Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Astromath" data-source="post: 7058793" data-attributes="member: 78315">I agree with you.  It is a misunderstanding on his part.  However, there other people out there that I'm sure that shares his opinion.Here's another problematic item (this has nothing to do with MPMB's sheet).  The attack action describes physical attacks.  Casting a spell action is separate from the attack action.  Using those two actions, you could interpret that Fire Bolt comes under the casting a spell action.  However, it requires an attack roll.  So, which is it?  By reading further you find the answer:  "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."  It would have been better if WotC had put in wording in the Attack Action section that it includes spells that have attack rolls.This is how I would have it written:The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, brawling with your fists, or casting a Fire Bolt cantrip.This wording makes it clear that there are some spells that come under Attack action and not Cast a Spell action.I don't have a problem with MPMB's rewording of Uncanny Dodge.  It is simple and straight forward.  However, there are those who use MPMB's sheet as a rules source instead of the PH (or other sources, for that matter).  Maybe MPMB should put in a disclaimer that his sheet is NOT a rules source and should not be used as such either in his intro popup or in the FAQs (or even both).I say whenever you are in doubt, go to the original sourcebook.</blockquote>

Verification