Whirlwind Attack + moving between attacks?

[Unoriginal]

The Hunter's Whirlwind Attack feature allows the Ranger to make one attack on every creature within 5ft of them, but I have not found anything saying the "can move between attacks" rule didn't apply.

Does that mean that the Hunter Ranger could use Whirlwind Attack to attack 4 times on 4 of the 5 NPCs around them, then walk 10 ft to attack a different group of 3 NPCs 3 times?

[Quietus]

Unfortunately not - I believe being able to move between attacks is part of the Attack action. Whirlwind attack is its own action, and as a result would not be eligible for the same consideration.

[NaughtyTiger]

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.


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

i interpret it as a separate weapon attack against each target, so yes, you can move between targets per RAW, but I don't think that is the intent.

edit: actually answering the question: yes, you can chain your movement and attack everything you can reach per RAW, but I don't think that is the intent.

[nickl_2000]

i interpret it as a separate weapon attack against each target, so yes, you can move between targets per RAW, but I don't think that is the intent.

Interesting, I always read it like sword burst where at the time of use it impacts all targets within 5 feet. It has never come up at my table though.

[x3n0n]

I'd argue that the targets are locked in at announcement, but if you wanted to move in between the attacks for some reason, you could. That preserves RAW and my best guess at RAI for Whirlwind Attack while preserving the quoted RAW about multi-attack actions.

Perhaps more relevant for Volley, where it is more likely to affect cover?

[loki_ragnarock]

Honestly, the ability to move between attacks would take Whirlwind Attack from strictly worse than Volley - the only competing decision - to closer to on par.

So... yeah, you can totally move in between attacks. It'd only become a problem with some extreme tabaxi edge cases, and rangers don't actually get much in the way of movement powers to synergize. It comes online late enough so that there's not much multi-classing cheese, and melee rangers are typically considered under par... which might not be the case with this interpretation. It comes online at about the time that fighters get their third attack... which the fighter could pile onto one target in focused fire to bring them down, turn into shoves and grapples, and generally enjoy greater flexibility vs the inherently spread out nature of of a ranger zipping around making one attack against several opponents.

Yeah. Rangers can totally move between attacks with Whirlwind Attack. They should totally move in between attacks with Whirlwind Attack.

It makes the ranger a marginally more complete class.

[bid]

How is it different from sword burst?

[Unoriginal]

How is it different from sword burst?

Sword Burst is an Instantaneous cantrip with a 5ft-around-the-caster AoE with a "DEX-save or take Force damage" effect.

Whirlwind Attack is a special combat action which allows the Hunter Ranger to make one attack on each creature within 5ft of them.

[Keltest]

The way the ability is described, it is one "swing" that hits everything around you, not a series of swings like the attack action is with multiattack. So from that perspective, theres nothing to break up, its one effect that simply has a lot of rolls.

Also, in order to qualify as a valid target, i think they need to be within 5' when you start the action. Even if they later move to be within 5', they werent at the time it was checking for validity of targeting.

[Unoriginal]

The way the ability is described, it is one "swing" that hits everything around you, not a series of swings like the attack action is with multiattack. So from that perspective, theres nothing to break up, its one effect that simply has a lot of rolls.

Also, in order to qualify as a valid target, i think they need to be within 5' when you start the action. Even if they later move to be within 5', they werent at the time it was checking for validity of targeting.

It's true that the text says it is A melee attack against with multiple attack rolls.

[NaughtyTiger]

I'd argue that the targets are locked in at announcement, but if you wanted to move in between the attacks for some reason, you could.

I am conflicted on this.

PHB says you select your target within range at the start of the attack, not the action.



It's true that the text says it is A melee attack against with multiple attack rolls.

whirlwind says "make a melee Attack against any number of creatures". I think the "A" means 1 attack per creature, not 1 attack total.

Attack rolls explicitly means multiple attacks: "if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."

[Keltest]

I am conflicted on this.

