D&D 5E extra attack and wildshape question.

[GreyLord]

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.

It's listed under the attack Action...as per...How to make an attack.

You may have missed it as I edited this in...

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).

The problem when you discard the simple rule of what or what is not an attack action, is you open a bucket of worms as to what else can be squeezed in.

If an Attack action is NOT what the PHB defines it as...and instead is ONLY COMPOSED OF A SINGLE Attack....then the section in 192 under attack actions, where it states..

Certain features allow you to make more than one attack with this action...

Would in this light also be invalidated...as the same applies to the Multiattack from Monsters...especially in light of the wording for it in the Monster Manual.

but hey...

I'm not bothered with RAI or interpretations...

I'm just bothered with people trying to shoehorn their houserules as official.

I'd rule the same as many arguing that Extra Attacks don't stack with Multi Attack, but where I realize it's a houserule of clarification, others are presenting it as official rules.

 

[Sunseeker]

Once again, as per the PHB...

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



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.

But as [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] points out, making an attack and taking the Attack Action are not synonymous. Many spells require an attack roll, but casting a spell is an Action (unless it specifies otherwise, and then its not), but it's not an Attack Action it's Casting a Spell, which is an Action.

Per my periodic table of elements example: both are atoms, but one is Helium, the other is Lead. Both are Atoms, just as Casting a Spell and taking the Attack Action are both Actions, but Casting a Spell with an attack roll is not an Attack Action.

That's not simple. That's confusing. That's weird and fiddly. Worse, some spells with attack rolls are not Actions, they are Bonus Actions.

5E utilizes the same Action system 4E does. You have "slots", Action, Bonus Action(sometimes, often if granted or triggered only), (Free Action). You can choose to insert specific blocks that fit into these slots. When you take the Attack Action you typically can make one or more attacks. Though you can do Other Things(TM) instead of that as an Action, such as Cast a Spell. Unfortunately, 5E completely mangled the Action Economy in doing so. It's one of the reasons 5E's Turn system is so incredibly clunky and their use of "natural language" makes it confusing on top of that.

 

[Hriston]

It's listed under the attack Action...as per...How to make an attack.

You may have missed it as I edited this in...



The problem when you discard the simple rule of what or what is not an attack action, is you open a bucket of worms as to what else can be squeezed in.

If an Attack action is NOT what the PHB defines it as...and instead is ONLY COMPOSED OF A SINGLE Attack....then the section in 192 under attack actions, where it states..

Certain features allow you to make more than one attack with this action...

Would in this light also be invalidated...as the same applies to the Multiattack from Monsters...especially in light of the wording for it in the Monster Manual.

but hey...

I'm not bothered with RAI or interpretations...

I'm just bothered with people trying to shoehorn their houserules as official.

I'd rule the same as many arguing that Extra Attacks don't stack with Multi Attack, but where I realize it's a houserule of clarification, others are presenting it as official rules.

Sorry, you're confusing an attack with the Attack action. They aren't the same thing.

 

[GreyLord]

Well, it doesn't affect me what people houserule in their own games.

Just presenting houserules or personal opinions as official rules seems a little off.

Play as you want to.

Our interpretations aren't really all that different, just whether we admit we are using personal interpretations instead of an official understanding.

I still haven't gotten anything from the rulebooks that defines multi attack as something other than an attack action, but multiple sources that do define it as one.

So, as it's from the books, and that's what I consider official, and there isn't really anything that is officially in the books to counter themselves...it doesn't bother me if someone doesn't share the same opinion or definition of the rules as I do on the matter.

In the end, as long as we all have fun...

Right?

 

[GreyLord]

Sorry, you're confusing an attack with the Attack action. They aren't the same thing.

Attacks are defined under the attack action in the combat section...but hey...however you want to INTERPRET the rules, more power to you.

Afterall, that's what we are mainly doing on the forum, sharing our interpretation of them.

If we are going RAW, there are ONLY certain types of actions that are defined, and the attack action is defined differently than the other 9 actions.

the other 9 are defined on pages 192 and 193, and under the definintion of Attack under Actions in combat, it states, See "Making an Attack" section for the rules on this.

Making an attack, which is the sectionwhich governs the Attack action is very clear and simple in it's definition.

Once again, as per the PHB, which many people seem to have a problem with, it states...

the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack

Spells are covered under another action, the action, Cast a Spell. Spells are more hazy than attacks though, if you read the section. AS per that, it's possible for a spell to be under several sections at once, even...depending on your interpretation of it.

