You are the one who ridiculously insists that an action can belong to multiple Actions in Combat. They can't...
You are making a baseless claim which you've demonstrated that you can't back up by RAW
The rules are written in expressed permissions. Something only does what it says it does. An omission cannot, in good faith, be taken as permission. If an action were intended to be performable with multiple Actions, the rules somewhere would say so.
And you still dodged an earlier question:
Let's try this again, and we'll keep it simple by sticking to just the PHB. If I attack by throwing an acid vial, am I using the Attack action, the [Tooltip Not Found] action, or both? Or does it not matter?
The correct answer would be the [Tooltip Not Found] action to make an attack with an Improvised Weapon. It's not both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found], and you really need to stop conflating the Attack action with the word "attack." You can make an attack roll when casting a spell, and there are many which require them, but you're still just using the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Also, going back to the original post I quoted, this you?
Rules tell you what things are or can do, not what they aren't. This is true of the entire game. If you can't comprehend that then none of the rules mean anything.
By the way, ignoring evidence and asking for missing links or evidence you know doesn't exist is telltale anti-science movement.
Rules tell you what things are or can do, not what they aren't. This is true of the entire game. If you can't comprehend that then none of the rules mean anything.
By the way, ignoring evidence and asking for missing links or evidence you know doesn't exist is telltale anti-science movement.
Asserting things to be true when you know there's no RAW saying that is the essence of flat earthism.
Sill looking for you to provide RAW that an action can't be both a weapon attack and a cast a spell action.
As for Hanlon's, you _just_ read Wolf explicitly throwing me in the same bucket as flat earthers and you made no response to that personal attack.
[REDACTED]
You smoked your goodwill pages ago.
If you're looking for a clause that says "you cannot do X," you're not going to find it. None of the books are written as such.
You're twisting an omission to prove a negative. And, fine, if that's the kind of shenanigans you want to pull when you're the DM, okay. That's your house rule. Crawford allows outside the norms, too. That's his prerogative.
But this is a discussion about the Rules as Written. So you're, by default, limited to what's on the page. Stick to that, and not your imagination.
We've presented text and you've ignored it. Right in the "making an attack" section, it tells you that you that some attacks come as part of a spell (please note that it doesn't say that makes [Tooltip Not Found] count as taking the attack action). Right before that, there is a description of the action that you must use to cast a spell.
You have invented something that is not indicated anywhere in the rules and asked us to prove you wrong. You know it is impossible because you aren't arguing from the rules, but rather YOUR invention. Rules tell you what they do.
Haste doesn't provide a additional weapon attack, it provides a additional attack action (with limits)
Haste only allows a weapon attack and this is not only a weapon attack.
You said that Haste doesn't provide a weapon attack, then you assert that it does.
I can't possibly respond to your comments when you are contradicting yourself.
So, I'm just going to point out that the Haste rules state
That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)
And an action which is both a cast a spell and a weapon attack (_one_ action which is two types of things) would be included
Did you just 100% cut out the part where I stated that second sentence (that you quoted) was a hypothetical made up by you? Seriously? Did you really just say I'm contradicting because I addressed your point?
(Edit: here's the quote your missing Even if... Booming Blade was a "cast a spell" and a "weapon attack", and "Again, this is a hypothetical the rules are pretty clear this isn't the case." The fact I addressed this point like twice in my original post showed that either your intentionally misreading it or you just skimmed through it, which I guess I can't fully blame you cause there's a lot of posts rn)
And no a action that is a weapon attack wouldn't be included because that action wouldn't be a Attack (one weapon attack only) action, it would just be a weapon attack.
Weapon attack =/= Attack action.
Did you even read my post? Like, any of them? You didn't even counterargument any of it?
And, again, the first thing that you chose it the type of ACTION that you are doing. If you are casting a spell, it has to be the "cast a spell" action.
That does NOT say that an attack action and an attack are two different things.
Your persistent inability to provide any RAW backing up your position combined with your repeated personal attacks (such as throwing me into the same bucket as flat earthers) has made me increasingly bored with this discussion.
Nevertheless, there is one more point I'm curious about.
Do you believe that gving a Wizard the ability to do 1d8 more damage on a melee attack unbalances the game (when that attack is granted by Haste and if the target moves more than five feet after getting hit)?
And, again, the first thing that you chose it the type of ACTION that you are doing. If you are casting a spell, it has to be the "cast a spell" action.
That does NOT say that an attack action and making an attack are two different things.
