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 doesn't say "No other features and abilities let you make an attack", which is what you seem to think it says.
No, I don't, because that would be an incorrect statement
Whatever happened to "rules do what they say they do"?
Oh wait, I forgot, y'all decided that this wasn't actually a rule at all, so it doesn't count
This conversation has become completely bonkers. You all genuinely think 5e has no general rules for when you can make an attack, only rules for how to handle them when you do somehow stumble into one
Are there any other gaping holes in the basic rule structure of the game I should know about, that we all somehow instinctively navigate around without thinking about it?
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)
Maybe part of the issue is that in the 2024 PHB there aren't any unnamed actions (*)? For example, previously:
2014 Barbarian. Intimidating Presence: Beginning at 10th level, you can use your action to frighten someone with your menacing presence.
2014 Cleric. Divine Intervention: Imploring your deity’s aid requires you to use your action.
2014 Ranger. Volley. You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range.
2014 Ranger. Whirlwind Attack. You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you.
Now the book uses named Actions (well, Volley and Whirlwind Attack don't exist) So, most of the time, you can say that any action is part of some Action.
If my point doesn't make sense, feel free to disregard it :D
(*) or I cannot find right now some examples of unnamed actions.
Maybe part of the issue is that in the 2024 PHB there aren't any unnamed actions (*)? For example, previously:
2014 Barbarian. Intimidating Presence: Beginning at 10th level, you can use your action to frighten someone with your menacing presence.
2014 Cleric. Divine Intervention: Imploring your deity’s aid requires you to use your action.
2014 Ranger. Volley. You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range.
2014 Ranger. Whirlwind Attack. You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you.
Now the book uses named Actions (well, Volley and Whirlwind Attack don't exist) So, most of the time, you can say that any action is part of some Action.
If my point doesn't make sense, feel free to disregard it :D
(*) or I cannot find right now some examples of unnamed actions.
Hey, Tarod, check this out: the 2024 DMG has an example of how you can make an attack without using the Attack Action:
In combat, an attack roll is used to determine whether an attack hits.
You can also use attack rolls to resolve noncombat activities that are similar to attacks in combat, such as an archery contest or a game of darts. Assign an Armor Class to the target, decide whether the character is proficient with the weapon used, then have the player make an attack roll. (See also “Degrees of Success” in this chapter.)
Whatever happened to "rules do what they say they do"?
Nothing. Rules do what they say they do, and don't do what they don't say they do. The rule you're pointing out never says that it's an exhaustive list.
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 doesn't say "No other features and abilities let you make an attack", which is what you seem to think it says.
No, I don't, because that would be an incorrect statement
Whatever happened to "rules do what they say they do"?
Oh wait, I forgot, y'all decided that this wasn't actually a rule at all, so it doesn't count
It's tutorial. This is obvious from context. But it's not wrong. It's just not complete, and as part of an exception-based rule system, cannot be complete.
This conversation has become completely bonkers. You all genuinely think 5e has no general rules for when you can make an attack, only rules for how to handle them when you do somehow stumble into one
5e really doesn't have any general rules for when you can make an attack. The closest you get is the Attack Action, but that's second-order rules. The general rule is about when you can take an action. It exists independent of what the available actions are.
Are there any other gaping holes in the basic rule structure of the game I should know about, that we all somehow instinctively navigate around without thinking about it?
No, but there's likely much less fundamental structure than you think there is.
Maybe part of the issue is that in the 2024 PHB there aren't any unnamed actions (*)? For example, previously:
2014 Barbarian. Intimidating Presence: Beginning at 10th level, you can use your action to frighten someone with your menacing presence.
2014 Cleric. Divine Intervention: Imploring your deity’s aid requires you to use your action.
2014 Ranger. Volley. You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range.
2014 Ranger. Whirlwind Attack. You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you.
Now the book uses named Actions (well, Volley and Whirlwind Attack don't exist) So, most of the time, you can say that any action is part of some Action.
If my point doesn't make sense, feel free to disregard it :D
(*) or I cannot find right now some examples of unnamed actions.
Hey, Tarod, check this out: the 2024 DMG has an example of how you can make an attack without using the Attack Action:
In combat, an attack roll is used to determine whether an attack hits.
