“Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
The grammatical issue that I see is all the commas.
What is the most basic premise? “If you move on your turn and have a feature (such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action; OR such as Flurry of Blows, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Bonus action), you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.”
Extra Attack AND Flurry of Blows are BOTH FEATURES that gives you more than one attack.
The reason you can't be moving between attacks during Flurry of Blows is not because it's not a feature that let gives you more than one attack, it's because they aren't part of Attack action but a Bonus Action instead.
Name another Feature, please.
Otherwise, “such as” is unnecessarily superfluous.
Even if that didn't exist, though, consider the possibility that the person who wrote that sentence did not have perfect knowledge of all of the features that could ever possibly exist in the future, and did not intend to provide an exhaustive list of them, but only an example, which is what the phrase "such as" means.
Even if that didn't exist, though, consider the possibility that the person who wrote that sentence did not have perfect knowledge of all of the features that could ever possibly exist in the future, and did not intend to provide an exhaustive list of them, but only an example, which is what the phrase "such as" means.
I did consider that, but I also know the dangers of using too many commas. The rule in question can be accurately parsed as “a feature of the Attack Action providing another attack” or “a feature” “of the Attack Action.”
Besides, Thirsting Blade grants the Feature “Extra Attack,” and “Extra Attack” is granting another attack.
“Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
The grammatical issue that I see is all the commas.
What is the most basic premise? “If you move on your turn and have a feature (such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action; OR such as Flurry of Blows, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Bonus action), you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.”
Extra Attack AND Flurry of Blows are BOTH FEATURES that gives you more than one attack.
The reason you can't be moving between attacks during Flurry of Blows is not because it's not a feature that let gives you more than one attack, it's because they aren't part of Attack action but a Bonus Action instead.
Name another Feature, please.
Otherwise, “such as” is unnecessarily superfluous.
It does not say Class feature. It just says feature. A level 1 Fighter wielding 2 different Nick Light weapons makes "more than one attack as part of the Attack action" due to the Nick and Light features. The Cleave weapon mastery property also has the potential to qualify.
"Such as" is not superfluous as "Extra Attack" is one example from the PHB. I have provided another from the PHB. It would be shortsighted to create an exhaustive list in the PHB that would then have to be updated in future products if a new subclass, magic item, spell, feat, or other feature were added.
“Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
The grammatical issue that I see is all the commas.
What is the most basic premise? “If you move on your turn and have a feature (such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action; OR such as Flurry of Blows, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Bonus action), you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.”
Extra Attack AND Flurry of Blows are BOTH FEATURES that gives you more than one attack.
The reason you can't be moving between attacks during Flurry of Blows is not because it's not a feature that let gives you more than one attack, it's because they aren't part of Attack action but a Bonus Action instead.
Name another Feature, please.
Otherwise, “such as” is unnecessarily superfluous.
It does not say Class feature. It just says feature. A level 1 Fighter wielding 2 different Nick Light weapons makes "more than one attack as part of the Attack action" due to the Nick and Light features. The Cleave weapon mastery property also has the potential to qualify.
"Such as" is not superfluous as "Extra Attack" is one example from the PHB. I have provided another from the PHB. It would be shortsighted to create an exhaustive list in the PHB that would then have to be updated in future products if a new subclass, magic item, spell, feat, or other feature were added.
So you’re saying you can move between your triggering attack and the second attack granted by Nick or Cleave?
Besides, I never made a distinction between Feature and Class Feature. I was considering ALL Features. Class Features are Features too, are they not?
How do we know it’s limited to ONLY Attack Actions? If it is that obvious, why even mention “Attack Actions.”
Wouldn’t this suffice:
”Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
How do we know it’s limited to ONLY Attack Actions? If it is that obvious, why even mention “Attack Actions.” [...]
This has already been explained. Context matters.
Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath or picking it up. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.
Moving between Attacks.If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.
