There is no support that an event triggered by action happens outside of the action, unless it is explicitly specified.
"Triggered by action" is sort of an odd phrase to use here. I'm not sure if it's ever a thing to have a trigger be an action really. That's certainly not the trigger in this case. For Cleave, the trigger is: "you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon". That has nothing to do with any action. It's a defined trigger that is exactly what it says it is.
The rules tell you what can and can't do. Sometimes, the rules do one, sometimes the rules do the other, and of course, sometimes they do both. They aren't all encompassing, leaving gaps on either end for DM ruling, if a ruling is needed.
That's simply not how the rules are designed overall. In general, the rules tell you what you can do. Any argument that begins with, "but the rules never say that you can't" or "the rules never say that it doesn't work that way" is inherently an incorrect way of thinking about the rules. There are an infinite number of things that you can't do. The book would be millions of pages long if such a thing were even attempted to be written.
For example, the rules say that "on your turn you can move a distance up to your Speed and take one action".
The rules do not say:
-- On your turn you cannot move a distance of 5 feet more than your Speed.
-- On your turn you cannot move a distance of 20 feet more than your Speed.
-- On your turn you cannot move a distance of 37 feet more than your Speed.
-- On your turn you cannot take 17 actions.
and so on.
Instead, the fact that the book is silent on all of those ideas means that you cannot do any of those things.
In the beginning, before the rules were written, the book contained only blank pages. At that time, creatures could not do anything. Note that there were no rules which forbid creatures from doing certain things. Indeed, there were no rules at all at that time. It's important not to mistake the absence of a rule stating that you cannot do something as some sort of confirmation that you can do it. You can actually only do the things that the rules say that you can do. Likewise, Features only work in the manner that the rules say that they do.
Also, this is not the same thing as the general gameplay philosophy that players can have their characters try to do anything at any time. That is certainly true. A player might tell their DM: "Hey, my character is going to flap his arms really fast and attempt to fly up into the air all the way up to the moon and then he wants to walk around on the moon." An appropriate response from the DM is typically: "Ok! You can certainly try to do that!" However, when the character actually does try to do this, now the DM must use the rules to adjudicate what happens as a result. The end result here is that the character fails in what he was trying to do. That's because there is no general rule and no special Feature that he has access to which allows him to do that. If he then cries out: "But the book never says that I can't do that!", he would just be barking up the wrong tree because the rules do not function that way. They tell us what you can do, not what you cannot do.
"When you do something other than moving or communicating, you typically take an action. The Action table lists the game’s main actions, which are defined in more detail in the Rules Glossary."
Indeed, this was worded very carefully by the author. You typically do take an action to do things because that's the easiest way to do things. There are general rules for the action economy that are available to all creatures. There aren't actually that many other ways to do things. But there are some. Again, a good example to explain the concept is with spellcasting. You typically use your Spellcasting Feature to cast a spell with your spell slots. But sometimes you might acquire access to the rules that are provided by a Species Trait or a Feat which allow you to cast a spell in a different way. There is NOT a rule that says that you MUST use your spell slots when you cast a spell. Likewise, there is NOT a rule that says that you MUST take an action in order to do things. Instead, the action economy is made available as a resource that you can (if you want to) expend in order to perform certain activities and that resource is replenished regularly because the general rules say so. If you have access to a Feature that allows you to perform that activity in some other way, then you can do that too.
Making the Attack: "3. Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll, as detailed earlier in this chapter. On a hit, you roll damage unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage." Cleave is a special rule of the attack therefore is part of resolving the attack and not a separate activity.
No, this is totally incorrect. Cleave is its own thing. It's not related to the process of resolving any other attack. That attack is resolved the same way whether you have access to the Cleave mastery or not. The process of resolving that initial attack creates a trigger. If you have access to the Cleave mastery when that trigger is created, then you have the option to follow the rules for the Cleave Feature as they are written. Nothing about the Cleave Feature creates any sort of relationship between the attack that it creates and any previous attack or action that may have been taken. It only cares that the conditions for the trigger have been met and then it creates its own rules from there.
There is nothing saying it happens outside of the Attack action. . . . In order to be outside of the triggering action, you need something saying that it is so. If it is not there, it is part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.
Again, this is exactly backwards. The rules do what they say and only what they say. The default is that an attack is NOT part of any action, not the other way around. A rule must declare that an attack is part of an action somehow for it to be so. The absence of the rules saying anything on the subject does NOT mean that it is somehow "automatically" part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There is absolutely no rules support for that.
For example, the rule for the Attack action says this:
Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
So, that rule allows you to expend this particular action economy resource in order to perform a particular activity -- one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Now, you might have access to some other rule which also allows you to perform that same activity, in which case no action economy action was expended.
Furthermore, it's clear that if you are following that rule for the Attack action then that one particular attack that is referenced is part of that attack action.
By default, no other attacks are part of that Attack action. In order for another attack to be part of this Attack action, a rule must explicitly say so.
For example:
Level 5: Extra Attack
You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
This Extra Attack feature explicitly creates a second attack whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
This Nick Mastery property explicitly causes a particular additional attack to become "part of the Attack action".
The Cleave Mastery property does not do anything like that. It simply defines a trigger and says that you can make an attack in response to that trigger. That's all. Trying to associate that attack with any other attack or any action whatsoever is just making up rules that aren't there.
There is not actually any support in the rules for the notion that every creature activity has to be done within the action economy or that an attack defaults to being part of whatever the most recent action was or anything like that. There are no general rules that require this.
This is true, as far as it goes.
The rest of your post about your theories of rules construction isn't really relevant to the question at hand.
We have abilities that key off whether something is part of the Attack action. However, "part of the attack action" isn't actually defined. It's left as an inferential definition by the reader, which is really mostly fine.
But it's ambiguous in this case.
1) We can all agree that the basic attack is part of the attack action. You can move between attacks. Is the move part of the attack action? Perhaps. You can interact with weapons when you make attacks as part of the action. Is that part of the action? Perhaps. (Mostly, we don't have to care.)
2) Now, you have various abilities that let you do additional things when you make an attack as part of the attack action. Are these additional abilities part of the attack action? Perhaps.There's certainly a solid argument for "yes", especially since they're most often things like "add more damage to the attack"
3) You also have various abilities that let you do things when you make an attack. Are these abilities part of the attack action? If the attack you make is not part of the attack action, clearly no. If it is, the answer ought to be the same as the answer to #2. Again, they're often, but not always, things like "add damage" or "add a rider effect".
4) You now have cleave, which lets you make a whole extra attack under specific conditions when you make an attack. Is this part of the attack action when the initial attack was? At this point, you either have to draw the definition of "part of the attack action" very narrowly, cutting off 2 and 3, and maybe even the moves and weapon interactions. Which you can do. It's just odd. And it's certainly not clear-cut.
Or... you can attempt to establish some principle why Cleave is fundamentally different from, say, Stunning Strike. But I don't think there's any textual evidence that that's so.
If you’ll be wading into the thick of battle, you’ll want to consider grabbing a weapon with the Cleave property.