PHB says you select your target within range at the start of the attack, not the action.

That seems like a rather academic distinction in this case, since the first swing is the start of the attack and theres no difference between declaring your action, moving and then taking the first swing, and moving then declaring your action and taking the swing.

[NaughtyTiger]

That seems like a rather academic distinction in this case, since the first swing is the start of the attack and theres no difference between declaring your action, moving and then taking the first swing, and moving then declaring your action and taking the swing.

I do not follow your argument.

The first swing is an attack.
The first swing is the start of the ACTION.

There is a difference between

declaring your action, moving, and starting the attack
moving, declaring your action, and starting the attack
in the case of readied action, casting a spell, opportunity attacks, ....

[ProsecutorGodot]

Regardless of what the RAW might allow, the RAI seems clear to me that you strike a number of targets within 5ft of you with a single attack from that spot. This is a case where I would rule according to that intent because it makes more sense than the alternative, which is that you could "whirlwind" your way 30+ feet across the battlefield so long as you find an enemy within walking distance.

If moving between the attacks makes it into Extra Attack 2.0: Super Edition, I don't think that's the way to go.

EDIT: There's the other distinction, which is that you could still only attack targets who were originally around you when you declared the action, which seems inconsequential, you could simply move afterwards.

That said, I don't think the RAW is that you can move either. You move between weapon attacks, not attack rolls. You're only ever said to have made a single attack, it's just a single attack that can strike multiple targets and rolls separately for each one.


Attack rolls explicitly means multiple attacks: "if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."

Making several attack rolls still qualifies as one attack unless it explicitly says that you made several attacks. This is used to identify what an attack is, not to quantify how many attack rolls are in an attack.

[NaughtyTiger]

You're only ever said to have made a single attack, it's just a single attack that can strike multiple targets and rolls separately for each one.
This is a valid interpretation, but the text says "make a melee Attack against any number of creatures".
It doesn't explicitly say it is 1 attack made against all of the targets. It could be interpreted as making 1 attack per target.

PHB does explicitly say one attack/one target: "Making an attack: ...Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location."


Making several attack rolls still qualifies as one attack unless it explicitly says that you made several attacks. This is used to identify what an attack is, not to quantify how many attack rolls are in an attack.

I suppose this is a valid interpretation, but the phb does not say ""if you’re making one or more attack rolls, you’re making an attack.""

[Bobthewizard]

Allowing them to move between attacks would be broken with the mobile feat. Every round, you could attack up to 10 enemies (11 with horde breaker?) within 40' of each other with no fear of opportunity attacks.

[stoutstien]

Allowing them to move between attacks would be broken with the mobile feat. Every round, you could attack up to 10 enemies (11 with horde breaker?) within 40' of each other with no fear of opportunity attacks.

Eh, or they could take volley and do that anyways.
Making a bunch of single attacks vs a bunch of targets will never be broken.
At least rangers would have a bit of a niche with minion clearing at will.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is a valid interpretation, but the text says "make a melee Attack against any number of creatures".
It doesn't explicitly say it is 1 attack made against all of the targets. It could be interpreted as making 1 attack per target.

PHB does explicitly say one attack/one target: "Making an attack: ...Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location."

The general rule would be making an attack, the specific override would be Whirlwind. Anything that conflicts, you take Whirlwinds side. Whirlwind says you make a single attack with several attack rolls. Not that I think anything is really conflicting, see below.


I suppose this is a valid interpretation, but the phb does not say ""if you’re making one or more attack rolls, you’re making an attack.""

It doesn't have to, any number above 0 qualifies. If what you're doing involves any number of attack rolls, it's an attack. This isn't meant to say every attack will always involve only a single attack roll.

[Aett_Thorn]

RAW = Ambiguous
RAI = No

RAF to make this thing actually worth choosing? = Yes, I'd allow it.

