That is not what the link says. It says some actions let you make attack, not that it has to be part of those. I'll give it to you most are, but we can see Cleave Mastery was designed more open to be usable following up any attack. #GeneralvsSpecific
"Weapon mastery property" is not on the list of things that allow you to make an attack. The things that allow you to make an attack are the Attack action, and some other Actions, Bonus Actions and Reactions
This cannot be a case of specific beats general, precisely because Cleave doesn't specify anything
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That is not what the link says. It says some actions let you make attack, not that it has to be part of those. I'll give it to you most are, but we can see Cleave Mastery was designed more open to be usable following up any attack. #GeneralvsSpecific
"Weapon mastery property" is not on the list of things that allow you to make an attack. The things that allow you to make an attack are the Attack action, and some other Actions, Bonus Actions and Reactions
This cannot be a case of specific beats general, precisely because Cleave doesn't specify anything
Cleave literally specifies that you can make an attack:
If you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon, you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon against a second creature within 5 feet of the first that is also within your reach. On a hit, the second creature takes the weapon’s damage, but don’t add your ability modifier to that damage unless that modifier is negative. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
It's basic "when you do X, you can do Y"
It fails to answer the rather esoteric, but relevant, question "If X is part of action Z, is Y also part of it?", but Cleave is the thing that lets you take the cleave attack.
Once again, RAW isn't sufficiently clear, so a DM call is required in the absence of a clarification.
There is nothing inherent in the rules that stops you from making a free-floating attack, untethered to the action economy. There's no ability that lets you do it because it's the sort of thing that's likely to go sideways. (Even if Cleave's attack isn't officially part of the action that allows it to trigger, it's still tethered due to the requirement of a triggering attack.)
That is not what the link says. It says some actions let you make attack, not that it has to be part of those. I'll give it to you most are, but we can see Cleave Mastery was designed more open to be usable following up any attack. #GeneralvsSpecific
"Weapon mastery property" is not on the list of things that allow you to make an attack. The things that allow you to make an attack are the Attack action, and some other Actions, Bonus Actions and Reactions
This cannot be a case of specific beats general, precisely because Cleave doesn't specify anything
Cleave literally specifies that you can make an attack:
It doesn't specify that the attack is not part of the action that generated it
The general rule is that all attacks are part of the action economy in some fashion. There is absolutely nothing in Cleave that overrides that. Plague is trying to make a "specific beats general" argument when there is no specific exception being made. Which is, frankly, nonsense
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There are other examples of extra attacks being granted that don't specify what sort of Action they require, because they can be attached to any action that produced an attack. Hunter Ranger's Horde Breaker, for instance
Horde Breaker. Once on each of your turns when you make an attack with a weapon, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target, that is within the weapon’s range, and that you haven’t attacked this turn.
The idea that because they don't specify what action they are part of, it means they aren't part of an action at all, is just silly
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Cleave literally specifies that you can make an attack:
It doesn't specify that the attack is not part of the action that generated it
It doesn't specify that it is, either. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it is an assumption, and it's possible to reach a different conclusion without contradicting RAW.
The general rule is that all attacks are part of the action economy in some fashion. There is absolutely nothing in Cleave that overrides that. Plague is trying to make a "specific beats general" argument when there is no specific exception being made. Which is, frankly, nonsense
There isn't any such general rule. As I said in the post you quoted:
There is nothing inherent in the rules that stops you from making a free-floating attack, untethered to the action economy. There's no ability that lets you do it because it's the sort of thing that's likely to go sideways. (Even if Cleave's attack isn't officially part of the action that allows it to trigger, it's still tethered due to the requirement of a triggering attack.)
But there's nothing stopping there being an ability that says "If a creature ends its turn within 5 feet of you, you may make a melee weapon attack on it", except the considerations of game balance.
an action, bonus action or reaction is required to make an attack that triggers cleave, so cleave is clearly part of the action, bonus action or reaction that triggered it.
As far as i know There is no such thing in dnd as making an attack without using an action, bonus action or reaction for player characters.
If cleave is not part of the action, bonus action or reaction that triggered it, then what else could it be? There are no rules to define such a thing in dnd because (to the best of my knowledge) such a thing does not exist for player characters.