These heavy weapons can slash through opponents. If you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can make a second attack against a creature within 5 feet that is also within your reach. When you hit with the second attack, you can roll your weapon’s damage, but you don’t add your ability modifier unless it’s negative.
This is excellent in combination with the Halberd, which has Reach and Cleave, allowing you to Cleave into enemies in an extended range.
. . . why Cleave is fundamentally different from, say, Stunning Strike . . .
Mechanically, Stunning Strike works very similarly to the Cleave feature.
Stunning Strike defines a triggering event which allows you to use the feature. When those conditions are met, you follow the rules that are detailed within the Stunning Strike feature. In that particular case, a resource expenditure in the form of 1 Focus Point is also required in order to use the feature, but there is no action economy resource expenditure required. It also does not state that it is part of any other previous action, so it is not. It is its own thing with its own trigger which follows its own rules and requires its own resource expenditures. Stunning Strike requires no action and is not part of any other action. In that way, the mechanics are just like the Cleave feature.
These features operate in a manner that is similar to how Reactions work, except that in these cases we don't have to actually expend our Reaction resource to have access to the feature. A Reaction is an instant response to a trigger. During gameplay, for all intents and purposes time is essentially paused while the turn-based action shifts over to resolve the Reaction. Then, we pick up the action again right from where it left off. For example, consider an enemy that takes the Attack action and makes an attack against a Wizard. While that attack is happening and before it has even been resolved, the Wizard casts Shield. That spell requires the expenditure of the Reaction resource, and it interrupts whatever is happening in that moment in order to resolve itself immediately. In a sense, the enemy's Attack action is still happening. Does that mean that we should consider this casting of the Shield spell to be "part of" the Attack action? Surely not. It's its own thing. It doesn't care if there even is an Attack action happening or if this incoming attack is happening for some other reason or whatever. It only cares about whether or not the conditions for the trigger have been met and then it dictates its own rules for its own use once the creature has decided to act upon that trigger by casting this Shield spell. Trying to retroactively attach the casting of the Shield spell to some previously taken action has no rules support. It's the same mechanics at play with Features such as Cleave or Stunning Strike -- they are activated by triggering events, not by action economy expenditures unless their own rules require such expenditures when the Feature is being used.
There is no support that an event triggered by action happens outside of the action, unless it is explicitly specified.
"Triggered by action" is sort of an odd phrase to use here. I'm not sure if it's ever a thing to have a trigger be an action really. That's certainly not the trigger in this case. For Cleave, the trigger is: "you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon". That has nothing to do with any action. It's a defined trigger that is exactly what it says it is.
The rules tell you what can and can't do. Sometimes, the rules do one, sometimes the rules do the other, and of course, sometimes they do both. They aren't all encompassing, leaving gaps on either end for DM ruling, if a ruling is needed.
That's simply not how the rules are designed overall. In general, the rules tell you what you can do. Any argument that begins with, "but the rules never say that you can't" or "the rules never say that it doesn't work that way" is inherently an incorrect way of thinking about the rules. There are an infinite number of things that you can't do. The book would be millions of pages long if such a thing were even attempted to be written.
For example, the rules say that "on your turn you can move a distance up to your Speed and take one action".
The rules do not say:
-- On your turn you cannot move a distance of 5 feet more than your Speed.
-- On your turn you cannot move a distance of 20 feet more than your Speed.
-- On your turn you cannot move a distance of 37 feet more than your Speed.
-- On your turn you cannot take 17 actions.
and so on.
Instead, the fact that the book is silent on all of those ideas means that you cannot do any of those things.
The rules contradict you. Bonus Actions:
You can take a Bonus Action only when a special ability, a spell, or another feature of the game states that you can do something as a Bonus Action. You otherwise don’t have a Bonus Action to take.
It's the rules telling you can't do something.
You can take a Bonus Action only when a special ability, a spell, or another feature of the game states that you can do something as a Bonus Action. You otherwise don’t have a Bonus Action to take.
In the beginning, before the rules were written, the book contained only blank pages. At that time, creatures could not do anything. Note that there were no rules which forbid creatures from doing certain things. Indeed, there were no rules at all at that time. It's important not to mistake the absence of a rule stating that you cannot do something as some sort of confirmation that you can do it. You can actually only do the things that the rules say that you can do. Likewise, Features only work in the manner that the rules say that they do.
In the beginning, creatures could do anything that the DM allowed. This is reinforced by Rythm of the Game and you choose to ignore things that don't support your position.
Player characters and monsters can also do things not covered by these actions. Many class features and other abilities provide additional action options, and you can improvise other actions. When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the Dungeon Master tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of D20 Test you need to make, if any.
"When you do something other than moving or communicating, you typically take an action. The Action table lists the game’s main actions, which are defined in more detail in the Rules Glossary."
Indeed, this was worded very carefully by the author. You typically do take an action to do things because that's the easiest way to do things. There are general rules for the action economy that are available to all creatures. There aren't actually that many other ways to do things. But there are some. Again, a good example to explain the concept is with spellcasting. You typically use your Spellcasting Feature to cast a spell with your spell slots. But sometimes you might acquire access to the rules that are provided by a Species Trait or a Feat which allow you to cast a spell in a different way.
This is another false comparison. Casting a spell with or without a spell slot does not change it from taking a Magic Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There are some features that do change the action required (Pact of the Chain, for example, allows Find Familiar to be cast as an action), but they don't generally change it to non-action without explicitly stating such.
"When you do something other than moving or communicating, you typically take an action." This is in the same section where it also describes Bonus Actions and Reactions, and while you claim that the rules only tell you what you can do, the rules never tell you can perform an activity as a non-action except when explicitly stating so. The rules have to tell you that an activity can be outside of the action economy, per your own logic.
No, this is totally incorrect. Cleave is its own thing. It's not related to the process of resolving any other attack.
Your assertions continue to be false. Cleave only occurs when resolving another attack. If you don't attack, there is no Cleave. Cleave is a rule of the attack that happens on a hit. If you separate Cleave from the initial attack, you can attack once with a Greataxe, move 30 feet, use your Bonus Action to Misty Step and then resolve your Cleave. If that's the kind of game you run, more power to you.
There is nothing saying it happens outside of the Attack action. . . . In order to be outside of the triggering action, you need something saying that it is so. If it is not there, it is part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.
Again, this is exactly backwards. The rules do what they say and only what they say. The default is that an attack is NOT part of any action, not the other way around. A rule must declare that an attack is part of an action somehow for it to be so. The absence of the rules saying anything on the subject does NOT mean that it is somehow "automatically" part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There is absolutely no rules support for that.
Your argument is irrelevant and baseless. An attack roll happens when the rules require one. It will be part of another feature that will describe the action required. I cannot think of one feature that conclusively (since we are debating Cleave) allows for an attack roll without stating explicitly the Action that the attack (for example Light) requires or the Action that it is a part of (for example Light + Nick). Cleave does not say that the attack is made (no action required). It can be triggered from multiple types of actions (Attack action, Magic action, Bonus Action, Reaction) and it is part of that Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction because no rule separates it.