[NaughtyTiger]

Whirlwind says you make a single attack with several attack rolls.
Again, that is a valid interpretation, it can also be interpreted as a single attack per target with several attack rolls.



It doesn't have to, any number above 0 qualifies. If what you're doing involves any number of attack rolls, it's an attack. This isn't meant to say every attack will always involve only a single attack roll.

the PHB says "if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."
You are saying that A/AN can mean "any number above 0". (this is my understanding of your argument)

Since whirlwind also says "make A melee attack against any number of creatures",
to be consistent, you should interpret this as "make any number above 0 melee attacks against any number creatures"

[loki_ragnarock]

Allowing them to move between attacks would be broken with the mobile feat. Every round, you could attack up to 10 enemies (11 with horde breaker?) within 40' of each other with no fear of opportunity attacks.

Not especially.

Volley lets a ranger cast a poor man's fireball.

If you think of Whirlwind Attack as allowing for a poor man's lightning bolt, you've got some parity.

If you think of it as allowing for a poor man's Sword Burst... that's not even close to parity.

I, for one, welcome the Pinball Wizard as a playable concept.

[clash]

Just take crossbow expert and Volley then you can make a ranged attack against every creature within 10ft of you or any other point you choose within range. It is more than twice as effective as whirlwind attack. Which to me indicates a problem with whirlwind attack. I have personally replaced it with:

Path of blood:
As an action you may move up to 30ft in a straight line. This movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks and you may make a single melee attack against every creature that was within 5ft of you at some point during the charge as part of the same action.

[Keltest]

Again, that is a valid interpretation, it can also be interpreted as a single attack per target with several attack rolls.




the PHB says "if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."
You are saying that A/AN can mean "any number above 0". (this is my understanding of your argument)

Since whirlwind also says "make A melee attack against any number of creatures",
to be consistent, you should interpret this as "make any number above 0 melee attacks against any number creatures"

If you make 5 attacks, youre always making an attack. if you make an attack, you are not always making 5 attacks. It doesnt go both directions.

[nickl_2000]

Not especially.

Volley lets a ranger cast a poor man's fireball.

If you think of Whirlwind Attack as allowing for a poor man's lightning bolt, you've got some parity.

If you think of it as allowing for a poor man's Sword Burst... that's not even close to parity.

I for one, welcome the Pinball Wizard as a playable concept.

Were this allowed, I would definitely be looking at a Wood Elf Ranger with Mobile (and cast longstrider often). Being able to move 55ft and hit everyone in range is certainly great for mob control.


As a side note, I wrote a Pinball Wizard subclass for one of the homebrew contests on this forum (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BJ-BngVp_m)

[AHF]

Again, that is a valid interpretation, it can also be interpreted as a single attack per target with several attack rolls.




the PHB says "if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."
You are saying that A/AN can mean "any number above 0". (this is my understanding of your argument)

Since whirlwind also says "make A melee attack against any number of creatures",
to be consistent, you should interpret this as "make any number above 0 melee attacks against any number creatures"

I don't see how this quote distinguishes between the two interpretations.

"if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."

Interpretation 1 - When Whirlwind is used, a single attack is made involving multiple attack rolls.

Does interpretation 1 believe that an attack roll is being made? Yes.
Does interpretation 1 believe that an attack is being made? Yes.

Interpretation 2 - When Whirlwind is used, multiple attacks are made, one per attack roll.

Does interpretation 2 believe that an attack roll is being made? Yes.
Does interpretation 2 believe that attack is being made? Yes.

This text doesn't distinguish between these two interpretations and is consistent with either reading.

[Unoriginal]

[QUOTE=AHF;24701973]I don't see how this quote distinguishes between the two interpretations.

"if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."

Interpretation 1 - When Whirlwind is used, a single attack is made involving multiple attack rolls.

Does interpretation 1 believe that an attack roll is being made? Yes.
Does interpretation 1 believe that an attack is being made? Yes.

I mean, that is not valid.