You can also use attack rolls to resolve noncombat activities that are similar to attacks in combat, such as an archery contest or a game of darts. Assign an Armor Class to the target, decide whether the character is proficient with the weapon used, then have the player make an attack roll. (See also “Degrees of Success” in this chapter.)
1) An Attack Roll isn't a full attack
2) Out of combat, a DM has a lot more freedom to ignore the action economy if it helps keeps things moving
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)
Whatever happened to "rules do what they say they do"?
Nothing. Rules do what they say they do, and don't do what they don't say they do. The rule you're pointing out never says that it's an exhaustive list.
It doesn't need to be an "exhaustive list". After all, 5e is an exception-based system, or so I'm told
I'm not chasing after that goalpost, sorry
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)
Your entire argument boils down to vibes, my dude. It isn't a rule because it doesn't feel like a rule to you. Sure, whatever
The truly hilarious part is that I am quite sure all of you play the game using the rule you're claiming doesn't exist. On your first turn in combat, you don't just roll a d20 and declare afterward what it was for -- you announce what action your character is taking first, and if there's any complexity to what your character is doing, you probably announce whether they're using an Action or Bonus Action or whatever to do it, too
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)
Your entire argument boils down to vibes, my dude. It isn't a rule because it doesn't feel like a rule to you. Sure, whatever
I didn't say it's not a rule. It's tutorial. When you're teaching a game, you don't drill down into the exhaustive detail of the rules because it's counterproductive.
They tell you the standard way of making an attack. They also bring up that there are other ways, because it's important to know that they exist. They neither confirm nor deny that all attacks occur in those contexts. You're trying to make this bit authoritative, and its tutorial nature is just one of the reasons why your argument doesn't hold.
Also, if you're gonna try to characterize my "entire argument", you ought to be replying to more than a tiny subset of the points I'm making.
At this point, it's entirely clear that you're unwilling to do the deep dive into the underlying rules structures that a useful discussion of the question at hand requires. You probably have the correct RAI answer, and the situations where you'll be led astray by your understanding are fairly esoteric, and the game'll likely work out fine even if they do come up.
So there's not really much point in trying to persuade you you're wrong.
So uhhhh......does GWM damage and weapon bonus apply to Cleave attacks or no....?
If the Cleave attack is made as part of the Attack action (as opposed to an Opportunity Attack etc), yes
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)
Any game feature affecting an attack that is part of the Attack action shouldn't work with other feature not specifically saying they're part of the Attack action.
As written Cleave attack doesn't say it's part of the Attack action, therefore you can't equip or unequip a weapon before or after it for example, nor is part of Great Weapon Master benefit apply to it. If RAI though i don't know if many DM will rule that way.
It's the reason why Nick Mastery let you equip or unequip a Light weapon before or after making the attack, from the Light Property with itm which you can't otherwise do.
It's the reason why Nick Mastery let you equip or unequip a Light weapon before or after making the attack, from the Light Property with itm which you can't otherwise do.
Ummm, huh? Nick doesn't do that, and the Nick attack is also explicitly part of the Attack action -- that's literally the point of it -- so it wouldn't need to do that
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)
As we have amply demonstrated from this thread, the rules aren't clear. Most abilities that grant extra attacks either specify an action to use it, or specify that they are part of the triggering action, but cleave does not.
Ummm, huh? Nick doesn't do that, and the Nick attack is also explicitly part of the Attack action -- that's literally the point of it -- so it wouldn't need to do that
Not sure to understand your comment. The Attack action feature below can be used when making the Light Weapon attack with Nick Mastery but not without it as Bonus Action.
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.
Ummm, huh? Nick doesn't do that, and the Nick attack is also explicitly part of the Attack action -- that's literally the point of it -- so it wouldn't need to do that
That was his whole point. Nick says that it is made in the Attack Action and thus things that work with the Attack Action works with Nick. Cleave doesn't say it happens in the attack action and thus it isn't compatible with such things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It doesn't say "No other features and abilities let you make an attack", which is what you seem to think it says.
No, I don't, because that would be an incorrect statement
Whatever happened to "rules do what they say they do"?
Oh wait, I forgot, y'all decided that this wasn't actually a rule at all, so it doesn't count
This conversation has become completely bonkers. You all genuinely think 5e has no general rules for when you can make an attack, only rules for how to handle them when you do somehow stumble into one
Are there any other gaping holes in the basic rule structure of the game I should know about, that we all somehow instinctively navigate around without thinking about it?