[...] I cannot think of one feature that conclusively (since we are debating Cleave) allows for an attack roll without stating explicitly the Action that the attack (for example Light) requires or the Action that it is a part of (for example Light + Nick). [...]
(sorry for snipping the text! :( I just wanted to respond to this part)
. . . why Cleave is fundamentally different from, say, Stunning Strike . . .
Mechanically, Stunning Strike works very similarly to the Cleave feature.
Great. That's a start.
Is stunning strike mechanically distinct from, say, the Element Monk's ability to do elemental damage and push/pull?
Elemental Strikes. Whenever you hit with your Unarmed Strike, you can cause it to deal your choice of Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder damage rather than its normal damage type. When you deal one of these types with it, you can also force the target to make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, you can move the target up to 10 feet toward or away from you, as elemental energy swirls around it.
I assume not. Is that mechanically distinct from Charger?
Charge Attack. If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward a target immediately before hitting it with a melee attack roll as part of the Attack action, choose one of the following effects: gain a 1d8 bonus to the attack’s damage roll, or push the target up to 10 feet away if it is no more than one size larger than you. You can use this benefit only once on each of your turns.
How about Great Weapon Master?
Heavy Weapon Mastery. When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target. The extra damage equals your Proficiency Bonus.
Now, I believe that you'd answer "no" to all of them; that you consider none of these to be part of the Attack Action, even though some of them are directly modifying the attack that is part of the action.
And I can't say you're wrong, since as previously discussed, "part of the Attack action" isn't actually defined. I suspect a good many would disagree with your reading, and they're not wrong, either..
However, I'd love to see an actual textual citation to back your position that this is clearly RAW.
[...] I cannot think of one feature that conclusively (since we are debating Cleave) allows for an attack roll without stating explicitly the Action that the attack (for example Light) requires or the Action that it is a part of (for example Light + Nick). [...]
(sorry for snipping the text! :( I just wanted to respond to this part)
No worries. Snip to the relevant bits. Nobody wants to read through a wall of text. :D
Horde Breaker (Hunter Ranger) and Stalker's Flurry (upgrade from Gloom Stalker Ranger's Dread Ambusher) match Cleave. They are triggered on an attack, the triggering attack is not restricted to the Attack action (like Light usually is), and are part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred. Unlike Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry do not depend on the original attack hitting.
You can take a Bonus Action only when a special ability, a spell, or another feature of the game states that you can do something as a Bonus Action. You otherwise don’t have a Bonus Action to take.
It's the rules telling you can't do something.
You can take a Bonus Action only when a special ability, a spell, or another feature of the game states that you can do something as a Bonus Action. You otherwise don’t have a Bonus Action to take.
There's no contradiction here. Before that rule was written there was no such thing as a Bonus Action. Now there is, and the rule describes the manner in which you can use it along with whatever restrictions are necessary to define exactly what you can do with it.
The reason why I've taken a moment to bring up some of this rules design stuff is because a lot of your statements in this thread and some others are coming at it backwards. The rules do not default to working a certain way when they don't say anything at all on a subject. Instead, the rule of thumb is that rules do what they say and only what they say and that rules are there to explain what you can do, not all of the things that you can't do.
For example, if a player were to say "Ok, I've used my Action and my Bonus Action. Now I want to take an Extra Special Action and make another attack. The rules don't say that I can't do that." That's just not allowed. NOT because the rules say that you can't do that, but because there is NOT a rule that says that you CAN do it. The player is thinking about the rules backwards.
The point is a lot of your arguments in this thread are like that. Cleave does not become part of some other action just because the rules do NOT say that it doesn't. That's exactly backwards. In order for an activity to be part of an action, the rules must explicitly declare that to be so. Examples of features that do this are the Fighter's Extra Attack and the Nick Weapon Mastery property.
In the beginning, creatures could do anything that the DM allowed. This is reinforced by Rythm of the Game and you choose to ignore things that don't support your position.
Actually no, they couldn't. That's because the rules which you are referring to here which allow this didn't exist yet. The rules establish what you can do, including the DM's authority to break the rules as he sees fit.
"When you do something other than moving or communicating, you typically take an action. The Action table lists the game’s main actions, which are defined in more detail in the Rules Glossary."
Indeed, this was worded very carefully by the author. You typically do take an action to do things because that's the easiest way to do things. There are general rules for the action economy that are available to all creatures. There aren't actually that many other ways to do things. But there are some. Again, a good example to explain the concept is with spellcasting. You typically use your Spellcasting Feature to cast a spell with your spell slots. But sometimes you might acquire access to the rules that are provided by a Species Trait or a Feat which allow you to cast a spell in a different way.
This is another false comparison. Casting a spell with or without a spell slot does not change it from taking a Magic Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There are some features that do change the action required (Pact of the Chain, for example, allows Find Familiar to be cast as an action), but they don't generally change it to non-action without explicitly stating such.
You've entirely missed the point of the example unfortunately. I'm talking here about what it means for the text to provide a resource that can be expended to accomplish a task in general terms. I'm not saying anything about Actions and Bonus Actions specifically here. I'm comparing the fact that spell slots are a resource that can be used (or not) with the fact that the action economy is also a resource that can be used (or not). The rules never require their use in order to accomplish tasks. Instead, they are provided as one means for doing so.
"When you do something other than moving or communicating, you typically take an action." This is in the same section where it also describes Bonus Actions and Reactions, and while you claim that the rules only tell you what you can do, the rules never tell you can perform an activity as a non-action except when explicitly stating so. The rules have to tell you that an activity can be outside of the action economy, per your own logic.
This is exactly backwards. Rules do exactly what they say and only what they say. When a rule says that on a specific trigger you can do this thing, then on that specific trigger you can do that thing. By default, that's already not part of any action because the rule didn't say that it was. It's backwards thinking to assume that a task is being performed as part of some action because the rules do NOT say that it is NOT part of that action. The rules do not have to say any such thing. Instead, the rules tell you how things DO work -- they don't tell you all of the ways in which things do NOT work.
Cleave only occurs when resolving another attack. If you don't attack, there is no Cleave.
YES! That's correct! And that's the whole point. Indeed, this is how all triggered activities operate, including Reactions. The activity can only be performed in response to the defined trigger. If there is no trigger, there is no activity.
Of course, if there IS a trigger, then you CAN perform the activity. Nothing more and nothing less. We don't make additional assumptions from the lack of additional text. The text does exactly what it says and nothing more.
Cleave is a rule of the attack that happens on a hit.
This is absolutely false. Cleave is nothing of the sort. The Cleave Feature is a Weapon Mastery Property which is governed by its own set of rules. There are prerequisites for having access to this Feature, and the Feature itself provides the prerequisites and conditions and restrictions for how it can be used. If the attack provided by the Cleave Feature required action economy expenditure for its use, the Feature would say so. It doesn't. If the attack provided by the Cleave Feature is meant to be considered to be a part of some other action, the Feature would say so. It doesn't.
