On the character sheet, under Actions, it says "Attacks per Action: 2" if you have the Extra Attack feature. Then listed underneath are the statistics for all attacks that are available to the character, including spells. As far as I understand, the Extra Attack feature doesn't allow you to cast spells (because you need to use the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack action).
The way the spell attacks are listed under "Attacks per Action: 2" makes it seem as though you can cast as spell as part of the Extra Attack. Maybe, the spell attacks could be separated into a Cast a Spell Action section, or the header could be change to "Weapon Attacks per Attack Action". This ambiguity caused a little argument at the table tonight, as I tried to explain the rules, but my player said the spell was listed there so they could use it as their Extra Attack.
I agree the presentation is misleading. The Attack action isn't limited to weapon attacks though so it wouldn't make sense to change the text to "Weapon Attacks per Attack action."
All attacks are either melee or ranged attacks so that's not much of an improvement. "Attacks per Attack Action" would be a more accurate label but that doesn't fix the root of the problem, which is that attacks that can only be made by taking the Cast A Spell action are being presented alongside other attacks. It'd probably be better to have some sort of divider so it's clear that the "Attacks per action" text only applies to non-spell attacks, or move that info to a new column or just get rid of it altogether.
It's currently also misleading for Warlocks with Thirsting Blade since that feature only applies to your Pact Weapon attacks but it still shows "Attacks per Action: 2" on your sheet.
Attack and Cast a Spell are two different actions, but players frequently use the term "attack" as meaning "I do something harmful" whether it is a weapon/unarmed attack or a spell and not in the game defined sense. The mechanical term is clear, we simply don't use it properly. With players now seeing terminology more frequently, hopefully we will start to learn to use it correctly.
I have found me with the same doubt, and my interpretation is different: we have a section in the character sheet named "Actions in Combat", that include Attack and Cast a Spell. There's a section named "Actions" that immediately indicates you "Attacks per action". They're your attacks, not necessarily uses of the "Attack" combat action. See that non-combat spells are listed separately, suggesting that there are spells that would not be attack even if they're somehow harmful (like Hex, for example).
After writing the first paragraph, I found this specification that should support my interpretation. As the rules stablish, "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. (...) If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." (Source)
I agree with you that any spell that needs an attack roll counts as an attack. However, the Extra Attack class feature is tied to the Attack action and doesn't permit you to cast spells as your extra attack. So my original point was that the 'Attacks per Action' makes it seem as though spell attacks can be used with the Extra Attack class feature, which isn't the case.
You're right, Crawphish. Extra Attack allows you to add more than one attack in an Attack action.
The Attack action allows you to make a melee or ranged attack. Not a weapon attack, meaning you can swing unarmed, but also not a spell attack. These words all have defined rules in 5e.
With Extra Attack, you can add one or more melee or ranged attacks, but still no spell attacks.
You can see all this by going to a class page, reading their Extra Attack feature and clicking the Attack action link. I'm on mobile, which is why I'm not linking directly.
There's not been any confusion at my table, but I can understand how it could be. A rewording to "Melee or Ranged Attacks per Attack Action: X" would be accurate, but lengthier. Not as quickly or readily read.
The Attack action allows you to make a melee or ranged attack. Not a weapon attack, meaning you can swing unarmed, but also not a spell attack.
Not true. All weapon attacks and spell attacks are also melee or ranged attacks and therefore can be used with the Attack action.
The thing about attacks that are part of a spell is that you have to cast the spell, and that requires the Cast A Spell action. However, monsters like banshees and liches have spell attacks that don't require a spell. They can use those spell attacks with the Attack action or opportunity attacks.
We're arguing the same thing I believe, just coming at it at different angles. The Cast a Spell action does restrict players, while monsters, as stated by the designers, can operate under entirely different rules and don't have to conform to their own. So even though there are examples of monsters that can use spell attacks as the Attack action, that property doesn't necessarily translate outside of those specific monsters.
