Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 3216285" data-attributes="member: 752">You mean the "spread the natural attacks around" issue? I've been trying to avoid it because as far as I can tell it's a non-issue. And I'm not sure if I understand it right - it seems even more surreal to me than the other arguments you've introduced. I've been waiting for some sort of explanation for why it's relevant to this thread. That's not me being "rude", that's me assessing the validity of a presented argument. Keeping the above in mind: 1. Andy Collins says that the DnD rules allow you to make both a flurry and secondary natural attacks with a full attack action. You say that since no DnD rule prevents you from making natural attacks in any order you like, they can be made in any order. This (somehow?) prevents you from making both a flurry and secondary natural attacks with a full attack action, and thus Andy's rule is contradicted. Problem: You just contradicted your "no rule prevents..." premise. If you are right that Andy's rule creates a contradiction then the only people who'll agree with your argument are the ones that already agree that Andy is wrong. Pointless. 2. I see no reason why you can't make a "flurry attack" then a "natural weapon attack" then a "flurry attack". When you make a "flurry attack" you are "using flurry of blows". If mixing them up is possible then pointing that out serves no purpose except as pointless nitpicking on the "first the primary attacks, then secondary natural attacks" explanation. 3. I don't see how the same argument wouldn't apply equally to two-weapon fighting, or even to iterative attacks from BAB. (See my previous post.)</blockquote>

Verification