How do we know it’s limited to ONLY Attack Actions? If it is that obvious, why even mention “Attack Actions.” [...]
This has already been explained. Context matters.
Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath or picking it up. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.
Moving between Attacks.If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.
Are you saying that the context obviates Attack Action?
Then it is superfluous as I stated earlier; it wasn’t necessary to say in the rule if the context already specified it.
Attack Action [Revised Rule] The Attack action contains several revisions:
[...] The ability to move between attacks during combat is now a function of the Attack action rather than a general rule.
THIS is what clarifies the superfluous phrase giving “Attack Action” as the example.
Every other reason others have given me were not the correct reasons.
You won the cookie.
Thanks.
This is an explanation of the rule. Previous posters quoted the rule. Going forward, if you need to quote the reason you can move between attacks during the attack action, quoting the Attack Action rules text would be most appropriate.
I know that, 5e isn't as precise with the rules language as, for example, 3rd Edition, but if a rule for an action says "As part of this action, you can do a thing". It does not mean you can extend it to the other actions.
Attack Action [Revised Rule] The Attack action contains several revisions:
[...] The ability to move between attacks during combat is now a function of the Attack action rather than a general rule.
THIS is what clarifies the superfluous phrase giving “Attack Action” as the example.
Every other reason others have given me were not the correct reasons.
You won the cookie.
Thanks.
This is an explanation of the rule. Previous posters quoted the rule. Going forward, if you need to quote the reason you can move between attacks during the attack action, quoting the Attack Action rules text would be most appropriate.
I know that, 5e isn't as precise with the rules language as, for example, 3rd Edition, but if a rule for an action says "As part of this action, you can do a thing". It does not mean you can extend it to the other actions.
As I have said before, the rule AS IT IS WRITTEN, was clear on what the example actually was. Either the “Extra Attack” was the example (as everyone else argued), or “Extra Attack as part of the Attack Action” was the example. All the commas separating multiple phrases obfuscated which was the actual example.
It wasn’t necessary to add the phrase containing “Attack Action” IF something else was already implying the “Attack Action.” In which case the rule could have just been:
”Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
See how there’s only ONE pair of commas delineating the phrase used as the example, rather than THREE commas allowing multiple parsing?
“Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, <<<such as Extra Attack>>>, <<<that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action>>>, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
Also valid and less confusing because it says exactly what everyone has been saying is correct:
“Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
OR
”Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature (such as Extra Attack) that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
OR
”Moving between Attacks as part of the Attack Action. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
Using a pair of commas to set off a single example before another comma to separate the main clause from the independent clause which is further separated by that example is just plain clunky even though it is correct grammatically.
I’m not criticizing the authors, per se. I’m merely saying that the wording could have been more clear. Grammar’s goal is correctness AND clarity. Otherwise there wouldn’t be multiple articles discussing correctly used commas that still confusing to read.
As I have said before, the rule AS IT IS WRITTEN, was clear on what the example actually was. Either the “Extra Attack” was the example (as everyone else argued), or “Extra Attack as part of the Attack Action” was the example. All the commas separating multiple phrases obfuscated which was the actual example.
"such as Extra Attack" is a relative clause. It is additional information about an earlier part of the sentence, "a feature", and can be removed without disrupting the original sentence. Without examples, the rule becomes "If you move on your turn and have a feature that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks."
The phrase, "that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action", cannot be removed because it is essential to describing the feature the rule is talking about. These sentences don't make sense:
"If you move on your turn and have a feature, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks."
"If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks."
What features qualify for the rule? Only those "that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action". It is essential to the statement and cannot be removed.
Some features, like Polearm Master gives you an extra attack, but the extra attack is a Bonus Action so this rule doesn't apply. (It's not necessary since you can move between the attack action and bonus action.)
it’s difficult to determine with 100% certainty whether “as part of the Attack Action” is a stipulation of “a feature such as” or as an example coupled to the example of “Extra Attack.”
