3.5 At-Will Melee Stunning

[Anthrowhale]

Word of Chaos has a no-save stun. Stun Ray has a stun on save. Both are SR:Yes, but that can be stripped via Supernatural Spell (for example).

[ViperMagnum357]

Word of Chaos has a no-save stun. Stun Ray has a stun on save. Both are SR:Yes, but that can be stripped via Supernatural Spell (for example).

Yeah, I considered Word of Chaos and the analogues, but HD-1 kinda puts a damper on that-most encounters are liable to have roughly comparable or better HD on enemies you would like to stun.

I also have Pharaoh's Fist already; the build is mostly complete, I was just looking for some at-will stunning to supplement Stunning Fist.

[Gruftzwerg]

Okay then try this:
If you have three friends adjacent to you and you hurl one apple at each of them, how many apples have you thrown?

Sry I have to ask, but did you read my post at all? It starts with

Giving/sharing objects to others (apples, cookies..) are a bad comparison to making actions (attacking, swinging your weapon...).

When you throw an apple, your action still involves "giving objects away", which is imho an invalid comparison. You can't compare a single weapon swing (which doesn't needs to be restricted to one target) to ammunition (which in most chases is restricted to a single target per ammunition used unless somehow impaling/penetrating).

"against each" - think of:
Make a single attack roll and check "against each" AC of enemies in reach. Now I have still used "against each" but we have a clear indicator that it is a single attack.

Imho we lack enough textual context to be sure of either one. You can view it one or the other way by RAW it seems to me.

You can interpret "against each" as indicator for the amount of attacks or the amounts of enemies hit by the single attack.
The text ain't clear enough here.

Other abilities like Rapid Shot and Mithral Tornado are more precise.
(btw, I just noticed now that MT ain't a full copy of WW. While WW hits everything in "range", MT is limited to "every opponent adjacent to you" which doesn't involve your "reach"..^^).

[Doctor Awkward]

Sry I have to ask, but did you read my post at all?

When you throw an apple, your action still involves "giving objects away", which is imho an invalid comparison.

If you have three enemies adjacent to you and you hurl one shuriken at each of them, how many shuriken have you thrown?

You can't compare a single weapon swing (which doesn't needs to be restricted to one target)

Please cite any instance, aside from Whirlwind Attack, where this is true.

Make a single attack roll and check "against each" AC of enemies in reach. Now I have still used "against each" but we have a clear indicator that it is a single attack.

You have indeed proven your point is correct if you change the entire wording of the rules text for Whirlwind Attack.

Now let's use that with the actual text of the feat:

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

...and we are still making one melee attack against each enemy individually, instead of as a group.


Instead of deciding in advance what the mechanic does, and then arguing that the text is unclear because it doesn't match your conclusion, don't you think it would be a lot easier to draw a conclusion based on what the text actually says?

[Gruftzwerg]

If you have three enemies adjacent to you and you hurl one shuriken at each of them, how many shuriken have you thrown?

you are still comparing objects that you "give away" by throwing em. Can't you see the difference compared to a swing, which could hit multiple enemies?

Please cite any instance, aside from Whirlwind Attack, where this is true.

Hammer of Moradins "Power Throw" ability comes into my mind:

Power Throw (Su): At 9th level, the hammer of Moradin can hurl his warhammer with such a force that it plows on past creatures struck by it. When throwing his hammer, the hammer of Moradin makes a single ranged attack roll and checks the result against the AC of all creatures in a 60-foot straight line from his position. He then rolls damage against each creature that the weapon hits.

There you have a single attack roll that can target and hit multiple enemies at once.

So imho both options are possible by RAW. Again, the sole clear indicator is the ability name. But as you said, not the strongest argument.

Instead of deciding in advance what the mechanic does, and then arguing that the text is unclear because it doesn't match your conclusion, don't you think it would be a lot easier to draw a conclusion based on what the text actually says?

??
I said several times that by RAW it can be viewed either way (I just wasn't aware of the other one before this thread).
You are the one making claims while ignoring my points of argument. Don't compare "loosing objects"/ammunition by throwing em, with weapon swings that don't use up upon hitting the enemy. Ammunition is used up (destroyed if it hits by 3.5 rules), while a weapon swing ain't something that has to "vanish" once it hits something. Imho is meant to be one big swing.

Would you pls stop implying negative intentions into my arguments like "deciding in advance what the mechanic does"? Stop trying to discredit me with that kind of things. Thx in advance.

[Nifft]

Warlocks can save-or-stun on their Eldritch Blasts using the binding blast eldritch essence invocation. This can be done as a melee full attack with the eldritch glaive blast shape. Of course, binding blast is a Dark invocation, but at lower levels you can still use noxious blast (save or be nauseated for 1 minute) as a Greater invocation, or beshadowed blast (save or be blinded for 1 round) as a Lesser invocation.