If you separate Cleave from the initial attack, you can attack once with a Greataxe, move 30 feet, use your Bonus Action to Misty Step and then resolve your Cleave. If that's the kind of game you run, more power to you.
That's . . . not how triggered activities function . . .
When a rule activates from a triggered event, that trigger must be responded to immediately and the corresponding activity must be performed immediately. OR, you can ignore the trigger and do nothing. You cannot delay your response to a trigger and come back to it later. Rules do what they say. When a rule says: "When [something] happens, you can [do something]", then you must actually do that thing when that other thing happens, otherwise, you lose your chance to do it.
An attack roll happens when the rules require one. It will be part of another feature that will describe the action required.
That's generally true -- IF and WHEN a rule describes that a particular action is required in order to perform the activity, then that action is required to perform the activity. For example, if a Feature says: "As a Reaction, you can [do something]" then, in order to do that thing, you must expend your Reaction. But if the text for the rule does NOT say any such thing, then it is incorrect for us to assign that activity to any action. That would simply be inventing a rule that does not exist. Rules do what they say. If the rule doesn't say anything about an activity becoming part of any particular action, then it doesn't do that. There also isn't any general rule which requires this. The general rules merely provide a resource that can be optionally used whenever a rule actually says to use it. If a rule does not use that resource, then it doesn't use it.
[Cleave] can be triggered from multiple types of actions (Attack action, Magic action, Bonus Action, Reaction) and it is part of that Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction because no rule separates it.
^
Absolutely not. The rules simply do not work that way. You will not find any general or specific rule which supports this claim. This is a made-up rule.
. . . you consider none of these to be part of the Attack Action, even though some of them are directly modifying the attack that is part of the action.
That's correct. These are not activities that are part of an Attack action. They are activities that are triggered by specific circumstances and proceed according to their own rules.
Of the Features that you've listed, the Stunning Strike and the Heavy Weapon Mastery are uninteresting for this discussion since they do not actually provide any sort of activity that a creature can perform. However, the Elemental Strikes and Charge Attack features are indeed interesting since these both provide an activity that is somewhat equivalent to a Shove attack / unarmed strike, which typically requires an action to perform.
The key thing to note is that neither the Elemental Strikes feature nor the Charge Attack feature states that any action economy resource expenditure is required in order to create the described effect. In comparison, on your turn you can choose to take the Attack action to make an Unarmed Strike. When you make that unarmed strike, you can cause it to create a "Shove" effect. That effect results in forced movement of your enemy. So, for the cost of an action, you can cause this effect.
However, let's now assume that you somehow for some reason have access to the Elemental Strikes feature and/or the Charge Attack feature. Now you have a different method for causing a similar forced movement effect available to you. Those features do NOT require any action economy resource expenditure in order to create this effect. Instead, you have the ability to create that effect (for free) by simply responding to a qualifying trigger. Why should we then assign this activity to some sort of action? The feature is telling us that we can do this for free. Features do what they say.
However, I'd love to see an actual textual citation to back your position that this is clearly RAW.
Again, this is backwards. There won't be any textual citation because the lack of text is the point. This is why I took a couple of posts to back up and discuss the big picture of how the rules are designed with the philosophies that rules do what they say and that rules tell us how things work, not how they don't work.
There simply is no rules support for the notion that an activity must be assigned to an action due to the fact that the rules do NOT say that it does NOT work like that. Again, that's just not how the rules work. We do not default to our own assumptions because of the lack of text. Instead, if a rule does not say that it does a thing, then it does NOT do that thing.
At this point I'm not really sure how else to put this into words any more clearly. If people are still unable to get on the same page, then I'll just agree to disagree at this point. All of the necessary information is available within this thread now for those who are interested.
Horde Breaker (Hunter Ranger) and Stalker's Flurry (upgrade from Gloom Stalker Ranger's Dread Ambusher) match Cleave. They are triggered on an attack, the triggering attack is not restricted to the Attack action (like Light usually is), and are part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred.
Unlike Nick Mastery, the last part isn't written in Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry, nor there is a general rule saying it clearly.
If there was, Nick Mastery wouldn't need to say it's part of the Attack action.
If I recall SmiteMakesRight_3_5 is saying that you can use true strike for both cleave attacks. Looking at Stalker's Flurry which is received at 11th level. Sudden Strike. You can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and that is within the weapon’s range.
Based on the stalker flurry example, which you say is similar to cleave, then both attacks in cleave are two separate attacks therefore true strike is only relevant for one of the two.
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.
Again that indicates that you have 2 separate attacks. Therefore to repeat, as this is is two separate attacks you can't use true strike for both.
However, I'd love to see an actual textual citation to back your position that this is clearly RAW.
Again, this is backwards. There won't be any textual citation because the lack of text is the point. This is why I took a couple of posts to back up and discuss the big picture of how the rules are designed with the philosophies that rules do what they say and that rules tell us how things work, not how they don't work.
There simply is no rules support for the notion that an activity must be assigned to an action due to the fact that the rules do NOT say that it does NOT work like that. Again, that's just not how the rules work. We do not default to our own assumptions because of the lack of text. Instead, if a rule does not say that it does a thing, then it does NOT do that thing.
There are multiple problems with this approach to the rules.
- First, and foremost, it's attempting to treat the 5e rules as if they are written as a formal, rigorous system, and they manifestly aren't. They don't use consistent templating, they don't define their terms, there are no mechanisms for resolving conflicts between multiple abilities, etc., etc.
IIRC, they also explicitly aren't -- the designers have said they were written to be friendlier and easy to read.
Trying to impose formalism and rigor on a set of rules not written for it is going to run headlong into a constant stream of gaps, contradictions, implied definitions, etc. I've been there, and it doesn't work without a full rewrite into formal rigor.
- Next, you fill the gaps in with your own definitions, and treat them as if they are written in the rules.
Now, the rules are such that one has to backfill in a lot of places, but one has to acknowledge that one is doing it, because other people can backfill differently.
- Next, even within the framework you're working in, you take an extremely antipermissive stance -- if there is no explicit statement that a thing is permitted, it's not. For a game where one of the basic rules is essentially "if you have an ability that says you can do a thing, you can do the thing", there's a good case to be made that a more permissive approach is warranted. If one doesn't, it leads to some weird interpretations.
One excellent example I've seen from multiple people in multiple contexts is "yes, you have an ability that lets you attack outside the standard reach, so you can grapple outside that range. But the ability doesn't explicitly say that you can maintain the grapple, so it ends immediately", which is very much a ruling of "you can do it, but you can't really do it", which is antithetical to the basic principle. (That's an extreme example of the philosophy's problems.)
The fundamental disagreement going on here stems from all these:
- The rules never define what it means for something to be part of the attack action. They just assume you'll figure it out.
- You are applying your definition, which is extremely narrow in scope -- a thing is only part of the attack action if it explicitly says so.
Relevantly, I don't see a meaningful templating difference between:
You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of your attacks to direct one of your companions to strike.