Unless there's an obscure spell case I'm not familiar with, we're left with Attack actions not including spell attacks. Spells have one of three scenarios. The spell attack resolves during the Cast a Spell action. The spell modifies an attack possible with the Attack action, but defines it as a weapon or otherwise non-spell attack. Or the spell attack resolves outside of both the Attack and Cast a Spell actions, as a separate action. In each scenario, there is no case for a spell attack in an Attack action.
We're arguing the same thing I believe, just coming at it at different angles.
I don't think we are? You started off by saying that the Attack action doesn't allow weapon or spell attacks. And that's obviously false, since 1) the Attack action is the main way to attack with your weapons, and 2) any weapon or spell attack is also a melee or ranged attack.
The Cast a Spell action does restrict players, while monsters, as stated by the designers, can operate under entirely different rules and don't have to conform to their own. So even though there are examples of monsters that can use spell attacks as the Attack action, that property doesn't necessarily translate outside of those specific monsters.
The combat and spellcasting rules apply equally to players and monsters.
This section provides the rules you need for your characters and monsters to engage in combat, whether it is a brief skirmish or an extended conflict in a dungeon or on a field of battle. Throughout this section, the rules address you, the player or Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master controls all the monsters and nonplayer characters involved in combat, and each other player controls an adventurer. “You” can also mean the character or monster that you control.
Unless there's an obscure spell case I'm not familiar with, we're left with Attack actions not including spell attacks.
The Attack action absolutely allows spell attacks, as long as those spell attacks don't require using a specific action. For example, if a DM gives a banshee 5 Fighter levels, it can use its corrupting touch twice with Extra Attack. The rules of the Attack action don't care whether the melee or ranged attacks are weapon or spell attacks.
I don't think we are? You started off by saying that the Attack action doesn't allow weapon or spell attacks. And that's obviously false, since 1) the Attack action is the main way to attack with your weapons, and 2) any weapon or spell attack is also a melee or ranged attack.
Ah, I see why you think we're at odds if that was your takeaway from my earlier post. Well, to be honest I'm not really interested in continuing the discussion further, this is a non-argument for me.
I'll just reiterate my original point, which is that lifting the wording directly from the Actions rule can suffice as an alternative to modifying the character sheet, and leave it at that.
The more I see this, is less and less a matter of interpretation. The ruling is pretty clear. Allow me to use a couple of screenshots from this very page:
The list of combat actions defines Attack like this. Its examples are of melee, ranged and unarmed attacks. So HERE is the only place were you can interpret that spells cannot be used under the Attack action. But then, it tells us that the "Making an Attack" section will give us the rules to apply here. So let's take a look at those.
Aaand here it is. The spells that are used by making an attack roll are indeed attacks. Not EVERY spell, just those. Other spells would be cast through, obviously, Cast A Spell. But Attack covers those, the ruling is absolutely explicit about it. And Extra Attack is mentioned in the first screenshot, to specify again that it applies. So Conn-Eremon is wrong here: lifting the wording from one single section isn't enough, because the rules explain it more completely.
I agree with you that any spell that needs an attack roll counts as an attack. However, the Extra Attack class feature is tied to the Attack action and doesn't permit you to cast spells as your extra attack. So my original point was that the 'Attacks per Action' makes it seem as though spell attacks can be used with the Extra Attack class feature, which isn't the case.
I'm sorry, where does say so? The Extra Attack feature lets you use a second attack. Attack spells are indeed attacks. Therefore, why wouldn't they apply?
A spell isn't the same thing as attack. A spell might include one or more attacks as part of its effect. You need to cast the spell to unleash that effect, and that requires taking the Cast A Spell action, providing the spell's components, and possibly expending a spell slot. The Attack action doesn't include spellcasting, nor does it let you ignore the spellcasting rules.
This has been covered extensively in Sage Advice Compendium and tweets from lead rules designer Jeremy Crawford.