Couldn't they also do the hideous blow blast shape?

I'm not a fan of Hideous Blow.

How about using Eldritch Claws + Rapidstrike (+ Beast Strike)?

[Troacctid]

I'm not a fan of Hideous Blow.

How about using Eldritch Claws + Rapidstrike (+ Beast Strike)?

Eldritch Claws don't deliver eldritch essences.

[Anthrowhale]

Yeah, I considered Word of Chaos and the analogues, but HD-5 kinda puts a damper on that-most encounters are liable to have roughly comparable or better HD on enemies you would like to stun.

I also have Pharaoh's Fist already; the build is mostly complete, I was just looking for some at-will stunning to supplement Stunning Fist.

Word of Chaos is HD=caster level-1 and Stun Ray is not HD limited.

[ViperMagnum357]

Word of Chaos is HD=caster level-1 and Stun Ray is not HD limited.

Meant to put HD-1. Fixed. Still not a big fan for an item; most things you would want to hit with stun/stagger are likely to have comparable HD or better; anything less powerful and therefore vulnerable could probably be dropped in the 2-4 melee hits it would take to successfully stun and stagger them, anyway. Was thinking more along the lines of big monsters with lots of HD-good enough saves to survive an initial barrage of save-or-die, and enough HP/defenses they can survive more than a round with an Ubercharger.

[Anthrowhale]

Meant to put HD-1. Fixed. Still not a big fan for an item; most things you would want to hit with stun/stagger are likely to have comparable HD or better; anything less powerful and therefore vulnerable could probably be dropped in the 2-4 melee hits it would take to successfully stun and stagger them, anyway. Was thinking more along the lines of big monsters with lots of HD-good enough saves to survive an initial barrage of save-or-die, and enough HP/defenses they can survive more than a round with an Ubercharger.

So use Stun Ray?

[ViperMagnum357]

So use Stun Ray?

I think I will just stick with melee weapon enchantments with Pharaoh's Fist on backup. No real room for a caster class in the build, and custom building an epic magic item for quickened Stunning spells with a fixed, low DC does not seem worth the return on investment.

[Nifft]

Eldritch Claws don't deliver eldritch essences.

Ah. That would tend to limit the utility.

Thanks!

[Gruftzwerg]

You could ask your DM if he lets you use the "Hold Ray" & "Arcane Fist" ability of Enlightened Fist with Eldritch Blasts. The problem by RAW is, EB ain't a cast and thus is normally an invalid option. Enlightened Fist is one of the few PRC which warlocks may enter and still more than half of the abilities don't work with warlocks.
Not a "real" option by RAW, but maybe if you ask your DM kindly..^^

[Doctor Awkward]

Hammer of Moradins "Power Throw" ability comes into my mind:


There you have a single attack roll that can target and hit multiple enemies at once.

So imho both options are possible by RAW. Again, the sole clear indicator is the ability name. But as you said, not the strongest argument.

You realize that link just disproves your own argument, yes?

The text for Power Throw clearly states you make one attack roll against every enemy in a line.

Whirlwind Attack on the other hand states that you make one attack roll against each enemy within reach.

If that was meant to be read as rolling one time for "every" enemy. They would have said so.


each
determiner & pronoun
1. used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately.

[Gruftzwerg]

You realize that link just disproves your own argument, yes?

The text for Power Throw clearly states you make one attack roll against every enemy in a line.

Whirlwind Attack on the other hand states that you make one attack roll against each enemy within reach.

If that was meant to be read as rolling one time for "every" enemy. They would have said so.


each
determiner & pronoun
1. used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately.

ehm no?!
You asked for any instance where it is true that you can make a single attack roll to hit multiple enemies. I did gave you one.

Sure, Power Throw makes clear statements, as Mithral Tornado does. But not Whirlwind.

WW can be interpreted either way, cause RAW isn't specific enough about how it is handled. Let me show you this by inserting the necessary words into the WW text, to make it specific enough for either way:

a)... make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach separately.

b)... make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus targeted against each opponent within reach.

You need to imply (RAI) something, otherwise the text isn't clear enough about how it should be handled.
Either you assume (RAI) that you make "separate" attacks or you assume (RAI) that one attack has several "targets".
By RAW both options are valid interpretations with different/incompatible results.
That's why I say that RAW isn't clear enough.

[Doctor Awkward]

WW can be interpreted either way, cause RAW isn't specific enough about how it is handled. Let me show you this by inserting the necessary words into the WW text, to make it specific enough for either way:

a)... make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach separately.

b)... make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus targeted against each opponent within reach.

