making an attack roll is not the same as taking the attack action.
Otherwise, action economy would just make no sense. Spell attacks would involve 2 actions (casting a spell and attacking), and bonus action attacks would be full actions. But that is just wrong by all the other rules of the game.
It’s the difference between produce flame, and magic stone. One of them says “as an action” meaning it takes the ENTIRE action. The other one does not. So throwing the produced flame requires an entire special action. Slinging a magic stone uses the attack action to make a spell attack.
It’s the difference between produce flame, and magic stone. One of them says “as an action” meaning it takes the ENTIRE action. The other one does not. So throwing the produced flame requires an entire special action. Slinging a magic stone uses the attack action to make a spell attack.
On what basis are you claiming the action that produce flame lets you make is not an attack action (and is instead "special")? As a reminder, this is the wording on acid vials, and most people seem to agree that throwing an acid vial is at least one of an attack action or a use an object action, as opposed to neither:
So you could consistently claim that neither acid vial throwing nor produce flame throwing is an attack action and neither is a use an object action, and instead both are some sort of "special" action which is neither, but I am unfamiliar with anyone making that claim, and am curious as to your reasoning.
It’s the difference between produce flame, and magic stone. One of them says “as an action” meaning it takes the ENTIRE action. The other one does not. So throwing the produced flame requires an entire special action. Slinging a magic stone uses the attack action to make a spell attack.
On what basis are you claiming the action that produce flame lets you make is not an attack action (and is instead "special")? As a reminder, this is the wording on acid vials, and most people seem to agree that throwing an acid vial is at least one of an attack action or a use an object action, as opposed to neither:
So you could consistently claim that neither acid vial throwing nor produce flame throwing is an attack action and neither is a use an object action, and instead both are some sort of "special" action which is neither, but I am unfamiliar with anyone making that claim, and am curious as to your reasoning.
I consider using an acid vial to be Use an Object because of the text "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action." I see no similar text for activating an aspect of a spell.
I consider using an acid vial to be Use an Object because of the text "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action." I see no similar text for activating an aspect of a spell.
Are you seriously claiming the flame produce flame produces is not an object? That would make it a creature.
It’s the difference between produce flame, and magic stone. One of them says “as an action” meaning it takes the ENTIRE action. The other one does not. So throwing the produced flame requires an entire special action. Slinging a magic stone uses the attack action to make a spell attack.
On what basis are you claiming the action that produce flame lets you make is not an attack action (and is instead "special")? As a reminder, this is the wording on acid vials, and most people seem to agree that throwing an acid vial is at least one of an attack action or a use an object action, as opposed to neither:
So you could consistently claim that neither acid vial throwing nor produce flame throwing is an attack action and neither is a use an object action, and instead both are some sort of "special" action which is neither, but I am unfamiliar with anyone making that claim, and am curious as to your reasoning.
I would make that claim. The rules for both say that it takes an action to do so. It can never take less than that action, and the attacks of Extra Attack are decidedly less than an action (specifically they are 1/2 or 1/3, depending on how many you can make). Also, while actions can involve attacks, not all attacks are part of the Attack Action
any actions granted by an ability, item, or spell and not otherwise identified as one of the standard actions is a special action granted by that ability, item, or spell
I consider using an acid vial to be Use an Object because of the text "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action." I see no similar text for activating an aspect of a spell.
Are you seriously claiming the flame produce flame produces is not an object? That would make it a creature.
Are you seriously claiming that a spell effect is an object? And why would it being an effect make it a creature?
I consider using an acid vial to be Use an Object because of the text "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action." I see no similar text for activating an aspect of a spell.
While it says that for Object action attack, the Attack action doesn't say " When an attack requires your action for its use, you take the Attack action. "
On what basis are you claiming the action that produce flame lets you make is not an attack action (and is instead "special")? As a reminder, this is the wording on acid vials, and most people seem to agree that throwing an acid vial is at least one of an attack action or a use an object action, as opposed to neither:
So you could consistently claim that neither acid vial throwing nor produce flame throwing is an attack action and neither is a use an object action, and instead both are some sort of "special" action which is neither, but I am unfamiliar with anyone making that claim, and am curious as to your reasoning.
"As an action" implies that it is using your Action for the round.
There is a different thing that you can use our Action for the round, which is an Attack Action (Attack being capitalised to indicate it is the "Attack" action described in PHB Chapter 9).
I consider using an acid vial to be Use an Object because of the text "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action." I see no similar text for activating an aspect of a spell.
While it says that for Object action attack, the Attack action doesn't say " When an attack requires your action for its use, you take the Attack action. "
True. The attack action just says "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." Which you will generally use unless the attack in question specifically requires a different action.
On what basis are you claiming the action that produce flame lets you make is not an attack action (and is instead "special")?