You can't say "Does interpretation 1 believe that an attack roll is being made? Yes." because as you said, Interpretation 1 is " When Whirlwind is used, a single attack is made involving multiple attack rolls.", which would mean "does interpretation 1 believe that multiple attack rolls are being made? Yes", not "an" attack roll.

Aside from that, "If 1(x), then 1(y)", implies "if z(x), then z(y)", not "if z(x), then 1(y)".

[Bobthewizard]

Not especially.

Volley lets a ranger cast a poor man's fireball.

If you think of Whirlwind Attack as allowing for a poor man's lightning bolt, you've got some parity.

If you think of it as allowing for a poor man's Sword Burst... that's not even close to parity.

I, for one, welcome the Pinball Wizard as a playable concept.

Volley is limited to 10' radius. Whirlwind with mobile and movement would allow 40' of targets (45' as a wood elf). You would be much more likely to be able to reach more targets than you could with volley.

Volley can hit at most 16 medium targets if they are perfectly aligned. Whirlwind with no movement can target up to 8. Whirlwind with movement as a wood elf with mobile could target 26 targets with perfect alignment.

So maybe not broken, but it would be much better than volley.

[NaughtyTiger]

If you make 5 attacks, youre always making an attack. if you make an attack, you are not always making 5 attacks. It doesnt go both directions.

I disagree on this

If you make 5 attacks, you are always making 5 attacks

if you make AN attack you are not making 5 attacks.

[nickl_2000]

One thing I haven't seen discussed on there. How often at level 11 are you fighting gigantic mobs of smaller foes where this would be super helpful? In my high level play, we ended up running into at most 5-6 enemies.

[Bobthewizard]

One thing I haven't seen discussed on there. How often at level 11 are you fighting gigantic mobs of smaller foes where this would be super helpful? In my high level play, we ended up running into at most 5-6 enemies.

This is the best argument I've seen for just allowing the movement. It may look more powerful on paper than in actual use.

[nickl_2000]

This is the best argument I've seen for just allowing the movement. It may look more powerful on paper than in actual use.

I started in this thread against allowing movement in between. However, in reading and thinking about it more, it does make sense for realistic sense. The time it's going to be most useful is for plowing through summons, and if that happen RAF says that a Ranger should feel awesome every once in awhile!

[firelistener]

The PHB says on page 190 says you can break up your movement "if you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack". Whirlwind isn't the Attack action, but it qualifies by being "an action that includes more than one weapon attack".


One thing I haven't seen discussed on there. How often at level 11 are you fighting gigantic mobs of smaller foes where this would be super helpful? In my high level play, we ended up running into at most 5-6 enemies.

In reality, probably almost never since it's a real slog to play a round with more creatures than that. I also imagine you'd trigger attacks of opportunity with this strategy so it's almost never a good idea unless you're finishing things off.

[Unoriginal]

I see no issue with an Hunter Ranger tornado'ing around the battlefield, even against weak mooks. It's awesome, not super-powerful.

[AHF]

(attempting to quote AHF)I don't see how this quote distinguishes between the two interpretations.

"if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."

Interpretation 1 - When Whirlwind is used, a single attack is made involving multiple attack rolls.

Does interpretation 1 believe that an attack roll is being made? Yes.
Does interpretation 1 believe that an attack is being made? Yes.

I mean, that is not valid.

You can't say "Does interpretation 1 believe that an attack roll is being made? Yes." because as you said, Interpretation 1 is " When Whirlwind is used, a single attack is made involving multiple attack rolls.", which would mean "does interpretation 1 believe that multiple attack rolls are being made? Yes", not "an" attack roll.

Aside from that, "If 1(x), then 1(y)", implies "if z(x), then z(y)", not "if z(x), then 1(y)".

This is a bit confusing to read because of the broken quote, but I think you are assuming more than is written.

The language defines when something is an attack.

"if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."