When you are dissecting a sentence, you cannot split a phrase enclosed by commas (or parenthesis). Therefore, the phrase, "such as", must always be attached to "Extra Attack".
"Such as Extra Attack" serves as a call out as the primary method to gain more than one attack during an attack action.
"as part of the Attack action" reinforces that this applies only during the attack action. This is actually important because you may remember the rule independent of the Attack Action. The way it is written, commas and all, flows well and is a complete rule in one sentence; there is no question as to whether it applies to all attacks or just those made with the Attack Action.
In 3rd edition D&D, there were what was known as "crossbow rules". Crossbows needed to be reloaded between attacks and what that meant was described in the description of crossbows instead of with other weapon properties even though it applies to other weapons. Other rules where a broader rule was buried in an obscure place were then called "crossbow rules". In 5e, picking locks with Sleight of Hand is one such crossbow rule. Sleight of Hand says it used to "Pick a pocket, conceal a handheld object, or perform legerdemain". Where do we know it's used for picking locks? Thieves Tools tells us the DC (15) but not the associated proficiency. In the Lock entry, it tells us we need Thieves Tools and a DC 15 Sleight of Hand check. Now, does this apply to all locks? Maybe.
The Moving Between Attacks rules avoids an confusion by saying it applies to the attacks made by the Attack Action.
Are you saying that the context obviates Attack Action?
Then it is superfluous as I stated earlier; it wasn’t necessary to say in the rule if the context already specified it.
No it isn't really superfluous because this is a change they made in the switch to the 2024 rules so having a little reminder in the specific sentence can be a good thing.
And this becomes especially relevant if someone copies/posts the "Moving between Attacks" sentence by itself (just as you have repeatedly done) because then it becomes a lot easier to miss the context of where it came from when one reads it. Having a little reminder in the form of "as part of the Attack action" in there helps to keep the context of the rule clear at all times.
Name another Feature, please.
Otherwise, “such as” is unnecessarily superfluous.
Thirsting Blade.
Even if that didn't exist, though, consider the possibility that the person who wrote that sentence did not have perfect knowledge of all of the features that could ever possibly exist in the future, and did not intend to provide an exhaustive list of them, but only an example, which is what the phrase "such as" means.
pronouns: he/she/they
I did consider that, but I also know the dangers of using too many commas. The rule in question can be accurately parsed as “a feature of the Attack Action providing another attack” or “a feature” “of the Attack Action.”
Besides, Thirsting Blade grants the Feature “Extra Attack,” and “Extra Attack” is granting another attack.
It does not say Class feature. It just says feature. A level 1 Fighter wielding 2 different Nick Light weapons makes "more than one attack as part of the Attack action" due to the Nick and Light features. The Cleave weapon mastery property also has the potential to qualify.
"Such as" is not superfluous as "Extra Attack" is one example from the PHB. I have provided another from the PHB. It would be shortsighted to create an exhaustive list in the PHB that would then have to be updated in future products if a new subclass, magic item, spell, feat, or other feature were added.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
So you’re saying you can move between your triggering attack and the second attack granted by Nick or Cleave?
Besides, I never made a distinction between Feature and Class Feature. I was considering ALL Features. Class Features are Features too, are they not?
If that feature is part of the Attack action. Another example is the Multiattack from a monster's statblock.
How do we know it’s limited to ONLY Attack Actions? If it is that obvious, why even mention “Attack Actions.”
Wouldn’t this suffice:
”Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
It's also explained has a change between editions in the Converting to System Reference Document 5.2.1:
This has already been explained. Context matters.
Are you saying that the context obviates Attack Action?
Then it is superfluous as I stated earlier; it wasn’t necessary to say in the rule if the context already specified it.
THIS is what clarifies the superfluous phrase giving “Attack Action” as the example.
Every other reason others have given me were not the correct reasons.
You won the cookie.
Thanks.
I'm saying movement is no longer allowed during Flurry of Blows (or any other Bonus Action involving multiple attacks) or during a Reaction.