I literally quoted it and linked to it earlier. If you choose to ignore the actual printed rules, I can't stop you, but you are far from making any kind of RAW argument at that point
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I literally quoted it and linked to it earlier. If you choose to ignore the actual printed rules, I can't stop you, but you are far from making any kind of RAW argument at that point
Yeah, this:
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack.
Is descriptive, not proscriptive. It serves to clarify that not all attacks are part of the Attack Action, not that these are the only ways to make an attack.
Cleave is none of those things, and it lets you make an attack. Cleave itself is limited by the need for a triggering attack, yes, but that does not make it one of those things. And again, if they introduced an ability that let you attack without using one of the standard action types, it would be fine mechanically. The action economy is balance, not law.
I literally quoted it and linked to it earlier. If you choose to ignore the actual printed rules, I can't stop you, but you are far from making any kind of RAW argument at that point
Yeah, this:
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack.
Is descriptive, not proscriptive.
LOL. It's literally the section called "Making an Attack". It is the part of the rules that tells you how to make an attack
You don't get to simply dismiss a part of the rules -- not a sidebar or block of text with an illustrative example, an actual part of the basic rules of the game -- just because it's inconvenient for you
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There are other examples of extra attacks being granted that don't specify what sort of Action they require, because they can be attached to any action that produced an attack. Hunter Ranger's Horde Breaker, for instance
Horde Breaker. Once on each of your turns when you make an attack with a weapon, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target, that is within the weapon’s range, and that you haven’t attacked this turn.
The idea that because they don't specify what action they are part of, it means they aren't part of an action at all, is just silly
The feature Horde Breaker also doesn't say it's part of an action, similarly designed more open to be usable following up any attack.
While there are general rules for Making An Attack for how they're done and by who or what, there can be more specific rules which differ, such as traps, features etc.
While there are general rules for Making An Attack for how they're done and by who or what, there can be more specific rules which differ, such as traps, features etc.
You understand that a specific rule exception is specific, right? What do you think the word specific means, exactly?
In the absence of a specific rule exception, the general rule applies. Cleave contains no specific rule exception when it comes to the action required to trigger it
If your argument is seriously that there is no general rule for how actions work or which actions you need to take to make an attack, I think you need to take a step back and really ponder what it is you're trying to argue for here
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If your argument is seriously that there is no general rule for how actions work or which actions you need to take to make an attack, I think you need to take a step back and really ponder what it is you're trying to argue for here
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack.
Is descriptive, not proscriptive.
LOL. It's literally the section called "Making an Attack". It is the part of the rules that tells you how to make an attack
Yes. It tells you how to make an attack. (Not to be confused with the Attack Action.)
You pick a target, you determine modifiers, and you make an attack roll. (making an attack roll is earlier in the chapter, so it's already not the entirety of the rules) That's how you make an attack.
When to make an attack, however, is a different question. It gives some broad scope on that, but it is not an exhaustive list. For the actual details on that, you go elsewhere -- The glossary entries on the Attack Action and Opportunity Attacks, many of the spells, some class features, some feats, some weapon properties, etc.
Indeed, because 5e is an exception-based system, there cannot be an exhaustive list. If a specific feature says you can make an attack, you can make an attack, whether or not it's within the standard action economy. The system works absolutely fine if there are attacks that are not part of any type of action.
Cleave is such a feature. The discussion of whether its triggering event being part of the Attack Action makes it also be part of the Attack Action is the sort of picky, in-the-weeds discussion where the answer is often "not enough info RAW; DM's call". It's a reasonable interpretation. It's probably RAI. But the rules are not written sufficiently rigorously to say "this is RAW". But your argument about what that section means does not hold water.
You don't get to simply dismiss a part of the rules -- not a sidebar or block of text with an illustrative example, an actual part of the basic rules of the game -- just because it's inconvenient for you
I'm not. It just doesn't say what you're asserting it does.
While there are general rules for Making An Attack for how they're done and by who or what, there can be more specific rules which differ, such as traps, features etc.
You understand that a specific rule exception is specific, right? What do you think the word specific means, exactly?