I like the rules, and have no problem with people houseruling them.

However, if you are going to try to impress your version or interpretation, it helps to read the text of the section called Attack and see why it references Making an Attack for the rules that govern the Attack Action.

I don't have a quarrel with anyone, really.

I just don't see why people want to impress that their houserules or interpretations are the official or only way to read it.

I don't, even if I agree with the ideas and RAI behind the discussion.

If we want to discuss RAW, then we first have to discuss WHICH of the other NINE actions multiattack falls under, and why it falls better under one of those other nine rather than the Attack.

RAW of course. Having it clearly stated out, even better than how the MM and PHB spell out the attack action is even better.

Otherwise, we are basically just discussing our own interpretations and houserules of the game rather than anything official.

Not that I mind, I won't spread illusions of official stuff on me...but if one wants to discuss RAW, we need it spelled out clearly by the rulebooks and not our own interpretations.

 

[GreyLord]

I figure that the difference of opinion in the thread isn't that we disagree on the applications, but on whether something is official or not.

In this, I imagine we are at an impasse.

I won't accept something official if it's simply someone saying that's how they feel. It needs to be spelled out specifically in the rulebooks (page and paragraph are preferred). That hasn't happening, and I don't foresee it occurring, which means I'm not going to be convinced.

On the otherhand, I think I almost spelled out the section and pages where what attack actions a PC can make, how they are defined, how they reference how they are defined, and even the MM which almost blatantly spells it out (but not completely) as per the PHB definitions. If the actual rules and passages I stated and quoted aren't enough to convince someone, even if it seems to me to be completely blatant in the rulebooks, they probably wouldn't be convinced.

Hence, no one is going to be convinced to switch their thinking up or that the other side is right.

That happens, it's the forums.

What it boils down to is you can control (to a degree) what your interpretation of things is at your table. I can control the interpretation that goes on (to a limited degree) at my table. Neither one of us can really control anything outside of that.

I like how 5e seems a little loose and open in the rules (though I would say if we start down the path of discounting the attack rule in regards to the PC attack action...it opens a whole can of worms in abuse towards adding multiple attacks against RAI, but that is, of course, my OWN opinion) and the DMs can interpret things how they like.

I like the homebrew and houseruling emphasis of it all...but that's some of the stuff I enjoy. Others may enjoy other applications of 5e.

In the end, it's not a disagreement on how we play or use the rule at the table really, but more on whether our interpretation is official...and frankly...

In the whole scheme of things...it really doesn't matter.

So, enjoy the game, play it and see it as you want, and I hope you have fun with it!

I don't think there's much more for me in the thread, but enjoyed the thought provoking conversation that everyone brought up. Adieu.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I figure that the difference of opinion in the thread isn't that we disagree on the applications, but on whether something is official or not.

Exactly. And at the end of the day... what Sage Advice puts forth *is* the "official" rule. It's the way they, the designers, intended the rule to be adjudicated when they wrote. But because they wrote it casually and because all manner of player has all manner of grammar comprehension, sometimes people understand the casual writing differently than how they in the office meant for it to be understood. Which is fine.

 

[Azurewraith]

OK, so if I'm understanding correctly, multi-attack is a sub-feature of the attack action. I.e., when you take the attack action, and if you have multi-attack, then that multi-attack falls under that single attack action. Jeremy seems to say that multi-attack is NOT an attack action, which doesn't make any sense to me. So it seems he's ruling that even if you have an extra attack class feature, it really doesn't give you any extra attacks if you happen to be wild shaped.

I think I'm going to houserule that one away. Not only because it doesn't make sense to consider 'multi-attack' not part of an attack action (you're attacking, right?), but also because in order to get that, you've had to multiclass, which means you're giving something up to utilize it. In the example I gave, yes you'd get one extra attack from the barbarian's extra attack class feature, but you're still a level 2 druid, not level 7 if you went full druid, which means you'd be able to wild shape into something bigger, and have those attacks count as magical as well. That's kind of the whole point of multi-classing--giving up power of a single class by adding other features from the other class. If you can't use the features of one of your class, that sort of defeats the point, IMO of course. in exchange for not being able to wildshape into a larger CR2 creature or having the ability to count your attacks as magical, you're gaining an extra attack.

I the same for bm rangers commanding their pet