D&D 5E extra attack and wildshape question.

[Sunseeker]

Hiya!

Obnoxious? For me I see the opposite of that... I see Refreshing. I love the fact that the rules are written in a way that gives everyone a vague idea of what it 'is', but each DM is free to interpret that 'vagueness' down into a more specific thing that fits his/her campaign. This thread is a perfect example.

Rules are what make a game function. I don't want my rules to be "vague". I want my rules to tell me how the game is supposed to work. If the rules aren't doing that then they are failing to serve their purpose. If they are, and I don't like it, I'm always free to change it, no matter how exacting those rules may be. This has ALWAYS been true. I like 5E's simplicity, but it's simplicity and speed of operations is hindered by the fact that I almost constantly have to rule on something. It's worse than being meticulous about what can or cannot be. It's tedious, tiring and requires far too much effort for a solution that could have been created with, in many cases with the 5E "natural language" problems, the change of ONE WORD.

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

I don't see that we needed either. The same philosophy that was applied to Movement could have been applied to attacking. You have X amount of movement and Y number of attacks that you can take during your turn. Instead of making an attack you may also do *things*.

5E's problem is they attempted to take the "simple" approach but failed to reduce many parts of the game to its simplest component. A convoluted Attack Action that replaces your normal Action but is somehow different from when a dragon makes a Multiattack. The "action" segment of your turn should have been eliminated just like the "move" segment of your turn.

You have attacks. You can make them. If you want to do something else you're doing that in place of one or more attacks.

The "replacement" actions methodology works fine for 4E when you're doing what essentially amount to performing specialized maneuvers during your "standard action" it makes sense in that context. It doesn't make any sense in the 5E K.I.S.S. methodology. "Multiattack" could very easily have been "Extra Attack: this creature may take 3 attacks of any combination." This provides more variety to monster combat and also syncs up the wording, now we don't even need the confusion over if Multiattack and the Attack Action are different! Monsters take the Attack Action and get multiple attacks! Ah! The clarity! What destruction it brings!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

True. But that's exactly why Jeremy Crawford wrote a Sage Advice clarifying what they (WotC) meant by it.

Multiattack is not considered an attack action because in 5E "attack actions" don't exist. Instead, there are just Actions... one of which is 'Attack'. This of course goes along with the other Actions, like 'Cast A Spell', 'Dash' 'Disengage' etc.

So the question then becomes "Can you substitute the 'Multiattack' Action for the 'Attack' Action when it comes to things like 'Extra Attack'?" And Jeremy has said through Sage Advice that their intention was 'No, you cannot'. The Attack action allows you to make one melee or ranged attack (Basic Rules pg 71). So when it comes to monsters, basically anything listed under the Actions sub-heading that have Melee Weapon Attack or Ranged Weapon Attack would be that single melee or ranged attack. And as 'Multiattack' is not listed as a single attack (because if it were, it'd have Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack connected to it)... it's the equivalent of something like Frightful Presence or Fire Breath, or Charge. Actions which are not defined as single weapon or ranged attacks and instead are other special types of Actions.

Now whether or not a person wants to accept Crawford's ruling or not is up to them. Someone might not care, or feel as though letting a person use Extra Attack with Multiattack doesn't break anything. If that's the case, then great! But if someone is actually looking for RAI... then they should follow what Jeremy said it was meant to be.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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

Well, if that is the case, I'd shy away from issuing a House Rule. With a ruling, it opens the floodgates for anyone and everyone to exploit and use 'just because it gives them more power'...role-playing be damned.

I'd suggest changing some barbarian abilities...make up some stuff for this "unique, game world, campaign specific, capability". For example, in stead of doing the whole multiclass thing with druid just to get 'shapechange', replace the Barbarians Rage ability with the Druids Wildshape one. Anytime it says "Rage", just sub in "Wildshape" and massage into place. Give some background on the barbarian's tribe...maybe they have lycanthrope-blood in their blood and only a 'chosen few' transform. When they Rage, they actually transform into one of their Totem Spirit Animals (Totem Barbarian seems the perfect fit, obviously).

Something like that. Something that establishes that this is a "unique thing" and not a "rule interpretation". It will make all the difference in the world if you have even one player who is more on the side of "optimization" than "roleplay".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sacrosanct]

Test reply. Something is odd. I keep seeing new replies to this thread, but nothing ever shows up after my post #30. Even when clicking on a post quote of mine, all it does is bring to the top of page 3. Testing to see if this post updates.

*Edit* Ok, this is weird. I can see my post, which is post #35. But I can't see post #32-34.....

 

[GreyLord]

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.

For creatures that attack with a shortsword, it is listed in the Actions section of the creature's statblock. That means it is not among the actions available to all creatures.