You need to imply (RAI) something, otherwise the text isn't clear enough about how it should be handled.
Either you assume (RAI) that you make "separate" attacks or you assume (RAI) that one attack has several "targets".
By RAW both options are valid interpretations with different/incompatible results.
That's why I say that RAW isn't clear enough.

Really, it's only unclear if you refuse to acknowledge the definition of the word "each".

[Gruftzwerg]

Really, it's only unclear if you refuse to acknowledge the definition of the word "each".

yeah really, it gets only clear if you interpret either one of the words into text (separately or targeted). Otherwise both interpretations are valid for the given RAW text.

You still seem to have a hard time to understand it huh?
Yeah, "each" is an indicator for multiple instances. But by RAW it is undefined if it is referring to the amount of attacks or the amount of targets hit (with a single attack).

Can you prove that your interpretation is the sole valid one? No!
As I proved, the given text can be seen either way and lacks more clear introductions.

A few post ago you implied/advised that I shouldn't decide the outcome in advance. How about sticking to your own advice? But hey, that wouldn't support your statement anymore and thus seems to have become an invalid option I guess?
Instead of passive aggressively attacking others with your so called advice, stick yourself to your advice first.

[Doctor Awkward]

Can you prove that your interpretation is the sole valid one?

Yes.

"You | can give up | your \ regular attacks | and | instead \ make | one melee attack | at \ your \ full base attack bonus | against \ each \ opponent | within \ reach."


Wherein:

"You" is the subject, indicating the reader of the sentence.
"can give up" is the verb, using the modal "can" with the phrase verb of "give".
"regular attacks" is the direct object being given up, as is modified by the determiner "your".
"and" is the conjunction, joining the compound sentence.
With "You" still being the subject of the second sentence...
"make" is the verb, modified by the adverb "instead", indicating that "give up" is exchanging "your regular attacks" for something else.
"one melee attack" is the direct object, and it's position after "make" tells us it is the thing you are exchanging "your regular attacks" for.
"full base attack bonus" is an appositive for the "one melee attack", and is modified by the preposition "at".
"opponent" is the indirect object that receives the "one melee attack", as is indicated by the preposition "against". The determiner "each" indicates that the opponents are to be regarded separately for the purposes of the one melee attack.
and finally "reach" is the game term which indicates precisely which opponents may be affected by your one melee attack, its relationship to opponents governed by the preposition "within".

There is one grammatically correct way to read this sentence.
And it leads to only one interpretation.

[Gruftzwerg]

"opponent" is the indirect object that receives the "one melee attack", as is indicated by the preposition "against". The determiner "each" indicates that the opponents are to be regarded separately for the purposes of the one melee attack.

There is one grammatically correct way to read this sentence.
And it leads to only one interpretation.

I couldn't see how this proves that this is the only legetim interpretation?
Why can "against each" only refer to the amount of attacks and may not refer to the amount of enemies hit with that "one attack"?
Can you disprove that? I guess not. And thus both interpretation are valid interpretations by RAW since it is not clearly defined as it could be (as shown in the other ability examples).

You only proved that your interpretation would work, not that any other other interpretation is invalid.. Try to get the difference..

[Doctor Awkward]

I couldn't see how this proves that this is the only legetim interpretation?
Why can "against each" only refer to the amount of attacks and may not refer to the amount of enemies hit with that "one attack"?

Because that is how diagramming a sentence works.

"Against" is a preposition, governing the relationship between the indirect object "opponent" and the direct object "melee attack". One is the cardinal number, used as a synonym for single. "Each" is the determiner telling you that two or more opponents are to be addressed by this melee attack individually.

That you are unable or unwilling to accept this does not change the facts of the matter.

You only proved that your interpretation would work, not that any other other interpretation is invalid.. Try to get the difference..

There is no other interpretation.
There is one grammatically correct way to read that sentence.

[Gruftzwerg]

Because that is how diagramming a sentence works.

"Against" is a preposition, governing the relationship between the indirect object "opponent" and the direct object "melee attack".
One is the cardinal number, used as a synonym for single. "Each" is the determiner telling you that two or more opponents are to be addressed by this melee attack individually.

Sry, but that's only one valid interpretation. The text doesn't say anything if you are targeting each opponent with a separate attack or if the single attack targets all enemies. And the sentence can be interpreted both way, but you ignore that constant.
Like in math with algebra, sometimes you can have more than one valid answer if some variables/info is missing. And the same is true here. But you just stop at the first valid answer you got and assume there is no other valid answer.

There is no other interpretation.
There is one grammatically correct way to read that sentence.

See, that's your problem, that you assume that there is only one grammatically correct way to interpret the sentence.
But in situations like these it happens if the given information is not enough to draw a clear interpretation.
But you assume that you know the intention of the designers and thus that only your interpretation is valid..

