorm Blade works different:
- Throw Anything lets you throw your melee weapon (ranged attack)
- Thunderous Throw explicitly calls out that you may treat your ranged attack rolls as melee attacks but have to add the ranged modifiers (Blood Wind calls out that you may use melee bonuses for your ranged attacks = still ranged attacks).
- Thunderous Throw ends with the end of your turn and not round, so you won't get AoO of your increased reach for melee attacks (normally the term end of round is used by default, unless they really need to restrict you to end of your turn like in this chase).

= Cleave works within your turn with BSBs ability.

BSB ability is not the same as Blood Wind, even if the visual results may look similar or the same.

edit: Master Thrower tricks are not a problem for both of the abilities. It's just the order of abilities needs to be adjusted. Remember that unless noted otherwise the player may choose the order of the effects to apply.

Blood Wind:
- gives you ranged attacks and thus the option to apply Master Thrower abilities.

BSB:
- apply Thunderous Throw (effect not the activation of the ability) after you applied your ranged abilities.

[Elves]

If the spell were just giving you the ability to make melee attacks at range, it wouldn't say you were making them as thrown weapon attacks with a range increment.

The "range" entry, and the second sentence, don't necessarily conflict with the first sentence. I read the spell range as an absolute limit that overrides the normal rules for number of range increments you can attempt to throw.

Using the second sentence as the crux of your argument requires dismissing the first sentence as badly written and not representative of RAI. With WOTC that's obviously plausible, and it would be reasonable to implement the spell that way, but it doesn't hold up as a hard RAW reading.