The writers assumed their readers were smart enough to figure it out.
When you take the Attack, and you make a weapon attack. This might be with a manufactured weapon or an unarmed strike. Examples are given, so you don't really get to feign ignorance. You can also make an attack when you [Tooltip Not Found]. Every class with a Spellcasting feature, as well as the warlock and its Pact Magic, provides a formula for calculating its spell attack modifier (your proficiency bonus + your Spellcasting Ability modifier).
This is reinforced, again, in the Making an Attack section of the rules. This is easily found in Chapter 9 of both the Basic Rules and the Player's Handbook, but I'll reference the first paragraph again for you.
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
And all of this is precipitated by the section on Actions in Combat, so we know what the different actions are and now we know that both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found] can produce situations where an attack roll is called for. But this does not mean they are all equal. If we're not going to distinguish between making an attack and the Attack action, then anything which calls for an attack roll is compatible.
Never mind how the stat blocks for creatures reflect these distinctions. The ankheg has a melee weapon attack (Bite), and the banshee has a melee spell attack (Corrupting Touch). And some weapon attacks, like those of the Balor, could be considered magical. Likewise, there are myriad ranged weapon attacks and ranged spell attacks.
The logical conclusion of your train of thought being that every class with an Extra Attack feature can cast multiple cantrips as part of their attack action, but only so long as those cantrips have an attack roll. Forget the Bladesinger swapping out Booming Blade for one of their attacks. They could do it for both. Every class could. A 20th-level High Elf Fighter could just spam it for all four of their attacks. Heck, a 7th-level Eldritch Knight could cast Blade Ward with their action and, via War Magic, follow up with Booming Blade for their bonus action. Because your attempts to dissolve that line between actions will lead directly to this.
Is that what you're advocating for?
Better still, why has nobody else done this for the last six and a half years?
"When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
I already said rather explicitly that Booming Blade is one action which counts as two types of things. It is not two actions.
No, booming blade is not an action. Booming blade is a SPELL (which needs to be cast, and when it's cast, it gives you an attack roll, not an attack action). To cast it in combat, you need to use, guess what, the "cast a spell" action. The "attack" action (in general) does not allow you to cast a spell. Case closed.
Where do the rules say that casting a spell isn't an action? Give me a quote.
Also, Booming Blade says,
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
Booming Blade is branding a weapon making a melee attack. That's the act of casting. You literally cast it by brandishing a weapon and making a melee attack. That's a weapon attack. It is ALSO casting a spell. Both weapon attacks and spell casting are actions.
Actually, according to your first link
and according to your second
So, yes, all attacks require attack rolls.
But none of that even addresses the alleged difference between an attack and a an attack action.
You are right, you didn't address what I said. Try again.
The rules are written in expressed permissions. Something only does what it says it does. An omission cannot, in good faith, be taken as permission. If an action were intended to be performable with multiple Actions, the rules somewhere would say so.
And you still dodged an earlier question:
The correct answer would be the [Tooltip Not Found] action to make an attack with an Improvised Weapon. It's not both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found], and you really need to stop conflating the Attack action with the word "attack." You can make an attack roll when casting a spell, and there are many which require them, but you're still just using the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Also, going back to the original post I quoted, this you?
So, which baseless claim am I making: that an action cannot belong to two actions, or that you never said it?
Because you have. Rather plainly. And you keep dodging legitimate points, so, yeah, Hanlon's razor is in full effect. [REDACTED]
Sill looking for you to provide RAW that an action can't be both a weapon attack and a cast a spell action.
As for Hanlon's, you _just_ read Wolf explicitly throwing me in the same bucket as flat earthers and you made no response to that personal attack.
[REDACTED]
Rules tell you what things are or can do, not what they aren't. This is true of the entire game. If you can't comprehend that then none of the rules mean anything.
By the way, ignoring evidence and asking for missing links or evidence you know doesn't exist is telltale anti-science movement.
Asserting things to be true when you know there's no RAW saying that is the essence of flat earthism.
You smoked your goodwill pages ago.
If you're looking for a clause that says "you cannot do X," you're not going to find it. None of the books are written as such.
You're twisting an omission to prove a negative. And, fine, if that's the kind of shenanigans you want to pull when you're the DM, okay. That's your house rule. Crawford allows outside the norms, too. That's his prerogative.
But this is a discussion about the Rules as Written. So you're, by default, limited to what's on the page. Stick to that, and not your imagination.