If you move at least 5 feet in a straight line immediately before hitting with a melee attack as part of the Attack action on this turn, you can add the Superiority Die to the attack’s damage roll.
When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.
When you take the Attack action, you can expend one use of your Channel Divinity to imbue one Melee weapon that you are holding with positive energy. For 10 minutes or until you use this feature again, you add your Charisma modifier to attack rolls you make with that weapon (minimum bonus of +1), and each time you hit with it, you cause it to deal its normal damage type or Radiant damage.
You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Beast’s Strike action
When you hit a creature with an Unarmed Strike as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can deal damage to the target and also push it 5 feet away from you
And yet, you consider the first one to be adding to the attack action, and at least some of the rest to not be. (I believe all, but I can't model your rules model.)
To me, they're all "when you take your attack action, you can do a thing" or "when you take your attack action, you can do a thing under these specific circumstances".
Additionally, there are a bunch of abilities that explicitly are part of an attack's damage, which we know because they are doubled by a critical hit. Having them be part of the attack's damage, and thus presumably part of the attack (I won't be shocked to find that you disagree there), but not part of the Attack action that the attack is part of, strikes me as mechanically incoherent.
- Other people have more permissive reads, such as:
Not only your attacks, but any ability activated by those attacks, is part of your attack action
Anything that you do during your attack action is part of your attack action.
Anything that you do during your attack action is part of your attack action unless it's part of some other action
Horde Breaker (Hunter Ranger) and Stalker's Flurry (upgrade from Gloom Stalker Ranger's Dread Ambusher) match Cleave. They are triggered on an attack, the triggering attack is not restricted to the Attack action (like Light usually is), and are part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred.
Unlike Nick Mastery, the last part isn't written in Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry, nor there is a general rule saying it clearly.
If there was, Nick Mastery wouldn't need to say it's part of the Attack action.
Nick mastery has to say it's now part of the attack action because it's altering the timing of the Light attack. Even if there were an explicit general rule that abilities were part of the action they took place during, it would still need to be specified, because otherwise it's detached from the bonus action, and is just floating around freely in the turn.
All this argument about whether or not Cleave's attack counts as part of the triggering Action...is probably irrelevant. True Strike only applies to one Attack, not "any Attacks in the same Magic Action."
Horde Breaker (Hunter Ranger) and Stalker's Flurry (upgrade from Gloom Stalker Ranger's Dread Ambusher) match Cleave. They are triggered on an attack, the triggering attack is not restricted to the Attack action (like Light usually is), and are part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred.
Unlike Nick Mastery, the last part isn't written in Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry, nor there is a general rule saying it clearly.
If there was, Nick Mastery wouldn't need to say it's part of the Attack action.
Nick mastery has to say it's now part of the attack action because it's altering the timing of the Light attack. Even if there were an explicit general rule that abilities were part of the action they took place during, it would still need to be specified, because otherwise it's detached from the bonus action, and is just floating around freely in the turn.
I disagree.Nick didn't have to say its part of the Attack action to exist (see Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry) and could have just said;
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it without using a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
All this argument about whether or not Cleave's attack counts as part of the triggering Action...is probably irrelevant. True Strike only applies to one Attack, not "any Attacks in the same Magic Action."
I agree. The effect of True Strike only apply to the one attack from the spell;
True Strike: Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity. If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)....Whether you deal Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type, the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6).
Horde Breaker (Hunter Ranger) and Stalker's Flurry (upgrade from Gloom Stalker Ranger's Dread Ambusher) match Cleave. They are triggered on an attack, the triggering attack is not restricted to the Attack action (like Light usually is), and are part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred.
Unlike Nick Mastery, the last part isn't written in Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry, nor there is a general rule saying it clearly.
If there was, Nick Mastery wouldn't need to say it's part of the Attack action.
Nick mastery has to say it's now part of the attack action because it's altering the timing of the Light attack. Even if there were an explicit general rule that abilities were part of the action they took place during, it would still need to be specified, because otherwise it's detached from the bonus action, and is just floating around freely in the turn.
I disagree.Nick didn't have to say its part of the Attack action to exist (see Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry) and could have just said;
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it without using a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
I mean, it could have said that, but it leaves questions unanswered:
When do you get to take it? Probably any time during the turn after you triggered it, but I'm sure you'd see people making all kinds of arguments otherwise.
Do you have to have a Bonus action available to take it? Probably not, but that's a lot less clear than it is now. AFAIK, there is no way to make an attack in 5e that is completely untethered from the action economy. It's always actions, reactions, bonus actions, or abilities that trigger off those. It's easy, and possibly correct, to read the above as a bonus action that doesn't consume your bonus action.
Those are just the first two that came to me. There's probably a few more that come up if somebody really starts poking at the edges of the mechanic. (And probably only about half of those are problems that also exist with the actual wording of Nick.)
Tethering it to the Attack action sorts out those questions, and avoids the free-floating attack. (I don't know there's a policy to not have any such thing, but I am sure there's such a policy.)
All this argument about whether or not Cleave's attack counts as part of the triggering Action...is probably irrelevant. True Strike only applies to one Attack, not "any Attacks in the same Magic Action."
Oh yeah. Topic drift happened, though it was off a legitimate question.
Horde Breaker (Hunter Ranger) and Stalker's Flurry (upgrade from Gloom Stalker Ranger's Dread Ambusher) match Cleave. They are triggered on an attack, the triggering attack is not restricted to the Attack action (like Light usually is), and are part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred.
Unlike Nick Mastery, the last part isn't written in Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry, nor there is a general rule saying it clearly.
If there was, Nick Mastery wouldn't need to say it's part of the Attack action.
Nick mastery has to say it's now part of the attack action because it's altering the timing of the Light attack. Even if there were an explicit general rule that abilities were part of the action they took place during, it would still need to be specified, because otherwise it's detached from the bonus action, and is just floating around freely in the turn.
I disagree.Nick didn't have to say its part of the Attack action to exist (see Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry) and could have just said;
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it without using a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
I mean, it could have said that, but it leaves questions unanswered:
When do you get to take it? Probably any time during the turn after you triggered it, but I'm sure you'd see people making all kinds of arguments otherwise.
Do you have to have a Bonus action available to take it? Probably not, but that's a lot less clear than it is now. AFAIK, there is no way to make an attack in 5e that is completely untethered from the action economy. It's always actions, reactions, bonus actions, or abilities that trigger off those. It's easy, and possibly correct, to read the above as a bonus action that doesn't consume your bonus action.
The Light property already say the extra attack can be made later on the same turn. Wether you must have a Bonus Action available or not is irrelevant if the extra attack turns up not using it, this aspect remained unchanged with Nick Mastery.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Triggered by action" is sort of an odd phrase to use here. I'm not sure if it's ever a thing to have a trigger be an action really. That's certainly not the trigger in this case. For Cleave, the trigger is: "you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon". That has nothing to do with any action. It's a defined trigger that is exactly what it says it is.
