Horde Breaker and Cleave both give attacks that are not separate actions. They would occur as part of the same Attack action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Horde Breaker & Cleave don't say they are specifically made as part of the Attack action like Nick does.
This argument is invalid because Nick is modifying the Light property to remove the Bonus Action and move it into the Attack action. This arguably overrides the later in the turn clause of Nick. If you trigger Cleave on the first attack of a Fighter with 2 attacks during the Attack action, the Cleave is occurring during the Attack action. Unlike the Light property, Cleave and Horde Breaker have no text saying that they are separate from the action that triggered them.
I believe an attack is only part of it's triggerring action if it specifically say so, otherwise it happen without being being part of it. Those are generally worded this way so they can be used following attacks made with any actions, wether its the Attack action, a Bonus Action or Reaction. So 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.
This is your belief but not actual RAW. Movement and Communication are explicitly written as occurring outside or during other actions but your belief on Cleave and Horde Breaker has no basis on any written rule. It is fine as a house rule but not as the basis of an argument in this forum (unless, I suppose, you were asking how a written rule interacted with your house rule).
The result of any Action occurs and resolves during that action unless a rule says otherwise. This includes anything that triggers without costing a Reaction or Bonus Action. You don't make your attacks during the Attack action and resolve the damage after the action is complete. In the same vein, an event that triggers on a hit is part of the same action unless it explicitly says otherwise.
Having an attack roll definitionally makes it an attack. "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."
Advice so good, they deliberately removed it from the '24 PHB
Hmm.. i thought i was in the 2024 SRD. Well, time to double check that. (It would be really wild if they removed it from the PHB and left it in the SRD).
It's not there in those words, but the section on Attack Rolls in Playing the Game says that attack rolls are used to resolve attacks.
An attack roll determines whether an attack hits a target. An attack roll hits if the roll equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class. Attack rolls usually occur in battle, described in “Combat” later in this chapter, but the DM might also ask for an attack roll in other situations, such as an archery competition.
Additionally, the Rules Glossary on [Tooltip Not Found] says "An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also “Playing the Game” (“D20 Tests”)."
Well, I can't say I completely hate an interpretation that reduces weapon juggling, but otherwise trying to split hairs between "attacks that are part of the Attack action" and "attacks that just happen to occur during the Attack action" seems absolutely wild to me
I'm not sure why it being an attack makes it special tbh. There are several things that can interrupt an action (especially the Attack action). Reactions, Bonus actions, movement, speech, free object interaction and so on can frequently happen during an action without them becoming a part of that action. Sure Cleave and Horde Breaker (any other that works similarly?) doesn't specify at all what action (if any) that they are part of and that is somewhat special perhaps but it I don't see why they have to be part of an action. The rules work just fine with them being free-standing, you just have to remember that they are as it makes a difference for how they interact with some features.
Of course as I've said in other threads I don't like having things be detached from the action economy so I would rule them to have a "as part of the same action" line in their text. But that's a choice I make knowing that it is a house rule and also knowing that it will have an effect on their interaction with other rules and thus I might rule on those interactions as well if I feel it is needed.
I'm not sure why it being an attack makes it special tbh. There are several things that can interrupt an action (especially the Attack action). Reactions, Bonus actions, movement, speech, free object interaction and so on can frequently happen during an action without them becoming a part of that action.
Sure, but those are different things than the thing you specifically took an Action to do
"I pause the Attack action to make an attack" just does not compute for me
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well, I can't say I completely hate an interpretation that reduces weapon juggling, but otherwise trying to split hairs between "attacks that are part of the Attack action" and "attacks that just happen to occur during the Attack action" seems absolutely wild to me
I'm not sure why it being an attack makes it special tbh. There are several things that can interrupt an action (especially the Attack action). Reactions, Bonus actions, movement, speech, free object interaction and so on can frequently happen during an action without them becoming a part of that action.
Reactions and Bonus Actions are explicitly part of separate actions, Reactions and Bonus Actions. These are exceptions and so do not support your position at all.
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 attack action explicitly states that you can move during the action. I can't see the logical conclusion that the movement is not part of the action.
Communicating. You can communicate however you are able—through brief utterances and gestures—as you take your turn. Doing so uses neither your action nor your move.
Extended communication, such as a detailed explanation of something or an attempt to persuade a foe, requires an action. The Influence action is the main way you try to influence a monster.