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)
Maybe part of the issue is that in the 2024 PHB there aren't any unnamed actions (*)? For example, previously:
Now the book uses named Actions (well, Volley and Whirlwind Attack don't exist) So, most of the time, you can say that any action is part of some Action.
If my point doesn't make sense, feel free to disregard it :D
(*) or I cannot find right now some examples of unnamed actions.
Hey, Tarod, check this out: the 2024 DMG has an example of how you can make an attack without using the Attack Action:
Nothing. Rules do what they say they do, and don't do what they don't say they do. The rule you're pointing out never says that it's an exhaustive list.
It's tutorial. This is obvious from context. But it's not wrong. It's just not complete, and as part of an exception-based rule system, cannot be complete.
5e really doesn't have any general rules for when you can make an attack. The closest you get is the Attack Action, but that's second-order rules. The general rule is about when you can take an action. It exists independent of what the available actions are.
No, but there's likely much less fundamental structure than you think there is.
1) An Attack Roll isn't a full attack
2) Out of combat, a DM has a lot more freedom to ignore the action economy if it helps keeps things moving
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 need to be an "exhaustive list". After all, 5e is an exception-based system, or so I'm told
I'm not chasing after that goalpost, sorry
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)
Your entire argument boils down to vibes, my dude. It isn't a rule because it doesn't feel like a rule to you. Sure, whatever
The truly hilarious part is that I am quite sure all of you play the game using the rule you're claiming doesn't exist. On your first turn in combat, you don't just roll a d20 and declare afterward what it was for -- you announce what action your character is taking first, and if there's any complexity to what your character is doing, you probably announce whether they're using an Action or Bonus Action or whatever to do it, too
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)
I didn't say it's not a rule. It's tutorial. When you're teaching a game, you don't drill down into the exhaustive detail of the rules because it's counterproductive.
They tell you the standard way of making an attack. They also bring up that there are other ways, because it's important to know that they exist. They neither confirm nor deny that all attacks occur in those contexts. You're trying to make this bit authoritative, and its tutorial nature is just one of the reasons why your argument doesn't hold.
Also, if you're gonna try to characterize my "entire argument", you ought to be replying to more than a tiny subset of the points I'm making.
At this point, it's entirely clear that you're unwilling to do the deep dive into the underlying rules structures that a useful discussion of the question at hand requires. You probably have the correct RAI answer, and the situations where you'll be led astray by your understanding are fairly esoteric, and the game'll likely work out fine even if they do come up.
So there's not really much point in trying to persuade you you're wrong.
So uhhhh......does GWM damage and weapon bonus apply to Cleave attacks or no....?
It is entirely irrelevant whether it's a rule. It just doesn't say what you think it says.
RAW is not clear. RAI... probably?
Yeah, probably with a side of "check with your GM".
If the Cleave attack is made as part of the Attack action (as opposed to an Opportunity Attack etc), yes
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)
Gwm master applies to cleave if cleave is triggered by your attack action. Gwm does not apply if cleave is triggered by a bonus action or reaction.
Magic weapon bonuses apply to any cleave attack.
Any game feature affecting an attack that is part of the Attack action shouldn't work with other feature not specifically saying they're part of the Attack action.
As written Cleave attack doesn't say it's part of the Attack action, therefore you can't equip or unequip a weapon before or after it for example, nor is part of Great Weapon Master benefit apply to it. If RAI though i don't know if many DM will rule that way.
It's the reason why Nick Mastery let you equip or unequip a Light weapon before or after making the attack, from the Light Property with itm which you can't otherwise do.
Ummm, huh? Nick doesn't do that, and the Nick attack is also explicitly part of the Attack action -- that's literally the point of it -- so it wouldn't need to do that
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)
As we have amply demonstrated from this thread, the rules aren't clear. Most abilities that grant extra attacks either specify an action to use it, or specify that they are part of the triggering action, but cleave does not.
Not sure to understand your comment. The Attack action feature below can be used when making the Light Weapon attack with Nick Mastery but not without it as Bonus Action.
That was his whole point. Nick says that it is made in the Attack Action and thus things that work with the Attack Action works with Nick. Cleave doesn't say it happens in the attack action and thus it isn't compatible with such things.