Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Ristamar]

No there isn't. Step 1 of making an attack is choosing a target.

Which is a moot point. Resolving
weapon attacks and resolving spell attacks have some commonality, but they are not identical.

 

[Yunru]

Which is a moot point. Resolving
weapon attacks and resolving spell attacks have some commonality, but they are not identical.

It's not, it's resolving an attack, period.

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

Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."

 

[Ristamar]

It's not, it's resolving an attack, period.

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

Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."

Yet an object that is a valid target for a ranged or melee weapon attack may not be a valid target for a spell attack.

Movement between attack rolls is another area in which they differ.

I'm not arguing that they aren't incredibly similar. But there are some explicit differences.

 

[Yunru]

Yet an object that is a valid target for a melee weapon attack may not be a valid target for a spell attack.

Movement between attack rolls is another area in which they differ.

I'm not arguing that they aren't incredibly similar. But there are some explicit differences.

That was a direct quote of making any attack spell or weapon.
Thus sequential spell attacks target sequentially

 

[Sadras]

My additiona? Mr. (Ms.? Mrs.?) 'Actions are indivisible despite it not being written anywhere, or in any offical source'?

There is also Miss, Mx, Misc and Ind

 

[Maxperson]

No, the fake rule is the stuff you are making up to fit your interpretation. I'm simply reading the rules that are there.

Is there any rule that states that you can break up your Attack Action with a Bonus Action? Yes or no? Is the rule there?

A general rule, no. There are specific rules that allow it, though. Commander's Strike for example, allows the fighter to forgo one attack and use a bonus action to allow a friendly creature to use its reaction to attack. So a 20th level fighter could attack, use bonus action, attack, attack during his attack action.

 

[Ristamar]

That was a direct quote of making any attack spell or weapon.
Thus sequential spell attacks target sequentially

Planting your flag on a basic structure without considering explicit exceptions and designer commentary and clarification beyond the original source isn't terribly convincing.

The oscillating "target-roll-target-roll" method may be correct for Eldritch Blast (in fact, that's how I've always run it), but it doesn't mean I can't question it when I learn that method may not align with the original intent.

 

[Lord Twig]

That was a direct quote of making any attack spell or weapon.
Thus sequential spell attacks target sequentially

But they resolve instantaneously. So according to the rules you choose a target for the first blast, roll to hit, then roll damage if you succeeded. Then do it again for the second blast, then the third until you are out of attacks. You would know how much damage each blast did, but you wouldn't know the results of the attacks until you finish all of them.

Also, the rules for moving between attacks explicitly calls out weapon attacks. It doesn't say "attacks" or "weapon and spell attacks", just weapon attacks. It seems pretty clear that only weapon attacks are the exception to the rule that you can move either before or after an action.

 

[Yunru]

But they resolve instantaneously. So according to the rules you choose a target for the first blast, roll to hit, then roll damage if you succeeded. Then do it again for the second blast, then the third until you are out of attacks. You would know how much damage each blast did, but you wouldn't know the results of the attacks until you finish all of them.

Nonsense. Because that makes none sense. If it's resolved instantaneously, then the damage is instantaneous, meaning you see the damage instantaneously. Besides which, that's not what duration actually represents.

Also, the rules for moving between attacks explicitly calls out weapon attacks. It doesn't say "attacks" or "weapon and spell attacks", just weapon attacks. It seems pretty clear that only weapon attacks are the exception to the rule that you can move either before or after an action.

What's movement got to do with anything?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nonsense. Because that makes none sense. If it's resolved instantaneously, then the damage is instantaneous, meaning you see the damage instantaneously. Besides which, that's not what duration actually represents.

What's movement got to do with anything?

What does duration actually represent?