That's simply not how the rules are designed overall. In general, the rules tell you what you can do. Any argument that begins with, "but the rules never say that you can't" or "the rules never say that it doesn't work that way" is inherently an incorrect way of thinking about the rules. There are an infinite number of things that you can't do. The book would be millions of pages long if such a thing were even attempted to be written.
For example, the rules say that "on your turn you can move a distance up to your Speed and take one action".
The rules do not say:
-- On your turn you cannot move a distance of 5 feet more than your Speed.
-- On your turn you cannot move a distance of 20 feet more than your Speed.
-- On your turn you cannot move a distance of 37 feet more than your Speed.
-- On your turn you cannot take 17 actions.
and so on.
Instead, the fact that the book is silent on all of those ideas means that you cannot do any of those things.
In the beginning, before the rules were written, the book contained only blank pages. At that time, creatures could not do anything. Note that there were no rules which forbid creatures from doing certain things. Indeed, there were no rules at all at that time. It's important not to mistake the absence of a rule stating that you cannot do something as some sort of confirmation that you can do it. You can actually only do the things that the rules say that you can do. Likewise, Features only work in the manner that the rules say that they do.
Also, this is not the same thing as the general gameplay philosophy that players can have their characters try to do anything at any time. That is certainly true. A player might tell their DM: "Hey, my character is going to flap his arms really fast and attempt to fly up into the air all the way up to the moon and then he wants to walk around on the moon." An appropriate response from the DM is typically: "Ok! You can certainly try to do that!" However, when the character actually does try to do this, now the DM must use the rules to adjudicate what happens as a result. The end result here is that the character fails in what he was trying to do. That's because there is no general rule and no special Feature that he has access to which allows him to do that. If he then cries out: "But the book never says that I can't do that!", he would just be barking up the wrong tree because the rules do not function that way. They tell us what you can do, not what you cannot do.
That's incorrect.
Indeed, this was worded very carefully by the author. You typically do take an action to do things because that's the easiest way to do things. There are general rules for the action economy that are available to all creatures. There aren't actually that many other ways to do things. But there are some. Again, a good example to explain the concept is with spellcasting. You typically use your Spellcasting Feature to cast a spell with your spell slots. But sometimes you might acquire access to the rules that are provided by a Species Trait or a Feat which allow you to cast a spell in a different way. There is NOT a rule that says that you MUST use your spell slots when you cast a spell. Likewise, there is NOT a rule that says that you MUST take an action in order to do things. Instead, the action economy is made available as a resource that you can (if you want to) expend in order to perform certain activities and that resource is replenished regularly because the general rules say so. If you have access to a Feature that allows you to perform that activity in some other way, then you can do that too.
No, this is totally incorrect. Cleave is its own thing. It's not related to the process of resolving any other attack. That attack is resolved the same way whether you have access to the Cleave mastery or not. The process of resolving that initial attack creates a trigger. If you have access to the Cleave mastery when that trigger is created, then you have the option to follow the rules for the Cleave Feature as they are written. Nothing about the Cleave Feature creates any sort of relationship between the attack that it creates and any previous attack or action that may have been taken. It only cares that the conditions for the trigger have been met and then it creates its own rules from there.
Again, this is exactly backwards. The rules do what they say and only what they say. The default is that an attack is NOT part of any action, not the other way around. A rule must declare that an attack is part of an action somehow for it to be so. The absence of the rules saying anything on the subject does NOT mean that it is somehow "automatically" part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There is absolutely no rules support for that.
For example, the rule for the Attack action says this:
So, that rule allows you to expend this particular action economy resource in order to perform a particular activity -- one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Now, you might have access to some other rule which also allows you to perform that same activity, in which case no action economy action was expended.
Furthermore, it's clear that if you are following that rule for the Attack action then that one particular attack that is referenced is part of that attack action.
By default, no other attacks are part of that Attack action. In order for another attack to be part of this Attack action, a rule must explicitly say so.
For example:
This Extra Attack feature explicitly creates a second attack whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
This Nick Mastery property explicitly causes a particular additional attack to become "part of the Attack action".
The Cleave Mastery property does not do anything like that. It simply defines a trigger and says that you can make an attack in response to that trigger. That's all. Trying to associate that attack with any other attack or any action whatsoever is just making up rules that aren't there.
Isn't Cleave a 2nd attack? You have to roll to hit, so this is not "one attack" but a second attack. True strike only works with one attack.
This is true, as far as it goes.
The rest of your post about your theories of rules construction isn't really relevant to the question at hand.
We have abilities that key off whether something is part of the Attack action. However, "part of the attack action" isn't actually defined. It's left as an inferential definition by the reader, which is really mostly fine.
But it's ambiguous in this case.
1) We can all agree that the basic attack is part of the attack action. You can move between attacks. Is the move part of the attack action? Perhaps. You can interact with weapons when you make attacks as part of the action. Is that part of the action? Perhaps. (Mostly, we don't have to care.)
2) Now, you have various abilities that let you do additional things when you make an attack as part of the attack action. Are these additional abilities part of the attack action? Perhaps.There's certainly a solid argument for "yes", especially since they're most often things like "add more damage to the attack"
3) You also have various abilities that let you do things when you make an attack. Are these abilities part of the attack action? If the attack you make is not part of the attack action, clearly no. If it is, the answer ought to be the same as the answer to #2. Again, they're often, but not always, things like "add damage" or "add a rider effect".
4) You now have cleave, which lets you make a whole extra attack under specific conditions when you make an attack. Is this part of the attack action when the initial attack was? At this point, you either have to draw the definition of "part of the attack action" very narrowly, cutting off 2 and 3, and maybe even the moves and weapon interactions. Which you can do. It's just odd. And it's certainly not clear-cut.
Or... you can attempt to establish some principle why Cleave is fundamentally different from, say, Stunning Strike. But I don't think there's any textual evidence that that's so.
Yes, further indications in Your Guide to Weapon Mastery in the 2024 Player's Handbook point to Cleave being a second attack;
Mechanically, Stunning Strike works very similarly to the Cleave feature.
Stunning Strike defines a triggering event which allows you to use the feature. When those conditions are met, you follow the rules that are detailed within the Stunning Strike feature. In that particular case, a resource expenditure in the form of 1 Focus Point is also required in order to use the feature, but there is no action economy resource expenditure required. It also does not state that it is part of any other previous action, so it is not. It is its own thing with its own trigger which follows its own rules and requires its own resource expenditures. Stunning Strike requires no action and is not part of any other action. In that way, the mechanics are just like the Cleave feature.
