When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly, giving you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using STR during this turn, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.
So does reckless attack work on just 1 of your attacks that is your first one and no additional attacks you make that round after or can you apply reckless attack to all attacks you make in a round?
As a result, does the opponent get one attack against you with advantage or do all of their attacks against you have advantage for that round?
Advantage applies to all attacks you make. The confusion might come from the wording "When you make your first attack on your turn". This only means that you have to decide when you make the first attack, but from then on, it applies to all attacks you make and on all attacks against you.
Bonerbarbados is correct Reckless Attack gives advantage to all attack rolls against you that round or those that you make using Strenght on your turn.
Re-reading that rule makes me have been playing it wrong for years.
"When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly, giving you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using STR during this turn, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn."
I, and every DM I have play with in games with a barbarian have played it as "giving you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using STR, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.". i.e. If you decide to attack reckless on your turn and then make an op attack before your next turn I had thought it was at advantage but RAW that is not the case.
When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly, giving you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using STR during this turn, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.
So does reckless attack work on just 1 of your attacks that is your first one and no additional attacks you make that round after or can you apply reckless attack to all attacks you make in a round?
As a result, does the opponent get one attack against you with advantage or do all of their attacks against you have advantage for that round?
The 's' at the end of the word 'rolls" means that it's plural.
Re-reading that rule makes me have been playing it wrong for years.
"When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly, giving you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using STR during this turn, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn."
I, and every DM I have play with in games with a barbarian have played it as "giving you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using STR, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.". i.e. If you decide to attack reckless on your turn and then make an op attack before your next turn I had thought it was at advantage but RAW that is not the case.
Meaning you don't have advantage during opportunity attacks on the same round right?
No it doesn't. Unless you mean that it depends on whether or not the DM follows the rules?
Show me a DM that follows the rules to the letter and doesn't modify them to the betterment of the group and I'll show you a campaign I won't be playing.
What has that to do with the question OP asked? Seems rather rude and gatekeep-y to tell someone that "if your GM follows the rules they are bad and I don't want to play with them" when they ask you a simple rules question.
Rule karens ruin the game...
You mean like Karens who think everyone and the DMs must play the game the way *they* think it should be played instead of whatever way suits the OP and their group the best? Yeah, I agree.
No it doesn't. Unless you mean that it depends on whether or not the DM follows the rules?
Show me a DM that follows the rules to the letter and doesn't modify them to the betterment of the group and I'll show you a campaign I won't be playing.
What has that to do with the question OP asked? Seems rather rude and gatekeep-y to tell someone that "if your GM follows the rules they are bad and I don't want to play with them" when they ask you a simple rules question.
Rule karens ruin the game...
You mean like Karens who think everyone and the DMs must play the game the way *they* think it should be played instead of whatever way suits the OP and their group the best? Yeah, I agree.
Absolutley. Mods don't like the term "karens" so I apologize for that, but yes. Strict adherence to the rules as written might be fine for some people but the game is much more fun IMHO when certain bend but don't break modifiers are used to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
For example... There are 2 people in a campaign I'm in now where I refer to them as "arm-chair" DM's. They question almost everything another player(s) do/does. It just makes for a less enjoyable time overall and it hinders the DM's creativity.
If your DM wants your reckless to be 1 attack only then its his campaign. Personally I think it makes sense as written, but people translate it how they want.
No it doesn't. Unless you mean that it depends on whether or not the DM follows the rules?
Show me a DM that follows the rules to the letter and doesn't modify them to the betterment of the group and I'll show you a campaign I won't be playing.
What has that to do with the question OP asked? Seems rather rude and gatekeep-y to tell someone that "if your GM follows the rules they are bad and I don't want to play with them" when they ask you a simple rules question.
Rule karens ruin the game...
You mean like Karens who think everyone and the DMs must play the game the way *they* think it should be played instead of whatever way suits the OP and their group the best? Yeah, I agree.
Absolutley. Mods don't like the term "karens" so I apologize for that, but yes. Strict adherence to the rules as written might be fine for some people but the game is much more fun IMHO when certain bend but don't break modifiers are used to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
For example... There are 2 people in a campaign I'm in now where I refer to them as "arm-chair" DM's. They question almost everything another player(s) do/does. It just makes for a less enjoyable time overall and it hinders the DM's creativity.
But none of this has to do with OP's question, you do realize that?
If your DM wants your reckless to be 1 attack only then its his campaign. Personally I think it makes sense as written, but people translate it how they want.
There's literally nothing to translate in how the rule is written, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly, giving you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using STR during this turn, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.
So does reckless attack work on just 1 of your attacks that is your first one and no additional attacks you make that round after or can you apply reckless attack to all attacks you make in a round?
As a result, does the opponent get one attack against you with advantage or do all of their attacks against you have advantage for that round?
Advantage applies to all attacks you make. The confusion might come from the wording "When you make your first attack on your turn". This only means that you have to decide when you make the first attack, but from then on, it applies to all attacks you make and on all attacks against you.
Bonerbarbados is correct Reckless Attack gives advantage to all attack rolls against you that round or those that you make using Strenght on your turn.
Re-reading that rule makes me have been playing it wrong for years.
"When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly, giving you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using STR during this turn, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn."
I, and every DM I have play with in games with a barbarian have played it as "giving you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using STR, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.". i.e. If you decide to attack reckless on your turn and then make an op attack before your next turn I had thought it was at advantage but RAW that is not the case.
The 's' at the end of the word 'rolls" means that it's plural.
Meaning you don't have advantage during opportunity attacks on the same round right?
It depends on your DM, Personally i allow it
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
My Homebrew Please click it, they have my family.
No it doesn't. Unless you mean that it depends on whether or not the DM follows the rules?
Well if your DM confuses the difference between turn and round, then yes.
DM may adjudicate differently but "on your turn" is precisely what's written.
What has that to do with the question OP asked? Seems rather rude and gatekeep-y to tell someone that "if your GM follows the rules they are bad and I don't want to play with them" when they ask you a simple rules question.
You mean like Karens who think everyone and the DMs must play the game the way *they* think it should be played instead of whatever way suits the OP and their group the best? Yeah, I agree.
Absolutley. Mods don't like the term "karens" so I apologize for that, but yes. Strict adherence to the rules as written might be fine for some people but the game is much more fun IMHO when certain bend but don't break modifiers are used to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
For example... There are 2 people in a campaign I'm in now where I refer to them as "arm-chair" DM's. They question almost everything another player(s) do/does. It just makes for a less enjoyable time overall and it hinders the DM's creativity.
If your DM wants your reckless to be 1 attack only then its his campaign. Personally I think it makes sense as written, but people translate it how they want.
But none of this has to do with OP's question, you do realize that?
There's literally nothing to translate in how the rule is written, though.