In the absence of a specific rule exception, the general rule applies. Cleave contains no specific rule exception when it comes to the action required to trigger it
If your argument is seriously that there is no general rule for how actions work or which actions you need to take to make an attack, I think you need to take a step back and really ponder what it is you're trying to argue for here
I understand it yes. It means exception supercede general rules. The general rules versus specific comment was regarding Making An Attack. There are no general rules for attacks being part of any action as jl8e said its descriptive, not proscriptive. Some features let you make attack as part of the Attack action and others don't say they do.
Another example is Shield Master, while the triggering attack must be part of the Attack action, the bash is not done as part of any Attack action, Bonus Action or Reaction per se. But the triggering attack is further specific in that it must be part of the Attack action and not just any attack.
Shield Bash. If you attack a creature within 5 feet of you as part of the Attack action and hit with a Melee weapon, you can immediately bash the target with your Shield if it's equipped, forcing the target to make a Strength saving throw (DC 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus). On a failed save, you either push the target 5 feet from you or cause it to have the Prone condition (your choice). You can use this benefit only once on each of your turns.
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack.
Is descriptive, not proscriptive.
LOL. It's literally the section called "Making an Attack". It is the part of the rules that tells you how to make an attack
Yes. It tells you how to make an attack. (Not to be confused with the Attack Action.)
You pick a target, you determine modifiers, and you make an attack roll. (making an attack roll is earlier in the chapter, so it's already not the entirety of the rules) That's how you make an attack.
You missed a step. You take an action which allows you to make an attack, then you pick a target, determine modifiers, and make an attack roll. 5e may be an exception-based system, but it's also an action-based system, especially during combat. With very specific exceptions, you are required to take an action of some kind to do anything during combat, and attacking is not one of the exceptions
Again -- are you asserting that there is NO general rule in 5e for when you can make an attack? Because that certainly seems like it's your position
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You missed a step. You take an action which allows you to make an attack,
Incorrect. You may make an attack at any time an effect permits you to make an attack. This is normally an action, but nothing says it must be an action.
You missed a step. You take an action which allows you to make an attack,
Incorrect. You may make an attack at any time an effect permits you to make an attack. This is normally an action, but nothing says it must be an action.
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack.
It doesn't say "Some other features and abilities also let you make an attack", which is what you seem to think it says
It's quite clear on the list of things that allow you to make an attack
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Weapon mastery property" is not on the list of things that allow you to make an attack. The things that allow you to make an attack are the Attack action, and some other Actions, Bonus Actions and Reactions
This cannot be a case of specific beats general, precisely because Cleave doesn't specify anything
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Cleave literally specifies that you can make an attack:
It's basic "when you do X, you can do Y"
It fails to answer the rather esoteric, but relevant, question "If X is part of action Z, is Y also part of it?", but Cleave is the thing that lets you take the cleave attack.
Once again, RAW isn't sufficiently clear, so a DM call is required in the absence of a clarification.
There is nothing inherent in the rules that stops you from making a free-floating attack, untethered to the action economy. There's no ability that lets you do it because it's the sort of thing that's likely to go sideways. (Even if Cleave's attack isn't officially part of the action that allows it to trigger, it's still tethered due to the requirement of a triggering attack.)
It doesn't specify that the attack is not part of the action that generated it
The general rule is that all attacks are part of the action economy in some fashion. There is absolutely nothing in Cleave that overrides that. Plague is trying to make a "specific beats general" argument when there is no specific exception being made. Which is, frankly, nonsense
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There are other examples of extra attacks being granted that don't specify what sort of Action they require, because they can be attached to any action that produced an attack. Hunter Ranger's Horde Breaker, for instance
The idea that because they don't specify what action they are part of, it means they aren't part of an action at all, is just silly
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It doesn't specify that it is, either. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it is an assumption, and it's possible to reach a different conclusion without contradicting RAW.
There isn't any such general rule. As I said in the post you quoted:
But there's nothing stopping there being an ability that says "If a creature ends its turn within 5 feet of you, you may make a melee weapon attack on it", except the considerations of game balance.
an action, bonus action or reaction is required to make an attack that triggers cleave, so cleave is clearly part of the action, bonus action or reaction that triggered it.