These features operate in a manner that is similar to how Reactions work, except that in these cases we don't have to actually expend our Reaction resource to have access to the feature. A Reaction is an instant response to a trigger. During gameplay, for all intents and purposes time is essentially paused while the turn-based action shifts over to resolve the Reaction. Then, we pick up the action again right from where it left off. For example, consider an enemy that takes the Attack action and makes an attack against a Wizard. While that attack is happening and before it has even been resolved, the Wizard casts Shield. That spell requires the expenditure of the Reaction resource, and it interrupts whatever is happening in that moment in order to resolve itself immediately. In a sense, the enemy's Attack action is still happening. Does that mean that we should consider this casting of the Shield spell to be "part of" the Attack action? Surely not. It's its own thing. It doesn't care if there even is an Attack action happening or if this incoming attack is happening for some other reason or whatever. It only cares about whether or not the conditions for the trigger have been met and then it dictates its own rules for its own use once the creature has decided to act upon that trigger by casting this Shield spell. Trying to retroactively attach the casting of the Shield spell to some previously taken action has no rules support. It's the same mechanics at play with Features such as Cleave or Stunning Strike -- they are activated by triggering events, not by action economy expenditures unless their own rules require such expenditures when the Feature is being used.
Triggered by an activity, obviously.
The rules contradict you. Bonus Actions:
It's the rules telling you can't do something.
You can take a Bonus Action only when a special ability, a spell, or another feature of the game states that you can do something as a Bonus Action. You otherwise don’t have a Bonus Action to take.
In the beginning, creatures could do anything that the DM allowed. This is reinforced by Rythm of the Game and you choose to ignore things that don't support your position.
This is another false comparison. Casting a spell with or without a spell slot does not change it from taking a Magic Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There are some features that do change the action required (Pact of the Chain, for example, allows Find Familiar to be cast as an action), but they don't generally change it to non-action without explicitly stating such.
"When you do something other than moving or communicating, you typically take an action." This is in the same section where it also describes Bonus Actions and Reactions, and while you claim that the rules only tell you what you can do, the rules never tell you can perform an activity as a non-action except when explicitly stating so. The rules have to tell you that an activity can be outside of the action economy, per your own logic.
Your assertions continue to be false. Cleave only occurs when resolving another attack. If you don't attack, there is no Cleave. Cleave is a rule of the attack that happens on a hit. If you separate Cleave from the initial attack, you can attack once with a Greataxe, move 30 feet, use your Bonus Action to Misty Step and then resolve your Cleave. If that's the kind of game you run, more power to you.
Your argument is irrelevant and baseless. An attack roll happens when the rules require one. It will be part of another feature that will describe the action required. I cannot think of one feature that conclusively (since we are debating Cleave) allows for an attack roll without stating explicitly the Action that the attack (for example Light) requires or the Action that it is a part of (for example Light + Nick). Cleave does not say that the attack is made (no action required). It can be triggered from multiple types of actions (Attack action, Magic action, Bonus Action, Reaction) and it is part of that Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction because no rule separates it.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
(sorry for snipping the text! :( I just wanted to respond to this part)
Maybe Horde Breaker (Level 3: Hunter’s Prey) or Sudden Strike (Level 11: Stalker’s Flurry).
Great. That's a start.
Is stunning strike mechanically distinct from, say, the Element Monk's ability to do elemental damage and push/pull?
I assume not. Is that mechanically distinct from Charger?
How about Great Weapon Master?
Now, I believe that you'd answer "no" to all of them; that you consider none of these to be part of the Attack Action, even though some of them are directly modifying the attack that is part of the action.
And I can't say you're wrong, since as previously discussed, "part of the Attack action" isn't actually defined. I suspect a good many would disagree with your reading, and they're not wrong, either..
However, I'd love to see an actual textual citation to back your position that this is clearly RAW.
No worries. Snip to the relevant bits. Nobody wants to read through a wall of text. :D
Horde Breaker (Hunter Ranger) and Stalker's Flurry (upgrade from Gloom Stalker Ranger's Dread Ambusher) match Cleave. They are triggered on an attack, the triggering attack is not restricted to the Attack action (like Light usually is), and are part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred. Unlike Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry do not depend on the original attack hitting.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
There's no contradiction here. Before that rule was written there was no such thing as a Bonus Action. Now there is, and the rule describes the manner in which you can use it along with whatever restrictions are necessary to define exactly what you can do with it.
The reason why I've taken a moment to bring up some of this rules design stuff is because a lot of your statements in this thread and some others are coming at it backwards. The rules do not default to working a certain way when they don't say anything at all on a subject. Instead, the rule of thumb is that rules do what they say and only what they say and that rules are there to explain what you can do, not all of the things that you can't do.
For example, if a player were to say "Ok, I've used my Action and my Bonus Action. Now I want to take an Extra Special Action and make another attack. The rules don't say that I can't do that." That's just not allowed. NOT because the rules say that you can't do that, but because there is NOT a rule that says that you CAN do it. The player is thinking about the rules backwards.
The point is a lot of your arguments in this thread are like that. Cleave does not become part of some other action just because the rules do NOT say that it doesn't. That's exactly backwards. In order for an activity to be part of an action, the rules must explicitly declare that to be so. Examples of features that do this are the Fighter's Extra Attack and the Nick Weapon Mastery property.
Actually no, they couldn't. That's because the rules which you are referring to here which allow this didn't exist yet. The rules establish what you can do, including the DM's authority to break the rules as he sees fit.
You've entirely missed the point of the example unfortunately. I'm talking here about what it means for the text to provide a resource that can be expended to accomplish a task in general terms. I'm not saying anything about Actions and Bonus Actions specifically here. I'm comparing the fact that spell slots are a resource that can be used (or not) with the fact that the action economy is also a resource that can be used (or not). The rules never require their use in order to accomplish tasks. Instead, they are provided as one means for doing so.
This is exactly backwards. Rules do exactly what they say and only what they say. When a rule says that on a specific trigger you can do this thing, then on that specific trigger you can do that thing. By default, that's already not part of any action because the rule didn't say that it was. It's backwards thinking to assume that a task is being performed as part of some action because the rules do NOT say that it is NOT part of that action. The rules do not have to say any such thing. Instead, the rules tell you how things DO work -- they don't tell you all of the ways in which things do NOT work.
That's incorrect.
YES! That's correct! And that's the whole point. Indeed, this is how all triggered activities operate, including Reactions. The activity can only be performed in response to the defined trigger. If there is no trigger, there is no activity.
Of course, if there IS a trigger, then you CAN perform the activity. Nothing more and nothing less. We don't make additional assumptions from the lack of additional text. The text does exactly what it says and nothing more.
This is absolutely false. Cleave is nothing of the sort. The Cleave Feature is a Weapon Mastery Property which is governed by its own set of rules. There are prerequisites for having access to this Feature, and the Feature itself provides the prerequisites and conditions and restrictions for how it can be used. If the attack provided by the Cleave Feature required action economy expenditure for its use, the Feature would say so. It doesn't. If the attack provided by the Cleave Feature is meant to be considered to be a part of some other action, the Feature would say so. It doesn't.
That's . . . not how triggered activities function . . .
When a rule activates from a triggered event, that trigger must be responded to immediately and the corresponding activity must be performed immediately. OR, you can ignore the trigger and do nothing. You cannot delay your response to a trigger and come back to it later. Rules do what they say. When a rule says: "When [something] happens, you can [do something]", then you must actually do that thing when that other thing happens, otherwise, you lose your chance to do it.
That's incorrect.