There's no such thing as "an attack action." There's the Attack action, capitalized since it's a proper noun. If a game feature doesn't refer to one of the named actions, you're not taking that action unless there's a rule somewhere that says otherwise, like Use An Object does. Just like you have to go through the Cast A Spell action to use the attack in Fire Bolt, you have to go through Produce Flame's nameless ad-hoc action to use that attack.
Compare that to the monk's Radiant Sun Bolt:
You gain a new attack option that you can use with the Attack action. This special attack is a ranged spell attack with a range of 30 feet.
Note that the same subclass also includes an ad-hoc action for a Fireball-like magical ability in Searing Sunburst. The choice of wording was not accidental; they could've used the same "as an action" wording in Radiant Sun Bolt, but went out of their way to namedrop the Attack action because they specifically wanted that feature to interact with Extra Attack and Flurry of Blows. They also could've made Searing Sunburst a Fireball spell with some changes, but for whatever reason opted to make that an ad-hoc action instead of an instance of Cast A Spell (presumably so Counterspell doesn't apply and so you don't have to provide components.)
Are you seriously claiming the flame produce flame produces is not an object? That would make it a creature.
There's all sorts of things that don't fall into either category, with spell effects being a common example. Creatures are autonomous things that can be killed and the game requires objects to be discrete, inanimate things of reasonable size. That means liquids, fire, clouds, smoke, piles of sand, optical illusions, and the ground beneath your feet are generally considered non-objects (but a bottle containing these is, since it's a discrete thing.)
It’s the difference between produce flame, and magic stone. One of them says “as an action” meaning it takes the ENTIRE action. The other one does not. So throwing the produced flame requires an entire special action. Slinging a magic stone uses the attack action to make a spell attack.
On what basis are you claiming the action that produce flame lets you make is not an attack action (and is instead "special")? As a reminder, this is the wording on acid vials, and most people seem to agree that throwing an acid vial is at least one of an attack action or a use an object action, as opposed to neither:
As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the acid as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 2d6 acid damage.
And this is the wording from produce flame (which, it should be noted, produces an object, not a creature):
When you cast this spell, or as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you. Make a ranged spell attack. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 fire damage.
So you could consistently claim that neither acid vial throwing nor produce flame throwing is an attack action and neither is a use an object action, and instead both are some sort of "special" action which is neither, but I am unfamiliar with anyone making that claim, and am curious as to your reasoning.
One very simple thing:
Acid (vial): In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the acid as an improvised weapon.
Alchemist's fire (flask): Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon.
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
So, using those “improvised weapons” require weapon attacks, which use the Attack action the same as any other weapon. Of course, those are “objects,” so I could see a DM calling for the [Tooltip Not Found] action instead. But the produced flame is not an object, it is a “spell effect.”
I consider using an acid vial to be Use an Object because of the text "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action." I see no similar text for activating an aspect of a spell.
Are you seriously claiming the flame produce flame produces is not an object? That would make it a creature.
No, there are three types of “targets” in D&D, Creatures, Objects, and Spell Effects.
So, using those “improvised weapons” require weapon attacks, which use the Attack action the same as any other weapon. Of course, those are “objects,” so I could see a DM calling for the use an object action instead.
Be careful, that is exactly the same argument for spell that make attacks to be made with the attack action. In fact that is the same as quin's argument, except weaker because their argument didn't involve doing the exact definition of the use an object action.
Do you have an argument for using an object to make an attack using attack action that doesn't also apply to casting a spell to make an attack using attack action?
If alchemist fire and acid weren't use an object action, they would be special actions granted by the object (same as produce flame's second attack or a class feature).
I consider using an acid vial to be Use an Object because of the text "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action." I see no similar text for activating an aspect of a spell.
Are you seriously claiming the flame produce flame produces is not an object? That would make it a creature.
No, there are three types of “targets” in D&D, Creatures, Objects, and Spell Effects.
That's not true for spells, I can tell you that much. By definition, spells can target creatures, objects, and points in space.Theoretically, Dispel Magic can target magical effects separate from those three (in violation of the PHB rule I just quoted making that illegal), but nothing happens when you do, since there would need to be spells on the effect, and that's theoretically impossible, since all of the spells that could be on an effect can only be on creatures, objects, or points in space. Do you know any other spells that, like Dispel Magic, allegedly target effects, so there can be a spell on an effect to be dispelled?
So, using those “improvised weapons” require weapon attacks, which use the Attack action the same as any other weapon. Of course, those are “objects,” so I could see a DM calling for the use an object action instead.
Be careful, that is exactly the same argument for spell that make attacks to be made with the attack action. In fact that is the same as quin's argument, except weaker because their argument didn't involve doing the exact definition of the use an object action.