You need to imply either "separate attacks" like you do or can imply "multiple targets" like I did. Both interpretations work. I don't get how you can deny this.
When you can imply the "seperate attacks" you can also impy "multiple targets".

Assume I make a single attack and check the results against each enemy in reach.
Did I "make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach."?
yes, the single attack was against each opponent(s armor class).
It was not a single attack for each opponent like you demand, but that's not what WW by RAW demands.

[Doctor Awkward]

Sry, but that's the only one valid interpretation.

Fixed that for you.

Like in math with algebra, sometimes you can have more than one valid answer if some variables/info is missing.

That depends entirely on your definition of "answer" and "math problem".

The only time that mathematics is not a black-and-white precision science is when you are discussing solution sets:
for the equation, x² - 4 = 0, the value of x can either be +2 or -2. While both of these answers are equally valid, the point is to demonstrate that this equation has a clearly and rigidly defined solution set of {2, -2}. So in this case there is still only "one correct answer".

Any variations of this are a failure of precision in specification, not two or more genuine answers.

A proper and well-posed math problem never has more than one correct solution set, whether that set contains a single solution, many solutions, infinite solutions, or no solution at all.

And the same is true here. But you just stop at the first valid answer you got and assume there is no other valid answer.

No it's not, because this is a massive false equivalence.

You are comparing algebraic notations to elementary-level grammar and reading comprehension.

See, that's your problem, that you assume that there is only one grammatically correct way to interpret the sentence.

If you really think I am wrong, here is a handy guide for how diagramming a sentence is done:
https://www.wikihow.com/Diagram-Sentences

Feel free to use the information there and, without adding or subtracting words or changing order of the text, demonstrate how you would diagram that sentence in order to prove your interpretation is the correct one.

I'll wait...

[Gruftzwerg]

*snip*

If you really think I am wrong, here is a handy guide for how diagramming a sentence is done:
https://www.wikihow.com/Diagram-Sentences

Feel free to use the information there and, without adding or subtracting words or changing order of the text, demonstrate how you would diagram that sentence in order to prove your interpretation is the correct one.

I'll wait...

For the most part I agree with the diagram you posted. So I'll just point out where our interpretations vary for the sake of overview.

While you interpret "against each" as:

"opponent" is the indirect object that receives the "one melee attack", as is indicated by the preposition "against". The determiner "each" indicates that the opponents are to be regarded separately for the purposes of the one melee attack.

The text gives no clear information that they are separate attacks. While it is a valid interpretation, it is not the sole valid interpretation. Since there are other special attacks where a single attack roll can target multiple targets, that can be a possible and valid interpretation too. The text ain't clear enough.

If the designer would just have added a single word more, either "separately" or "targeted" it would have been more clear.
E.G.:

a) you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent separately within reach.


OR


b) you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus targeted against each opponent within reach.


While the real WW text (c) ain't specific enough and thus can be either (a) or (b). The reason is "each" only starts to have a clear interpretation, when you either imply "separately" or "targeted". Itself by RAW doesn't tell you that is has to be "separate" attacks. It could tell you either multiple attacks or multiple targets.

c) you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

[Doctor Awkward]

For the most part I agree with the diagram you posted. So I'll just point out where our interpretations vary for the sake of overview.

While you interpret "against each" as:

The text gives no clear information that they are separate attacks. While it is a valid interpretation, it is not the sole valid interpretation. Since there are other special attacks where a single attack roll can target multiple targets, that can be a possible and valid interpretation too. The text ain't clear enough.

If the designer would just have added a single word more, either "separately" or "targeted" it would have been more clear.
E.G.:

a) you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent separately within reach.


OR


b) you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus targeted against each opponent within reach.


While the real WW text (c) ain't specific enough and thus can be either (a) or (b). The reason is "each" only starts to have a clear interpretation, when you either imply "separately" or "targeted". Itself by RAW doesn't tell you that is has to be "separate" attacks. It could tell you either multiple attacks or multiple targets.

c) you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

This has nothing at all to do with a lack of precision in the rules text for Whirlwind Attack. Just your refusal to acknowledge the definition of the word "each".

I've posted said definition at least twice now, so I really can't help you there any more.

[Gruftzwerg]

This has nothing at all to do with a lack of precision in the rules text for Whirlwind Attack. Just your refusal to acknowledge the definition of the word "each".

I've posted said definition at least twice now, so I really can't help you there any more.

yeah so what?
The sentence still leaves open if it is "an attack against each opponent separately" or "an attack targeted against each opponent". Just the word "each" doesn't say doesn't help you differentiate between those valid options. I don't see how just "each" would exclude either of the options. You need to imply either word (separately or targeted) or it ain't clear by RAW. And I don't see by RAW why one should favorite one implied word over the other.