For creatures that attack with a longsword, it is listed in the Actions section of the creatures statblock. That means it is not among the actions available to all creatures.

If we need clarification, the MM also defines it as an attack action from apparent interpretation. His statements would also counter the Monster Manual...so contradicting two out of the three core rulebooks?

Your idea is a houserule.

It can be applied to attacks just as easily as anything else, as attacks are listed under the Actions section.

Furthermore, as per the PHB, that states when you ROLL to attack, it is an attack action...AND the actual wording on the Multiattack

(For example, under OTYUGH, I believe it states...the otyuh makes three attacks:...

ergo, as per the PHB, it is, indeed, an attack action.

HOWEVER...the difference is the difference between different types of attack actions.

Extra Attacks apply when you attack ONCE...as per it's wording...not multiple times.

It's also another reason why you cannot stack extra attacks with other actions that stack other extra attacks IN MY OPINION.

 

[GreyLord]

Rules are what make a game function. I don't want my rules to be "vague". I want my rules to tell me how the game is supposed to work. If the rules aren't doing that then they are failing to serve their purpose. If they are, and I don't like it, I'm always free to change it, no matter how exacting those rules may be. This has ALWAYS been true. I like 5E's simplicity, but it's simplicity and speed of operations is hindered by the fact that I almost constantly have to rule on something. It's worse than being meticulous about what can or cannot be. It's tedious, tiring and requires far too much effort for a solution that could have been created with, in many cases with the 5E "natural language" problems, the change of ONE WORD.





I don't see that we needed either. The same philosophy that was applied to Movement could have been applied to attacking. You have X amount of movement and Y number of attacks that you can take during your turn. Instead of making an attack you may also do *things*.

5E's problem is they attempted to take the "simple" approach but failed to reduce many parts of the game to its simplest component. A convoluted Attack Action that replaces your normal Action but is somehow different from when a dragon makes a Multiattack. The "action" segment of your turn should have been eliminated just like the "move" segment of your turn.

You have attacks. You can make them. If you want to do something else you're doing that in place of one or more attacks.

The "replacement" actions methodology works fine for 4E when you're doing what essentially amount to performing specialized maneuvers during your "standard action" it makes sense in that context. It doesn't make any sense in the 5E K.I.S.S. methodology. "Multiattack" could very easily have been "Extra Attack: this creature may take 3 attacks of any combination." This provides more variety to monster combat and also syncs up the wording, now we don't even need the confusion over if Multiattack and the Attack Action are different! Monsters take the Attack Action and get multiple attacks! Ah! The clarity! What destruction it brings!

Once again, as per the PHB...

it states as per the PHB page 194, 4th paragraph

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

I don't know what Sage Advice gave, but it seems to go against the simple advice of the PHB...

The only question one has to ask then, is whether or not you make an attack roll when you use multi attack.

It's really that simple...and as the PHB states...the RULE is simple.

Anything beyond that is one's own houserules.

I personally like how it's written and how 5e works in that light.

I understand not everyone does.

 

[GreyLord]

True. But that's exactly why Jeremy Crawford wrote a Sage Advice clarifying what they (WotC) meant by it.

Multiattack is not considered an attack action because in 5E "attack actions" don't exist. Instead, there are just Actions... one of which is 'Attack'. This of course goes along with the other Actions, like 'Cast A Spell', 'Dash' 'Disengage' etc.

So the question then becomes "Can you substitute the 'Multiattack' Action for the 'Attack' Action when it comes to things like 'Extra Attack'?" And Jeremy has said through Sage Advice that their intention was 'No, you cannot'. The Attack action allows you to make one melee or ranged attack (Basic Rules pg 71). So when it comes to monsters, basically anything listed under the Actions sub-heading that have Melee Weapon Attack or Ranged Weapon Attack would be that single melee or ranged attack. And as 'Multiattack' is not listed as a single attack (because if it were, it'd have Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack connected to it)... it's the equivalent of something like Frightful Presence or Fire Breath, or Charge. Actions which are not defined as single weapon or ranged attacks and instead are other special types of Actions.

Now whether or not a person wants to accept Crawford's ruling or not is up to them. Someone might not care, or feel as though letting a person use Extra Attack with Multiattack doesn't break anything. If that's the case, then great! But if someone is actually looking for RAI... then they should follow what Jeremy said it was meant to be.

See my statement above. It seems his Sage advice directly countradicts what is written in the PHB if that is what he stated. At least in my interpretation.

However, I WOULD AGREE, that for the rules as indicated or RAI, that Extra Attack and multi attack are not supposed to stack.

I gave my reasons in a post prior up the thread.

Either that, or under Crawford's specific definition, there's a whole slew of items that suddenly don't count as an attack (including, ironically, attacks done with bonus actions, extra attacks, and occasionally just the straightforward attack with a shortsword, longsword, bow, dagger, etc).