Under both interpretations, the party is making an attack roll. Therefore, under both interpretations the person is making an attack. That is all the language illuminates.

The language does not help to distinguish between whether multiple attacks are being made or a single attack that triggers multiple rolls. I.e., it doesn't tell you whether a Whirlwind attack is more like a single boulder being thrown where attack rolls cannot be broken up by movement (i.e., the interpretation of a single swing of the sword affecting all within 5 feet at the time the attack is initiated) or if it is more like a fighter's extra attack feature (i.e., where each swing is a separate attack that can be interspersed with movement in between.)

[Unoriginal]

This is a bit confusing to read because of the broken quote, but I think you are assuming more than is written.

I apologize for that.



The language defines when something is an attack.

"if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack."

Under both interpretations, the party is making an attack roll. Therefore, under both interpretations the person in making an attack. That is all the language illuminates.

The language does not help to distinguish between whether multiple attacks are being made or a single attack that triggers multiple rolls. I.e., it doesn't tell you whether a Whirlwind attack is more like a single boulder being thrown where attack rolls cannot be broken up by movement (i.e., the interpretation of a single swing of the sword affecting all within 5 feet at the time the attack is initiated) or if it is more like a fighter's extra attack feature (i.e., where each swing is a separate attack that can be interspersed with movement in between.)

"If you're making an Attack roll, you're making an Attack" means "every time you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack", which implies "if you are making 5 attack rolls you are making 5 attacks". Not "you make any number of attack rolls, and it's making one attack".

[ProsecutorGodot]

"If you're making an Attack roll, you're making an Attack" means "every time you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack", which implies "if you are making 5 attack rolls you are making 5 attacks". Not "you make any number of attack rolls, and it's making one attack".

Making another attack roll doesn't automatically mean it's a different attack.

When I read it, I read it as an explanation as to what you must do to be considered "making an attack". An attack roll is the important part, the amount of them is unspecified. Given the context of the line prior "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack" it's meant to identify what is an attack, not to say that every attack roll is a separate attack.

[Unoriginal]

Making another attack roll doesn't automatically mean it's a different attack.

When I read it, I read it as an explanation as to what you must do to be considered "making an attack". An attack roll is the important part, the amount of them is unspecified. Given the context of the line prior "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack" it's meant to identify what is an attack, not to say that every attack roll is a separate attack.

Aside from Whirlwind Attack, is there any instance in 5e where several attack rolls are not several attacks?

I honestly can't think of any, but I admit I'm more than rusty on that front.

[nickl_2000]

Aside from Whirlwind Attack, is there any instance in 5e where several attack rolls are not several attacks?

I honestly can't think of any, but I admit I'm more than rusty on that front.

How about monster's multi-attack? Would that qualify.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Aside from Whirlwind Attack, is there any instance in 5e where several attack rolls are not several attacks?

I honestly can't think of any, but I admit I'm more than rusty on that front.

Technically Eldritch Blast qualifies, the additional beams only specify that you make more attack rolls. Compare it to Scorching Ray where it has you make entirely separate spell attacks for each additional ray.

EDIT: I say technically because this could be an example of poor wording, where they chose not to use the more clear wording that Scorching Ray has but intended for it to mean the same thing on account of EB only having additional attacks through cantrip scaling.


How about monster's multi-attack? Would that qualify.

I don't think so, Multiattack usually says whatever actions they're allowed to take and how many of them, meaning that they've made two or more separate attacks.

[Keltest]

Aside from Whirlwind Attack, is there any instance in 5e where several attack rolls are not several attacks?

I honestly can't think of any, but I admit I'm more than rusty on that front.
Scorching ray maybe?

[NaughtyTiger]

Aside from Whirlwind Attack, is there any instance in 5e where several attack rolls are not several attacks?

I honestly can't think of any, but I admit I'm more than rusty on that front.
Technically Eldritch Blast qualifies, the additional beams only specify that you make more attack rolls. Compare it to Scorching Ray where it has you make entirely separate spell attacks for each additional ray.


