D&D 5E extra attack and wildshape question.

[spectacle]

And then you have the issue of pure ridiculousness. For one, you're ignoring the multiclass rules if you have a Barb 1, Cleric 1, Fighter 6, Monk 1 since you have to meet certain requirements before multiclassing into each class, and odds are you won't have the stats for all of those. And if you did, they wouldn't be anywhere near 18 or 20 since you had to spread them out and thus your bonuses would be less than a straight class.

If you plan to be wildshaped all the time then it's not hard to meet the stat requirements for any multiclass combination, you don't care about having any high stats since you'll be using animal stats in combat.

Multiattack is not technically an Attack Action, the Attack Action is an Action, Multiattack is an Action. They are both Actions, but they are not the same.

It's a very obnoxious sort of technicalities they've created with this setup.

Another victim of the 5E "rules in natural language" philosophy. What was so bad about "Full Attack" and "Standard Action"?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What was so bad about "Full Attack" and "Standard Action"?

What is so bad about "Attack action" and "action"?

They are are the same thing in practice, but the later happens to occasionally use less words.

 

[spectacle]

What is so bad about "Attack action" and "action"?

They are are the same thing in practice, but the later happens to occasionally use less words.

Considering that we get these kinds of threads on ENWorld fairly regularly, it seems the choice of words has left many people confused about the difference between making attacks and taking the Attack action.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Considering that we get these kinds of threads on ENWorld fairly regularly, it seems the choice of words has left many people confused about the difference between making attacks and taking the Attack action.

The question then is whether the number of people confused about the difference between making an attack and taking the Attack action is greater than the number of people confused about the difference between making an attack and making a full attack.

I don't think it is. I also know that when my group started to learn to play 5th edition they weren't asking me questions that equate to questions I've previously heard from players trying to grasp a new system, such as "So if this is a standard action, what is a non-standard actions?"

 

[GreyLord]

I'm curious, where EXACTLY does it define multi-attack as NOT an attack action.

The actions in combat state that there are ATTACK, CAST A SPELL, DASH, DISENGAGE, DODGE, HELP, HIDE, READY, SEARCH, and USE AN OBJECT.

Secondly, page 194 it states,

If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the RULE IS SIMPLE; if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

So what is an attack roll?

you're attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses

On page 195 under melee attacks it even DEFINES a monster attack as using "claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part."

Furthermore, to show that the multiattack seems to qualify as an ATTACK ACTION...the ranger ability, multiattack defense (pg 93) states that when you are hit with an attack, you gain a +4 bonus to AC against all subsequent attacks made by that creature for the rest of the turn.

Everything that says it does NOT count as an attack action, seems to be a HOUSERULE rather than a hard fast rule of the rulebooks.

Is there ANYONE THAT can actually quote a book and page number for where it actually spells out multiattack is not an attack action, because everything I've read seems to INDICATE that it IS in fact an attack action.

The Monster Manual defines it as different than a single melee attack (which is also an attack action) which is the reason why it cannot be used for an opportunity attack, but nowhere that I can find does it state it is not an attack action.

In fact, it seems to match the definition of attack action from anything I read in the books.

HOWEVER, it is NOT defined as an attack action (beyond the obvious statement that when you make an attack roll, that counts as an attack action, or that the attacks under multiattacks are listed as attacks under the attack section of the PHB) or NOT as an attack action specifically either...

To me, this means it's one of those hazy areas where it comes down to WHATEVER THE DM RULES.

That is simply because I cannot find a specific statement one way or the other (except where it states if you are rolling to make an attack with that action, it is an attack action, and you certainly are rolling to make an attack with multiattack).

On the otherhand, the above is Rules as written. Rules as Indicated, or the spirit of the rules may be different. As per page 164 under the Extra Attack with multiclassing, it would indicate, or the spirit of the rules would seem that it would NOT stack with extra attack as per the idea that Extra Attack does not stack or add together if you gain it from more than one class.

Furthermore, you could say the text is exclusionary in regards to the Extra Attack text vs. that of the multiattack where it states...

you can attack twice, instead of ONCE, whenever you take the Attack Action.

As you are NOT attacking ONCE with the multiattack, it would not qualify as an Attack that you can use with the Extra Attack Ability...

But that would be a DM houserule to clarify in MY case, I don't actually have anything to say that is the official way of the rulebooks except for my OWN ruling.

If someone has it where it is specifically stated...I'd be interested...but though things may agree with how I have houseruled it for CLARITY...and how I think it goes with the spirit of the rules...I don't see anything that actually spells it out in the actual rules as written.

I think it's another one of those vague areas that is left up to the DM to interpret.

 

[TwoSix]

You're probably right. Thoughts of optimizing or exploitation isn't even something that enters my (or my tables) brain. We are driven by inspired archetypes, not mechanics or exploits. So I probably am overlooking where someone could cause havoc if they really wanted to.

Yep. As long as the ruling matches the character the player wants to play, who cares whether or not it's the most optimized choice?

 

[GreyLord]

The question then is whether the number of people confused about the difference between making an attack and taking the Attack action is greater than the number of people confused about the difference between making an attack and making a full attack.

I don't think it is. I also know that when my group started to learn to play 5th edition they weren't asking me questions that equate to questions I've previously heard from players trying to grasp a new system, such as "So if this is a standard action, what is a non-standard actions?"

I think there are two things at play here.

People are applying their own houserules and thinking they are the rules as written (which is inaccurate),

Or if it is like this thread....people are confused at the difference between an attack action (which multiattack seems to qualify as) and the different TYPES of attack actions.

For example, multiattack is an attack action. You roll to attack several times with this and it is usually found under a Monster description.

A Single melee attack is an attack action. You attack once. It is the main attack action of characters.

In the example in this thread...EXTRA ATTACK specifies the attack ONCE as part of it's definition.

This is why I PERSONALLY would clarify it as NOT being able to be stacked with multi attack. Because the attack action defined is for the single melee attack and NOT the multiattack.

Hence where it is different is that where as the attack action is a rather broad definition, the Attack ONCE, or Single melee attack is more specific and defined.

 

[spectacle]

I'm curious, where EXACTLY does it define multi-attack as NOT an attack action.

The actions in combat state that there are ATTACK, CAST A SPELL, DASH, DISENGAGE, DODGE, HELP, HIDE, READY, SEARCH, and USE AN OBJECT.

This is from the DM's basic rules:
"Actions

When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the player’s D&D basic rules and the Player’s Handbook."

For creatures that have Multiattack it is listed in the Actions section of the creature's statblock. That means it is not among the actions available to all creatures. The Attack action is available to all creatures, so ergo the Multiattack action is not the same as the Attack action.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Finally - weirdly transforming into a bear isn't the best combat form for characters with multiple attacks. Probably damage wise your best bet is a form that gets a prone + bonus attack, like warhorse or sabre toothed tiger. And don't forget other special abilities like swallowing a target as a giant toad, or constricting as a giant snake.

Again, it's not about optimizing. It's about playing a PC with a very specific theme for role playing purposes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you plan to be wildshaped all the time then it's not hard to meet the stat requirements for any multiclass combination, you don't care about having any high stats since you'll be using animal stats in combat.

You can only wildshape twice, and there are tons of scenarios where you either have to end wildshape early, or don't have use of it. Every time we have a druid in our games, I'd say only about 1/3rd of the time is the PC actually wildshaped. So even if you get past the fact that you probably won't have the stat reqs to multiclass into 5 different classes to begin with, if you do, you might be getting +1 bonuses while straight classes are getting +4 to their primary combat abilities. Which goes back to "your nova is great, but you're sacrificing consistent effectiveness compared to the rest of the group."