I think this could be up to a DM's ruling, to tell the truth, and I'm fine with that. I think there are a few other limiting factors (as others have pointed out already) that make it so that even if they do this, it's not a constant thing they spam every single combat.

Edit: I would like to clarify something that is hinted at throughout the PHB, and even the DMG, and further clarified in the MM...it's what I've been pointing out. That there is a difference between Single Melee attack and when multi attack is possible. This is why Extra Attack SPECIFIES ONCE or that it works when ONE attack is taken. The MM also specifies that there are different types of attack actions, most normally as a melee weapon attack, a ranged weapon attack, or otherwise.

It is a DM decision, but a DM could determine just like the Sage Advice, and determine Multiattack is merely a new and different type of action (outside of those defined in the PHB or other core books). This would then also apply to Extra Attacks as well, as they are also very similar to Multi Attack and NOT a single attack. In that instance, I think it creates a bigger problem because then it's not a matter of whether Extra Attacks are an attack action or not, but whether it counts as another type of action, and how to or when it can be twisted to be utilized as such (Aka...could you do extra attacks as an action and a bonus action with Multi attack or vice versa or other attempts by players to twist the wording).

 

[Hriston]

FYI: Just because something counts as an attack, i.e. because you make an attack roll, for example casting a spell that involves an attack roll, DOES NOT mean you are taking the Attack action. I hope that clarifies things.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, but then when they take the monster takes the Attack Action to get multiple attacks, wouldn't a wildshaped multiclass character be able to stack attacks?

Possibly, but it wouldn't be that problematic. Even if GishMonster was a Level 20 Fighter and an Ancient Red Dragon, GishMonster's Fighter levels would only be granting him an extra 5 attacks. As a potentially what, CR 35+ creature that would give him 8 attacks on his turn. That's a BIG NUMBER, but it's a bloody CR35+ GishMonster!

For Everyone Else(TM) that means: you and me the player, the best you're going to get is to be a high-level Fighter with lots of extra attacks, or a high-level Druid, with cool beast forms. Assuming you get to at least level 6 as a Moon Druid so you can take on CR2 monsters who have two attacks, with ALL the rest of your levels as a Fighter you'd only get 2 Extra Attacks, which even if you stacked them, you would only get 4 attacks as a CR2 Saber-Toothed Tiger dealing +6 to hit with 1d6 of damage.

Ooooooo scary! /sarcasm

So even if you stack it, you're unlikely to end up with more attacks than a 16th-level Fighter. Which is fine. The Fighter should end up with more attacks than everyone else. If you're Gishing though, expect the rules to go haywire.

I mean, if the special ability is to take extra attacks as the Attack Action, and (say) you're a Multiclass F11/Dwhatever, then you take one attack action (extra attacks, may take three attacks) and then you get two extra attacks (may attack three times with each attack, since the Attack Action you're getting is an extra attack). For nine attacks. Which is awesome!

No. Extra Attack feature grants you one additional attack. You can choose what type of weapon you can attack with, so reasonably for a wild-shaped creature it would do exactly what it says it does: grant one additional attack. So an Adult Red Dragon who is also a F11 would have 6 attacks, with any of their available attacks (claw/bite/tail, etc..).

I don't see that as a big deal. I see that as simplicity. Extra attacks does exactly what the name would suggest: grant additional attacks. It's not multiplicative, it's linear.

Which gets down to the basic point - no system of rules is perfect. Whether your field is computer programming, or law, you understand that increased complexity has tradeoffs. You can either have a Constitution, which is largely principles that need to be interpreted, or you can have the prolixity of the United States Code, which is a ... little bit more detailed ... but which isn't quite as fast of a read, and ends up having sections that conflict with each other and are difficult to interpret holistically.

Again, Actions, types of actions IS complexity. Just as molecule to atom to protons/neutrons/electrons to quarks goes from complex to least complex, so does Turn>Action/Move/Bonus/Free, the problem is that 5E stopped at the Atom and then when it realized there was more than just Helium, had to start detailing a dozen different types of Atoms, forgetting that Atoms are all made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. So instead of producing a simple system wherein you have X protons, Y neutrons and Z electrons to use as you choose on your turn, they produced the Periodic Table of Elements. It is problematic because not all Elements (the options you can take for your Action) are equally valuable, but as they are all Atoms (Actions) they given equal regard on the Table. This leads to false and trap choices that may be thematically fitting or fun, but are statistically inferior options and are especially inferior to certain classes who make better use of their Action than others.

Eliminating the concept of the "Action" and denoting how much of any given thing you can do on your turn would be simpler, clearer, more uniform and less burdensome to classes that have typically borne the brunt of the negative impact D&D's complexity-creep over the years, in exactl. the same way freeing up movement has done/