This assumes that "Eldritch Blast is a single attack with multiple attack rolls".
I don't believe this is a commonly accepted fact.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This assumes that "Eldritch Blast is a single attack with multiple attack rolls".
I don't believe this is a commonly accepted fact.

If you read the spell, that's exactly what it says. Whether that's how it's intended to be is up for debate.

EDIT: I remember far in the past reading discussion on how when casting EB you should select your targets first and roll the attack rolls after having selected your targets (which could sometimes result in a miss) and I think this wording is the catalyst for that line of reasoning.

[Unoriginal]

If you read the spell, that's exactly what it says. Whether that's how it's intended to be is up for debate.

Isn't the "several beams" part indicative of several attacks?

[NaughtyTiger]

If you read the spell, that's exactly what it says. Whether that's how it's intended to be is up for debate.

I disagree.

It says:
"A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell Attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage." for a beam. then explains that at higher levels more beams are created.

Thus it is consistent with scorching ray.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Isn't the "several beams" part indicative of several attacks?

It's indicative of several beams. Each beam involves a separate attack roll. Nothing mentioned about more than one spell attack being made.

I disagree.

It says:
"A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell Attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage." for a beam.

then explains that at higher levels more beams are created. Thus it is consistent with scorching ray.
No, Scorching Ray very explicitly includes the wording "Make a ranged spell attack for each ray"

EB has the wording "Make a separate attack roll for each beam."

[Unoriginal]

It's indicative of several beams. Each beam involves a separate attack roll. Nothing mentioned about more than one spell attack being made.

"A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell Attack against the target" seems to indicates to me that each beam is a ranged spell Attack.



EB has the wording "Make a separate attack roll for each beam."

Looking at it through the "making an attack roll is making an attack" lens, then making a separate attack roll is indicative of a separate attack, as far as I understand it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

"A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell Attack against the target" seems to indicates to me that each beam is a ranged spell Attack.
With a straight reading, I don't really agree but I'm not sure of the intention.


Looking at it through the "making an attack roll is making an attack" lens, then making a separate attack roll is indicative of a separate attack, as far as I understand it.
Which I repeatedly mention that I don't read that as "every attack roll means you are making an attack" I read it as "if something involves an attack roll, it is considered an attack" the latter not automatically meaning there are several attacks.

Thread seems to be thoroughly derailing into EB now, all it was brought up as was an example of other features that only specify by their wording to be a single attack with several attack rolls.

EDIT: We could also compare it directly to Horde Breaker, which makes sure to specify that the attacks are separate. Clearly they knew how to write a feature that was using multiple separate attacks against targets within a certain area, but for Volley and Whirlwind Attack they (seemingly) deliberately chose not to.

[NaughtyTiger]

No, Scorching Ray very explicitly includes the wording "Make a ranged spell attack for each ray"

EB has the wording "Make a separate attack roll for each beam."

ah. yeah. that is different wording.

but we are hitting circular logic: whether or not (by RAW) a separate attack roll is the same as a separate attack.

XGE invocations use "once per turn" wrt EB, not "once per attack". grrr.

the only other implication is whether your ranger/battlemaster can use multiple superiority dice on volley..

[Keltest]

With a straight reading, I don't really agree but I'm not sure of the intention.


Which I repeatedly mention that I don't read that as "every attack roll means you are making an attack" I read it as "if something involves an attack roll, it is considered an attack" the latter not automatically meaning there are several attacks.

Thread seems to be thoroughly derailing into EB now, all it was brought up as was an example of other features that only specify by their wording to be a single attack with several attack rolls.

I mean, what does "an attack" mean in this context? One step that can't be broken up? Or strictly as the game term? Without a clear definition I dont think we can answer the question.

[AHF]

"If you're making an Attack roll, you're making an Attack" means "every time you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack", which implies "if you are making 5 attack rolls you are making 5 attacks". Not "you make any number of attack rolls, and it's making one attack".