Question. As a Monk if you select unarmed strike you get 2 strikes. Now since I get 2 attacks per action does this mean I get 4 strikes total? Can I use 2 flurry of blows and get 6 hits?
Question. As a Monk if you select unarmed strike you get 2 strikes. Now since I get 2 attacks per action does this mean I get 4 strikes total? Can I use 2 flurry of blows and get 6 hits?
The second unarmed strike is done with your bonus action, so extra attack only gets you 3 unarmed strikes, not 4
Agreed. The character sheet should have subheadings. Something like: Attack Action (2 attacks) - weapons, unarmed attacks, and natural weapons go here (melee weapon attack and ranged weapon attack) Attack Bonus Action - attacks like polearm butt strike go here Cast a Spell Action - spells go here (melee spell attack and ranged spell attack) Cast a Spell Bonus Action - spells like spiritual weapon go here And others?
The Attack action absolutely allows spell attacks, as long as those spell attacks don't require using a specific action. For example, if a DM gives a banshee 5 Fighter levels, it can use its corrupting touch twice with Extra Attack. The rules of the Attack action don't care whether the melee or ranged attacks are weapon or spell attacks.
First, NPCs don't use PC rules. As per the rule books, there is no mechanical way to give a monster class levels.
Second, the Extra Attack feature lets you attack twice when taking the Attack action. When a banshee uses Corrupting Touch, it is not taking the Attack action - it is taking the Corrupting Touch action (listed in the Actions section of its stat block). Monsters can get the Multiattack action, which always specifies what Actions can be used and how many times.
The more I see this, is less and less a matter of interpretation. The ruling is pretty clear. Allow me to use a couple of screenshots from this very page:
The list of combat actions defines Attack like this. Its examples are of melee, ranged and unarmed attacks. So HERE is the only place were you can interpret that spells cannot be used under the Attack action. But then, it tells us that the "Making an Attack" section will give us the rules to apply here. So let's take a look at those.
Aaand here it is. The spells that are used by making an attack roll are indeed attacks. Not EVERY spell, just those. Other spells would be cast through, obviously, Cast A Spell. But Attack covers those, the ruling is absolutely explicit about it. And Extra Attack is mentioned in the first screenshot, to specify again that it applies. So Conn-Eremon is wrong here: lifting the wording from one single section isn't enough, because the rules explain it more completely.
ConstuctorCrit is absolutely correct here HOWEVER...in calling out the need to reference different parts of rules he has left out 1 important rule. Spell Casting time!!!
A spell that has an attack role may be used as an attack action, however if the casting time is 1 Action than you wouldn't be able to use another attack in the action to cast another spell, the time to cast the spell took 1 Entire Action, i.e. it took all of it. If the casting time was instant, 1/2 action or 1/3rd action, and it used an attack action, than yes you could hypothetically cast more than 1 spell per action or caste the spell and attack with a melee or ranged weapon. There are no spells, feats, items, or whatever that I can see that speed up the casting time to faster than 1 action or 1 bonus action. Therefore, per the rules, ConstructorCrit is correct, but incomplete in his assessment and rules reference. If i DM really wanted to make this a possibility I would recommend creating a homebrew feat, or an item, that say halved casting time
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On the character sheet, under Actions, it says "Attacks per Action: 2" if you have the Extra Attack feature. Then listed underneath are the statistics for all attacks that are available to the character, including spells. As far as I understand, the Extra Attack feature doesn't allow you to cast spells (because you need to use the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack action).
The way the spell attacks are listed under "Attacks per Action: 2" makes it seem as though you can cast as spell as part of the Extra Attack. Maybe, the spell attacks could be separated into a Cast a Spell Action section, or the header could be change to "Weapon Attacks per Attack Action". This ambiguity caused a little argument at the table tonight, as I tried to explain the rules, but my player said the spell was listed there so they could use it as their Extra Attack.