We've presented text and you've ignored it. Right in the "making an attack" section, it tells you that you that some attacks come as part of a spell (please note that it doesn't say that makes [Tooltip Not Found] count as taking the attack action). Right before that, there is a description of the action that you must use to cast a spell.
You have invented something that is not indicated anywhere in the rules and asked us to prove you wrong. You know it is impossible because you aren't arguing from the rules, but rather YOUR invention. Rules tell you what they do.
Yes, I agree that some attacks come as part of a spell.
But, that doesn't mean they aren't attacks.
The books are actually full of rules which say "you cannot do x".
And for the hundredth time, this does not make them the attack action. Show me where booming blade says it can be used as part of the attack action.
Show me the rule which distinguishes an attack from an attack action. The last two links you gave didn't do that.
Show me where it says they are the same.
I've acknowledged that my position is my interpretation of RAI, just as your's is.
Did you just 100% cut out the part where I stated that second sentence (that you quoted) was a hypothetical made up by you? Seriously? Did you really just say I'm contradicting because I addressed your point?
(Edit: here's the quote your missing Even if... Booming Blade was a "cast a spell" and a "weapon attack", and "Again, this is a hypothetical the rules are pretty clear this isn't the case." The fact I addressed this point like twice in my original post showed that either your intentionally misreading it or you just skimmed through it, which I guess I can't fully blame you cause there's a lot of posts rn)
And no a action that is a weapon attack wouldn't be included because that action wouldn't be a Attack (one weapon attack only) action, it would just be a weapon attack.
Weapon attack =/= Attack action.
Did you even read my post? Like, any of them? You didn't even counterargument any of it?
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
That does NOT say that an attack action and an attack are two different things.
Your persistent inability to provide any RAW backing up your position combined with your repeated personal attacks (such as throwing me into the same bucket as flat earthers) has made me increasingly bored with this discussion.
Nevertheless, there is one more point I'm curious about.
Do you believe that gving a Wizard the ability to do 1d8 more damage on a melee attack unbalances the game (when that attack is granted by Haste and if the target moves more than five feet after getting hit)?
The writers assumed their readers were smart enough to figure it out.
When you take the Attack, and you make a weapon attack. This might be with a manufactured weapon or an unarmed strike. Examples are given, so you don't really get to feign ignorance. You can also make an attack when you [Tooltip Not Found]. Every class with a Spellcasting feature, as well as the warlock and its Pact Magic, provides a formula for calculating its spell attack modifier (your proficiency bonus + your Spellcasting Ability modifier).
This is reinforced, again, in the Making an Attack section of the rules. This is easily found in Chapter 9 of both the Basic Rules and the Player's Handbook, but I'll reference the first paragraph again for you.
And all of this is precipitated by the section on Actions in Combat, so we know what the different actions are and now we know that both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found] can produce situations where an attack roll is called for. But this does not mean they are all equal. If we're not going to distinguish between making an attack and the Attack action, then anything which calls for an attack roll is compatible.
Never mind how the stat blocks for creatures reflect these distinctions. The ankheg has a melee weapon attack (Bite), and the banshee has a melee spell attack (Corrupting Touch). And some weapon attacks, like those of the Balor, could be considered magical. Likewise, there are myriad ranged weapon attacks and ranged spell attacks.
The logical conclusion of your train of thought being that every class with an Extra Attack feature can cast multiple cantrips as part of their attack action, but only so long as those cantrips have an attack roll. Forget the Bladesinger swapping out Booming Blade for one of their attacks. They could do it for both. Every class could. A 20th-level High Elf Fighter could just spam it for all four of their attacks. Heck, a 7th-level Eldritch Knight could cast Blade Ward with their action and, via War Magic, follow up with Booming Blade for their bonus action. Because your attempts to dissolve that line between actions will lead directly to this.
Is that what you're advocating for?
Better still, why has nobody else done this for the last six and a half years?
Where do the rules say that casting a spell isn't an action? Give me a quote.
Also, Booming Blade says,
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
Booming Blade is branding a weapon making a melee attack. That's the act of casting. You literally cast it by brandishing a weapon and making a melee attack. That's a weapon attack. It is ALSO casting a spell. Both weapon attacks and spell casting are actions.
weapon attacks isn't a action have you read any of the posts I'm not even going to try to reply formally at this point
like, come, on can you provide any RAW that states that a weapon attack is a action? Cause we have RAW that states it isn't.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.