Do you have an argument for using an object to make an attack using attack action that doesn't also apply to casting a spell to make an attack using attack action?
If alchemist fire and acid weren't use an object action, they would be special actions granted by the object (same as produce flame's second attack or a class feature).
I’m not tracking you. Is Produce Flame an Improvised weapon? Does it preclude using your PB as part of the attack unless you have Tavern Brawler? Does the description of improvised weapons indicate spell effects are eligible? If my PC picks up a table leg and smack your PC in the nose with it, is that [Tooltip Not Found], or Attack? After all, isn’t a table leg an “improvised club?” And doesn’t a club use the Attack action to make an attack? And if a table leg uses the Attack action to bop your PC on the nose, then wouldn’t it also use the Attack action to bean your PC with one from across the room? And if it would require the Attack action to wing a table leg at your PC, wouldn’t it also require the Attack action peg your PC in the dome with an empty vial, or flask? And if it would use the Attack action to throw an empty vial or flask…? Especially when the item specifies it is an “improvised weapon.” So if my 11th level fighter can throw three “improvised ranged weapons” using the Attack action, why couldn’t one of them be a vial of acid? Track?
Regarding whether throwing a vial of acid counts as an Attack action (even if you're making an attack as part of the action), note the following about the Use an Object action:
Use an Object You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
Acid.As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the acid as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 2d6 acid damage.
Therefore, throwing acid vials or alchemist fire (or Holy Water flasks at undead), which all state they require your action to use, takes the Use an Object action, not the Attack action, meaning they don't qualify for Extra Attack. But a Thief Rogue can throw a second one with their bonus action, so there's that :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I think this whole conversation is a little beyond actual play, right? I mean we are talking about a spell that you must [Tooltip Not Found] on one turn, and then afterwards on another turn, try to use extra attack.
Otherwise, you could have just thrown it the turn you cast it and gotten all of your (probably better) weapon attacks in on the second turn. Or you could have used practically any other light source to explore with, and not had to worry about losing weapon attacks from this mediocre spell anyway. If you picked druidic warrior to take produce flame, I'm sorry for your loss.
By the way, what kind of action is dismissing the spell? What strong reason do you have to account for the two actions the spell describes being the same type? Different?
I consider using an acid vial to be Use an Object because of the text "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action." I see no similar text for activating an aspect of a spell.
While it says that for Object action attack, the Attack action doesn't say " When an attack requires your action for its use, you take the Attack action. "
True. The attack action just says "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." Which you will generally use unless the attack in question specifically requires a different action.
True. Anything that let you make an attack as an action doesn't use the Attack action basically.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes it can, depending on the spell attack in question. For Magic Stone, the stones imbued with magic require the Attack action to even throw them.
Spell attacks that are usually instanteneous can't be used with the Attack action, so are thoses using an action, bonus action or reaction thereafter.
making an attack roll is not the same as taking the attack action.
Otherwise, action economy would just make no sense. Spell attacks would involve 2 actions (casting a spell and attacking), and bonus action attacks would be full actions. But that is just wrong by all the other rules of the game.
It’s the difference between produce flame, and magic stone. One of them says “as an action” meaning it takes the ENTIRE action. The other one does not. So throwing the produced flame requires an entire special action. Slinging a magic stone uses the attack action to make a spell attack.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
On what basis are you claiming the action that produce flame lets you make is not an attack action (and is instead "special")? As a reminder, this is the wording on acid vials, and most people seem to agree that throwing an acid vial is at least one of an attack action or a use an object action, as opposed to neither:
As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the acid as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 2d6 acid damage.
And this is the wording from produce flame (which, it should be noted, produces an object, not a creature):
When you cast this spell, or as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you. Make a ranged spell attack. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 fire damage.
So you could consistently claim that neither acid vial throwing nor produce flame throwing is an attack action and neither is a use an object action, and instead both are some sort of "special" action which is neither, but I am unfamiliar with anyone making that claim, and am curious as to your reasoning.
I consider using an acid vial to be Use an Object because of the text "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action." I see no similar text for activating an aspect of a spell.
Are you seriously claiming the flame produce flame produces is not an object? That would make it a creature.
I would make that claim. The rules for both say that it takes an action to do so. It can never take less than that action, and the attacks of Extra Attack are decidedly less than an action (specifically they are 1/2 or 1/3, depending on how many you can make). Also, while actions can involve attacks, not all attacks are part of the Attack Action
any actions granted by an ability, item, or spell and not otherwise identified as one of the standard actions is a special action granted by that ability, item, or spell
Are you seriously claiming that a spell effect is an object? And why would it being an effect make it a creature?