Since the spells, even if attacks, do use the Cast a Spell action, that's definitely where they should go.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
I agree the presentation is misleading. The Attack action isn't limited to weapon attacks though so it wouldn't make sense to change the text to "Weapon Attacks per Attack action."
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Maybe "Melee/Ranged Attacks per Action"? Either way, some way to remove the ambiguity from which attacks are allowed would be nice.
All attacks are either melee or ranged attacks so that's not much of an improvement. "Attacks per Attack Action" would be a more accurate label but that doesn't fix the root of the problem, which is that attacks that can only be made by taking the Cast A Spell action are being presented alongside other attacks. It'd probably be better to have some sort of divider so it's clear that the "Attacks per action" text only applies to non-spell attacks, or move that info to a new column or just get rid of it altogether.
It's currently also misleading for Warlocks with Thirsting Blade since that feature only applies to your Pact Weapon attacks but it still shows "Attacks per Action: 2" on your sheet.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Attack and Cast a Spell are two different actions, but players frequently use the term "attack" as meaning "I do something harmful" whether it is a weapon/unarmed attack or a spell and not in the game defined sense. The mechanical term is clear, we simply don't use it properly. With players now seeing terminology more frequently, hopefully we will start to learn to use it correctly.
I have found me with the same doubt, and my interpretation is different: we have a section in the character sheet named "Actions in Combat", that include Attack and Cast a Spell. There's a section named "Actions" that immediately indicates you "Attacks per action". They're your attacks, not necessarily uses of the "Attack" combat action. See that non-combat spells are listed separately, suggesting that there are spells that would not be attack even if they're somehow harmful (like Hex, for example).
After writing the first paragraph, I found this specification that should support my interpretation. As the rules stablish, "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. (...) If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." (Source)
I agree with you that any spell that needs an attack roll counts as an attack. However, the Extra Attack class feature is tied to the Attack action and doesn't permit you to cast spells as your extra attack. So my original point was that the 'Attacks per Action' makes it seem as though spell attacks can be used with the Extra Attack class feature, which isn't the case.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorYou're right, Crawphish. Extra Attack allows you to add more than one attack in an Attack action.
The Attack action allows you to make a melee or ranged attack. Not a weapon attack, meaning you can swing unarmed, but also not a spell attack. These words all have defined rules in 5e.
With Extra Attack, you can add one or more melee or ranged attacks, but still no spell attacks.
You can see all this by going to a class page, reading their Extra Attack feature and clicking the Attack action link. I'm on mobile, which is why I'm not linking directly.
There's not been any confusion at my table, but I can understand how it could be. A rewording to "Melee or Ranged Attacks per Attack Action: X" would be accurate, but lengthier. Not as quickly or readily read.
Not true. All weapon attacks and spell attacks are also melee or ranged attacks and therefore can be used with the Attack action.
The thing about attacks that are part of a spell is that you have to cast the spell, and that requires the Cast A Spell action. However, monsters like banshees and liches have spell attacks that don't require a spell. They can use those spell attacks with the Attack action or opportunity attacks.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorWe're arguing the same thing I believe, just coming at it at different angles. The Cast a Spell action does restrict players, while monsters, as stated by the designers, can operate under entirely different rules and don't have to conform to their own. So even though there are examples of monsters that can use spell attacks as the Attack action, that property doesn't necessarily translate outside of those specific monsters.
Unless there's an obscure spell case I'm not familiar with, we're left with Attack actions not including spell attacks. Spells have one of three scenarios. The spell attack resolves during the Cast a Spell action. The spell modifies an attack possible with the Attack action, but defines it as a weapon or otherwise non-spell attack. Or the spell attack resolves outside of both the Attack and Cast a Spell actions, as a separate action. In each scenario, there is no case for a spell attack in an Attack action.
I don't think we are? You started off by saying that the Attack action doesn't allow weapon or spell attacks. And that's obviously false, since 1) the Attack action is the main way to attack with your weapons, and 2) any weapon or spell attack is also a melee or ranged attack.