Brief communication is not stated to have any action or timing. However, it does not explicitly allow communicating interrupting or as part of actions (but I think that is the assumed intent of "as you take your turn"). In any case, it never establishes that communication during an action is outside of the action.
The only established precedence we have is anything that happens during an action is part of that action unless explicitly said otherwise. Communication does not contribute to a precedence one way or another.
I will say that RAW, the difference in wording between War Magic and the Valor bard's Extra Attack feature would matter, since the EK just gets to replace any attack made during the Attack action with a cantrip, while the Valor bard specifically has to replace an attack gained via their Extra Attack feature. I'm actually OK with that difference narratively, since mixing magic and melee is what EKs are trained for
^ With respect to the original question from the OP, this is the best RAW answer.
I'm not sure what's happened in the rest of this thread since then yet . . .
I will say that RAW, the difference in wording between War Magic and the Valor bard's Extra Attack feature would matter, since the EK just gets to replace any attack made during the Attack action with a cantrip, while the Valor bard specifically has to replace an attack gained via their Extra Attack feature. I'm actually OK with that difference narratively, since mixing magic and melee is what EKs are trained for
^ With respect to the original question from the OP, this is the best RAW answer.
I'm not sure what's happened in the rest of this thread since then yet . . .
Well, that answer calls out that the features from the two classes work differently which ends the discussion for the Valor Bard but not the Eldritch Knight. Par for the course, I suppose.
This argument is invalid because Nick is modifying the Light property to remove the Bonus Action and move it into the Attack action. This arguably overrides the later in the turn clause of Nick. If you trigger Cleave on the first attack of a Fighter with 2 attacks during the Attack action, the Cleave is occurring during the Attack action. Unlike the Light property, Cleave and Horde Breaker have no text saying that they are separate from the action that triggered them.
This is your belief but not actual RAW. Movement and Communication are explicitly written as occurring outside or during other actions but your belief on Cleave and Horde Breaker has no basis on any written rule. It is fine as a house rule but not as the basis of an argument in this forum (unless, I suppose, you were asking how a written rule interacted with your house rule).
The result of any Action occurs and resolves during that action unless a rule says otherwise. This includes anything that triggers without costing a Reaction or Bonus Action. You don't make your attacks during the Attack action and resolve the damage after the action is complete. In the same vein, an event that triggers on a hit is part of the same action unless it explicitly says otherwise.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It's not there in those words, but the section on Attack Rolls in Playing the Game says that attack rolls are used to resolve attacks.
Attack Rolls
Additionally, the Rules Glossary on [Tooltip Not Found] says "An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also “Playing the Game” (“D20 Tests”)."
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I'm not sure why it being an attack makes it special tbh. There are several things that can interrupt an action (especially the Attack action). Reactions, Bonus actions, movement, speech, free object interaction and so on can frequently happen during an action without them becoming a part of that action.
Sure Cleave and Horde Breaker (any other that works similarly?) doesn't specify at all what action (if any) that they are part of and that is somewhat special perhaps but it I don't see why they have to be part of an action. The rules work just fine with them being free-standing, you just have to remember that they are as it makes a difference for how they interact with some features.
Of course as I've said in other threads I don't like having things be detached from the action economy so I would rule them to have a "as part of the same action" line in their text. But that's a choice I make knowing that it is a house rule and also knowing that it will have an effect on their interaction with other rules and thus I might rule on those interactions as well if I feel it is needed.
Sure, but those are different things than the thing you specifically took an Action to do
"I pause the Attack action to make an attack" just does not compute for me
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Reactions and Bonus Actions are explicitly part of separate actions, Reactions and Bonus Actions. These are exceptions and so do not support your position at all.
Attack
The attack action explicitly states that you can move during the action. I can't see the logical conclusion that the movement is not part of the action.
Brief communication is not stated to have any action or timing. However, it does not explicitly allow communicating interrupting or as part of actions (but I think that is the assumed intent of "as you take your turn"). In any case, it never establishes that communication during an action is outside of the action.
The only established precedence we have is anything that happens during an action is part of that action unless explicitly said otherwise. Communication does not contribute to a precedence one way or another.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
^ With respect to the original question from the OP, this is the best RAW answer.
I'm not sure what's happened in the rest of this thread since then yet . . .
Well, that answer calls out that the features from the two classes work differently which ends the discussion for the Valor Bard but not the Eldritch Knight. Par for the course, I suppose.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.