This is an explanation of the rule. Previous posters quoted the rule. Going forward, if you need to quote the reason you can move between attacks during the attack action, quoting the Attack Action rules text would be most appropriate.
I know that, 5e isn't as precise with the rules language as, for example, 3rd Edition, but if a rule for an action says "As part of this action, you can do a thing". It does not mean you can extend it to the other actions.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
As I have said before, the rule AS IT IS WRITTEN, was clear on what the example actually was. Either the “Extra Attack” was the example (as everyone else argued), or “Extra Attack as part of the Attack Action” was the example. All the commas separating multiple phrases obfuscated which was the actual example.
It wasn’t necessary to add the phrase containing “Attack Action” IF something else was already implying the “Attack Action.” In which case the rule could have just been:
”Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
See how there’s only ONE pair of commas delineating the phrase used as the example, rather than THREE commas allowing multiple parsing?
“Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, <<<such as Extra Attack>>>, <<<that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action>>>, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
Also valid and less confusing because it says exactly what everyone has been saying is correct:
“Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
OR
”Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature (such as Extra Attack) that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
OR
”Moving between Attacks as part of the Attack Action. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.“
Using a pair of commas to set off a single example before another comma to separate the main clause from the independent clause which is further separated by that example is just plain clunky even though it is correct grammatically.
I’m not criticizing the authors, per se. I’m merely saying that the wording could have been more clear. Grammar’s goal is correctness AND clarity. Otherwise there wouldn’t be multiple articles discussing correctly used commas that still confusing to read.
"such as Extra Attack" is a relative clause. It is additional information about an earlier part of the sentence, "a feature", and can be removed without disrupting the original sentence. Without examples, the rule becomes "If you move on your turn and have a feature that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks."
The phrase, "that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action", cannot be removed because it is essential to describing the feature the rule is talking about. These sentences don't make sense:
What features qualify for the rule? Only those "that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action". It is essential to the statement and cannot be removed.
Some features, like Polearm Master gives you an extra attack, but the extra attack is a Bonus Action so this rule doesn't apply. (It's not necessary since you can move between the attack action and bonus action.)
When you are dissecting a sentence, you cannot split a phrase enclosed by commas (or parenthesis). Therefore, the phrase, "such as", must always be attached to "Extra Attack".
"Such as Extra Attack" serves as a call out as the primary method to gain more than one attack during an attack action.
"as part of the Attack action" reinforces that this applies only during the attack action. This is actually important because you may remember the rule independent of the Attack Action. The way it is written, commas and all, flows well and is a complete rule in one sentence; there is no question as to whether it applies to all attacks or just those made with the Attack Action.
In 3rd edition D&D, there were what was known as "crossbow rules". Crossbows needed to be reloaded between attacks and what that meant was described in the description of crossbows instead of with other weapon properties even though it applies to other weapons. Other rules where a broader rule was buried in an obscure place were then called "crossbow rules". In 5e, picking locks with Sleight of Hand is one such crossbow rule. Sleight of Hand says it used to "Pick a pocket, conceal a handheld object, or perform legerdemain". Where do we know it's used for picking locks? Thieves Tools tells us the DC (15) but not the associated proficiency. In the Lock entry, it tells us we need Thieves Tools and a DC 15 Sleight of Hand check. Now, does this apply to all locks? Maybe.
The Moving Between Attacks rules avoids an confusion by saying it applies to the attacks made by the Attack Action.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
No it isn't really superfluous because this is a change they made in the switch to the 2024 rules so having a little reminder in the specific sentence can be a good thing.
And this becomes especially relevant if someone copies/posts the "Moving between Attacks" sentence by itself (just as you have repeatedly done) because then it becomes a lot easier to miss the context of where it came from when one reads it. Having a little reminder in the form of "as part of the Attack action" in there helps to keep the context of the rule clear at all times.
The Nick Mastery