As far as i know There is no such thing in dnd as making an attack without using an action, bonus action or reaction for player characters.
If cleave is not part of the action, bonus action or reaction that triggered it, then what else could it be? There are no rules to define such a thing in dnd because (to the best of my knowledge) such a thing does not exist for player characters.
I literally quoted it and linked to it earlier. If you choose to ignore the actual printed rules, I can't stop you, but you are far from making any kind of RAW argument at that point
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That rule doesn't say what you think it says, you're committing the fallacy of the converse.
Yeah, this:
Is descriptive, not proscriptive. It serves to clarify that not all attacks are part of the Attack Action, not that these are the only ways to make an attack.
Cleave is none of those things, and it lets you make an attack. Cleave itself is limited by the need for a triggering attack, yes, but that does not make it one of those things. And again, if they introduced an ability that let you attack without using one of the standard action types, it would be fine mechanically. The action economy is balance, not law.
LOL. It's literally the section called "Making an Attack". It is the part of the rules that tells you how to make an attack
You don't get to simply dismiss a part of the rules -- not a sidebar or block of text with an illustrative example, an actual part of the basic rules of the game -- just because it's inconvenient for you
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The feature Horde Breaker also doesn't say it's part of an action, similarly designed more open to be usable following up any attack.
While there are general rules for Making An Attack for how they're done and by who or what, there can be more specific rules which differ, such as traps, features etc.
You understand that a specific rule exception is specific, right? What do you think the word specific means, exactly?
In the absence of a specific rule exception, the general rule applies. Cleave contains no specific rule exception when it comes to the action required to trigger it
If your argument is seriously that there is no general rule for how actions work or which actions you need to take to make an attack, I think you need to take a step back and really ponder what it is you're trying to argue for here
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, but there is no general rule. The paragraph you're pointing to does not in any way restrict when an attack can occur.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes. It tells you how to make an attack. (Not to be confused with the Attack Action.)
You pick a target, you determine modifiers, and you make an attack roll. (making an attack roll is earlier in the chapter, so it's already not the entirety of the rules) That's how you make an attack.
When to make an attack, however, is a different question. It gives some broad scope on that, but it is not an exhaustive list. For the actual details on that, you go elsewhere -- The glossary entries on the Attack Action and Opportunity Attacks, many of the spells, some class features, some feats, some weapon properties, etc.
Indeed, because 5e is an exception-based system, there cannot be an exhaustive list. If a specific feature says you can make an attack, you can make an attack, whether or not it's within the standard action economy. The system works absolutely fine if there are attacks that are not part of any type of action.
Cleave is such a feature. The discussion of whether its triggering event being part of the Attack Action makes it also be part of the Attack Action is the sort of picky, in-the-weeds discussion where the answer is often "not enough info RAW; DM's call". It's a reasonable interpretation. It's probably RAI. But the rules are not written sufficiently rigorously to say "this is RAW". But your argument about what that section means does not hold water.
I'm not. It just doesn't say what you're asserting it does.
I understand it yes. It means exception supercede general rules. The general rules versus specific comment was regarding Making An Attack. There are no general rules for attacks being part of any action as jl8e said its descriptive, not proscriptive. Some features let you make attack as part of the Attack action and others don't say they do.
Another example is Shield Master, while the triggering attack must be part of the Attack action, the bash is not done as part of any Attack action, Bonus Action or Reaction per se. But the triggering attack is further specific in that it must be part of the Attack action and not just any attack.
You missed a step. You take an action which allows you to make an attack, then you pick a target, determine modifiers, and make an attack roll. 5e may be an exception-based system, but it's also an action-based system, especially during combat. With very specific exceptions, you are required to take an action of some kind to do anything during combat, and attacking is not one of the exceptions
Again -- are you asserting that there is NO general rule in 5e for when you can make an attack? Because that certainly seems like it's your position
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Incorrect. You may make an attack at any time an effect permits you to make an attack. This is normally an action, but nothing says it must be an action.
One more time... Making an Attack:
It doesn't say "Some other features and abilities also let you make an attack", which is what you seem to think it says
It's quite clear on the list of things that allow you to make an attack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)