While it says that for Object action attack, the Attack action doesn't say " When an attack requires your action for its use, you take the Attack action. "
"As an action" implies that it is using your Action for the round.
There is a different thing that you can use our Action for the round, which is an Attack Action (Attack being capitalised to indicate it is the "Attack" action described in PHB Chapter 9).
True. The attack action just says "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." Which you will generally use unless the attack in question specifically requires a different action.
There's no such thing as "an attack action." There's the Attack action, capitalized since it's a proper noun. If a game feature doesn't refer to one of the named actions, you're not taking that action unless there's a rule somewhere that says otherwise, like Use An Object does. Just like you have to go through the Cast A Spell action to use the attack in Fire Bolt, you have to go through Produce Flame's nameless ad-hoc action to use that attack.
Compare that to the monk's Radiant Sun Bolt:
Note that the same subclass also includes an ad-hoc action for a Fireball-like magical ability in Searing Sunburst. The choice of wording was not accidental; they could've used the same "as an action" wording in Radiant Sun Bolt, but went out of their way to namedrop the Attack action because they specifically wanted that feature to interact with Extra Attack and Flurry of Blows. They also could've made Searing Sunburst a Fireball spell with some changes, but for whatever reason opted to make that an ad-hoc action instead of an instance of Cast A Spell (presumably so Counterspell doesn't apply and so you don't have to provide components.)
There's all sorts of things that don't fall into either category, with spell effects being a common example. Creatures are autonomous things that can be killed and the game requires objects to be discrete, inanimate things of reasonable size. That means liquids, fire, clouds, smoke, piles of sand, optical illusions, and the ground beneath your feet are generally considered non-objects (but a bottle containing these is, since it's a discrete thing.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
One very simple thing:
So, using those “improvised weapons” require weapon attacks, which use the Attack action the same as any other weapon. Of course, those are “objects,” so I could see a DM calling for the [Tooltip Not Found] action instead. But the produced flame is not an object, it is a “spell effect.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No, there are three types of “targets” in D&D, Creatures, Objects, and Spell Effects.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Be careful, that is exactly the same argument for spell that make attacks to be made with the attack action. In fact that is the same as quin's argument, except weaker because their argument didn't involve doing the exact definition of the use an object action.
Do you have an argument for using an object to make an attack using attack action that doesn't also apply to casting a spell to make an attack using attack action?
If alchemist fire and acid weren't use an object action, they would be special actions granted by the object (same as produce flame's second attack or a class feature).
That's not true for spells, I can tell you that much. By definition, spells can target creatures, objects, and points in space. Theoretically, Dispel Magic can target magical effects separate from those three (in violation of the PHB rule I just quoted making that illegal), but nothing happens when you do, since there would need to be spells on the effect, and that's theoretically impossible, since all of the spells that could be on an effect can only be on creatures, objects, or points in space. Do you know any other spells that, like Dispel Magic, allegedly target effects, so there can be a spell on an effect to be dispelled?
I’m not tracking you. Is Produce Flame an Improvised weapon? Does it preclude using your PB as part of the attack unless you have Tavern Brawler? Does the description of improvised weapons indicate spell effects are eligible? If my PC picks up a table leg and smack your PC in the nose with it, is that [Tooltip Not Found], or Attack? After all, isn’t a table leg an “improvised club?” And doesn’t a club use the Attack action to make an attack? And if a table leg uses the Attack action to bop your PC on the nose, then wouldn’t it also use the Attack action to bean your PC with one from across the room? And if it would require the Attack action to wing a table leg at your PC, wouldn’t it also require the Attack action peg your PC in the dome with an empty vial, or flask? And if it would use the Attack action to throw an empty vial or flask…? Especially when the item specifies it is an “improvised weapon.” So if my 11th level fighter can throw three “improvised ranged weapons” using the Attack action, why couldn’t one of them be a vial of acid? Track?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Therefore, throwing acid vials or alchemist fire (or Holy Water flasks at undead), which all state they require your action to use, takes the Use an Object action, not the Attack action, meaning they don't qualify for Extra Attack. But a Thief Rogue can throw a second one with their bonus action, so there's that :)
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I think this whole conversation is a little beyond actual play, right? I mean we are talking about a spell that you must [Tooltip Not Found] on one turn, and then afterwards on another turn, try to use extra attack.
Otherwise, you could have just thrown it the turn you cast it and gotten all of your (probably better) weapon attacks in on the second turn. Or you could have used practically any other light source to explore with, and not had to worry about losing weapon attacks from this mediocre spell anyway. If you picked druidic warrior to take produce flame, I'm sorry for your loss.
By the way, what kind of action is dismissing the spell? What strong reason do you have to account for the two actions the spell describes being the same type? Different?
True. Anything that let you make an attack as an action doesn't use the Attack action basically.