The combat and spellcasting rules apply equally to players and monsters.
The Attack action absolutely allows spell attacks, as long as those spell attacks don't require using a specific action. For example, if a DM gives a banshee 5 Fighter levels, it can use its corrupting touch twice with Extra Attack. The rules of the Attack action don't care whether the melee or ranged attacks are weapon or spell attacks.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorAh, I see why you think we're at odds if that was your takeaway from my earlier post. Well, to be honest I'm not really interested in continuing the discussion further, this is a non-argument for me.
I'll just reiterate my original point, which is that lifting the wording directly from the Actions rule can suffice as an alternative to modifying the character sheet, and leave it at that.
The more I see this, is less and less a matter of interpretation. The ruling is pretty clear. Allow me to use a couple of screenshots from this very page:
The list of combat actions defines Attack like this. Its examples are of melee, ranged and unarmed attacks. So HERE is the only place were you can interpret that spells cannot be used under the Attack action. But then, it tells us that the "Making an Attack" section will give us the rules to apply here. So let's take a look at those.
Aaand here it is. The spells that are used by making an attack roll are indeed attacks. Not EVERY spell, just those. Other spells would be cast through, obviously, Cast A Spell. But Attack covers those, the ruling is absolutely explicit about it. And Extra Attack is mentioned in the first screenshot, to specify again that it applies. So Conn-Eremon is wrong here: lifting the wording from one single section isn't enough, because the rules explain it more completely.
I'm sorry, where does say so? The Extra Attack feature lets you use a second attack. Attack spells are indeed attacks. Therefore, why wouldn't they apply?
A spell isn't the same thing as attack. A spell might include one or more attacks as part of its effect. You need to cast the spell to unleash that effect, and that requires taking the Cast A Spell action, providing the spell's components, and possibly expending a spell slot. The Attack action doesn't include spellcasting, nor does it let you ignore the spellcasting rules.
This has been covered extensively in Sage Advice Compendium and tweets from lead rules designer Jeremy Crawford.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Question. As a Monk if you select unarmed strike you get 2 strikes. Now since I get 2 attacks per action does this mean I get 4 strikes total? Can I use 2 flurry of blows and get 6 hits?
The second unarmed strike is done with your bonus action, so extra attack only gets you 3 unarmed strikes, not 4
Attack Action (2 attacks) - weapons, unarmed attacks, and natural weapons go here (melee weapon attack and ranged weapon attack)
Attack Bonus Action - attacks like polearm butt strike go here
Cast a Spell Action - spells go here (melee spell attack and ranged spell attack)
Cast a Spell Bonus Action - spells like spiritual weapon go here
And others?
First, NPCs don't use PC rules. As per the rule books, there is no mechanical way to give a monster class levels.
Second, the Extra Attack feature lets you attack twice when taking the Attack action. When a banshee uses Corrupting Touch, it is not taking the Attack action - it is taking the Corrupting Touch action (listed in the Actions section of its stat block). Monsters can get the Multiattack action, which always specifies what Actions can be used and how many times.
ConstuctorCrit is absolutely correct here HOWEVER...in calling out the need to reference different parts of rules he has left out 1 important rule. Spell Casting time!!!
A spell that has an attack role may be used as an attack action, however if the casting time is 1 Action than you wouldn't be able to use another attack in the action to cast another spell, the time to cast the spell took 1 Entire Action, i.e. it took all of it. If the casting time was instant, 1/2 action or 1/3rd action, and it used an attack action, than yes you could hypothetically cast more than 1 spell per action or caste the spell and attack with a melee or ranged weapon. There are no spells, feats, items, or whatever that I can see that speed up the casting time to faster than 1 action or 1 bonus action. Therefore, per the rules, ConstructorCrit is correct, but incomplete in his assessment and rules reference. If i DM really wanted to make this a possibility I would recommend creating a homebrew feat, or an item, that say halved casting time