Again, the text doesn't say what you say it means.

Example:

In Critical Role, there is a magic item where an archer can fire an arrow that splits into multiple arrows. If Vex has only one attack in a round and chooses to fire this arrow then she makes multiple attack rolls but cannot move in between each roll because it is a single moment of attack despite the multiple rolls. For example, if she cannot simultaneously target Opponent 1 and 2 (say because she needs to round a corner which would cause her to lose line of fire on the other target) she cannot use this arrow to hit both of them because it is a single attack which simultaneously splits to generate multiple rolls with no opportunity to move in between. Instead, she would fire and the arrow would split and could only target opponents currently eligible targets in line of fire at the time she fired the arrow.

Conversely, if she is level 5 or higher and uses the attack action with normal arrows she can fire one arrow at Opponent 1 then move and fire a second arrow at Opponent 2.

If you needed to determine whether these scenarios qualified as attacks in 5e, you could rely on the "if you’re Making an Attack roll, you’re Making an Attack" definition. In both cases, she is making an attack roll. Clearly, both situations involve the PC making an attack. However, the ability to move in between attack rolls differs depending on whether you are talking about a single attack that generates multiple rolls (the splitting arrow) or multiple attacks per the attack action and extra attack.

The definition on whether you are making an attack does not differentiate between these two situations. It simply distinguishes them from non-attack actions for situations such as determining whether this action would break sanctuary (which says that an attack by the warded creature ends the spell). This distinguishes something like firing an arrow (regardless of how many attack rolls you make) from something that is not an attack like a dragon's breath weapon.

[Unoriginal]

Which I repeatedly mention that I don't read that as "every attack roll means you are making an attack" I read it as "if something involves an attack roll, it is considered an attack" the latter not automatically meaning there are several attacks.

I understand, I was just saying that I felt the EB thing was confirming what I thought.



Thread seems to be thoroughly derailing into EB now, all it was brought up as was an example of other features that only specify by their wording to be a single attack with several attack rolls.

I don't think it's derailing, I asked if there was an example of it, and now we're discussing if EB qualifies.



EDIT: We could also compare it directly to Horde Breaker, which makes sure to specify that the attacks are separate. Clearly they knew how to write a feature that was using multiple separate attacks against targets within a certain area, but for Volley and Whirlwind Attack they (seemingly) deliberately chose not to.

Well, Horde Breaker is an additional attack on a separate target when doing something which already grants an attack. Not quite the same situation.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Moving an edit to a new post since there has been a lot of activity since:
We can actually be clear on then RAI, as this exact question is part of the official Sage Advice Compendium.

Can a ranger move between the attack rolls of the Whirlwind Attack feature? No. Whirlwind Attack is unusual, in that it’s a single attack with multiple attack rolls. In most other instances, an attack has one attack roll. The rule on moving between attacks (PH, 190) lets you move between weapon attacks, not between the attack rolls of an exceptional feature like Whirlwind Attack.
So as I said previously, Whirlwind Attack is the exception to the general attack rules.

I know Sage Advice is not an end all be all to how you should play your games, but I can follow and understand the process here clearly, I think it's sound.

[Unoriginal]

Moving an edit to a new post since there has been a lot of activity since:
We can actually be clear on then RAI, as this exact question is part of the official Sage Advice Compendium.

So as I said previously, Whirlwind Attack is the exception to the general attack rules.

I know Sage Advice is not an end all be all to how you should play your games, but I can follow and understand the process here clearly, I think it's sound.

Thank you a lot, ProsecutorGodot, this is an awesome find, and it definitively answers the question as far as I'm concerned.

It's a shame for my Ranger idea, but I'll survive it.

[MeeposFire]

Also I would not use EB or any spell for this discussion as the move between attacks rule applies only to weapon attacks so nothing about EB would apply in this situation.