That's generally true -- IF and WHEN a rule describes that a particular action is required in order to perform the activity, then that action is required to perform the activity. For example, if a Feature says: "As a Reaction, you can [do something]" then, in order to do that thing, you must expend your Reaction. But if the text for the rule does NOT say any such thing, then it is incorrect for us to assign that activity to any action. That would simply be inventing a rule that does not exist. Rules do what they say. If the rule doesn't say anything about an activity becoming part of any particular action, then it doesn't do that. There also isn't any general rule which requires this. The general rules merely provide a resource that can be optionally used whenever a rule actually says to use it. If a rule does not use that resource, then it doesn't use it.
^
Absolutely not. The rules simply do not work that way. You will not find any general or specific rule which supports this claim. This is a made-up rule.
That's correct. These are not activities that are part of an Attack action. They are activities that are triggered by specific circumstances and proceed according to their own rules.
Of the Features that you've listed, the Stunning Strike and the Heavy Weapon Mastery are uninteresting for this discussion since they do not actually provide any sort of activity that a creature can perform. However, the Elemental Strikes and Charge Attack features are indeed interesting since these both provide an activity that is somewhat equivalent to a Shove attack / unarmed strike, which typically requires an action to perform.
The key thing to note is that neither the Elemental Strikes feature nor the Charge Attack feature states that any action economy resource expenditure is required in order to create the described effect. In comparison, on your turn you can choose to take the Attack action to make an Unarmed Strike. When you make that unarmed strike, you can cause it to create a "Shove" effect. That effect results in forced movement of your enemy. So, for the cost of an action, you can cause this effect.
However, let's now assume that you somehow for some reason have access to the Elemental Strikes feature and/or the Charge Attack feature. Now you have a different method for causing a similar forced movement effect available to you. Those features do NOT require any action economy resource expenditure in order to create this effect. Instead, you have the ability to create that effect (for free) by simply responding to a qualifying trigger. Why should we then assign this activity to some sort of action? The feature is telling us that we can do this for free. Features do what they say.
Again, this is backwards. There won't be any textual citation because the lack of text is the point. This is why I took a couple of posts to back up and discuss the big picture of how the rules are designed with the philosophies that rules do what they say and that rules tell us how things work, not how they don't work.
There simply is no rules support for the notion that an activity must be assigned to an action due to the fact that the rules do NOT say that it does NOT work like that. Again, that's just not how the rules work. We do not default to our own assumptions because of the lack of text. Instead, if a rule does not say that it does a thing, then it does NOT do that thing.
At this point I'm not really sure how else to put this into words any more clearly. If people are still unable to get on the same page, then I'll just agree to disagree at this point. All of the necessary information is available within this thread now for those who are interested.
Unlike Nick Mastery, the last part isn't written in Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry, nor there is a general rule saying it clearly.
If there was, Nick Mastery wouldn't need to say it's part of the Attack action.
If I recall SmiteMakesRight_3_5 is saying that you can use true strike for both cleave attacks. Looking at Stalker's Flurry which is received at 11th level. Sudden Strike. You can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and that is within the weapon’s range.
Based on the stalker flurry example, which you say is similar to cleave, then both attacks in cleave are two separate attacks therefore true strike is only relevant for one of the two.
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.
Again that indicates that you have 2 separate attacks. Therefore to repeat, as this is is two separate attacks you can't use true strike for both.
There are multiple problems with this approach to the rules.
- First, and foremost, it's attempting to treat the 5e rules as if they are written as a formal, rigorous system, and they manifestly aren't. They don't use consistent templating, they don't define their terms, there are no mechanisms for resolving conflicts between multiple abilities, etc., etc.
IIRC, they also explicitly aren't -- the designers have said they were written to be friendlier and easy to read.
Trying to impose formalism and rigor on a set of rules not written for it is going to run headlong into a constant stream of gaps, contradictions, implied definitions, etc. I've been there, and it doesn't work without a full rewrite into formal rigor.
- Next, you fill the gaps in with your own definitions, and treat them as if they are written in the rules.
Now, the rules are such that one has to backfill in a lot of places, but one has to acknowledge that one is doing it, because other people can backfill differently.
- Next, even within the framework you're working in, you take an extremely antipermissive stance -- if there is no explicit statement that a thing is permitted, it's not. For a game where one of the basic rules is essentially "if you have an ability that says you can do a thing, you can do the thing", there's a good case to be made that a more permissive approach is warranted. If one doesn't, it leads to some weird interpretations.
One excellent example I've seen from multiple people in multiple contexts is "yes, you have an ability that lets you attack outside the standard reach, so you can grapple outside that range. But the ability doesn't explicitly say that you can maintain the grapple, so it ends immediately", which is very much a ruling of "you can do it, but you can't really do it", which is antithetical to the basic principle. (That's an extreme example of the philosophy's problems.)
The fundamental disagreement going on here stems from all these:
- The rules never define what it means for something to be part of the attack action. They just assume you'll figure it out.
- You are applying your definition, which is extremely narrow in scope -- a thing is only part of the attack action if it explicitly says so.
Relevantly, I don't see a meaningful templating difference between:
When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.
When you take the Attack action, you can expend one use of your Channel Divinity to imbue one Melee weapon that you are holding with positive energy. For 10 minutes or until you use this feature again, you add your Charisma modifier to attack rolls you make with that weapon (minimum bonus of +1), and each time you hit with it, you cause it to deal its normal damage type or Radiant damage.
And yet, you consider the first one to be adding to the attack action, and at least some of the rest to not be. (I believe all, but I can't model your rules model.)
To me, they're all "when you take your attack action, you can do a thing" or "when you take your attack action, you can do a thing under these specific circumstances".
Additionally, there are a bunch of abilities that explicitly are part of an attack's damage, which we know because they are doubled by a critical hit. Having them be part of the attack's damage, and thus presumably part of the attack (I won't be shocked to find that you disagree there), but not part of the Attack action that the attack is part of, strikes me as mechanically incoherent.
- Other people have more permissive reads, such as:
Nick mastery has to say it's now part of the attack action because it's altering the timing of the Light attack. Even if there were an explicit general rule that abilities were part of the action they took place during, it would still need to be specified, because otherwise it's detached from the bonus action, and is just floating around freely in the turn.
All this argument about whether or not Cleave's attack counts as part of the triggering Action...is probably irrelevant. True Strike only applies to one Attack, not "any Attacks in the same Magic Action."
I disagree. Nick didn't have to say its part of the Attack action to exist (see Cleave, Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry) and could have just said;
I agree. The effect of True Strike only apply to the one attack from the spell;
I mean, it could have said that, but it leaves questions unanswered:
Those are just the first two that came to me. There's probably a few more that come up if somebody really starts poking at the edges of the mechanic. (And probably only about half of those are problems that also exist with the actual wording of Nick.)
Tethering it to the Attack action sorts out those questions, and avoids the free-floating attack. (I don't know there's a policy to not have any such thing, but I am sure there's such a policy.)
Oh yeah. Topic drift happened, though it was off a legitimate question.
The Light property already say the extra attack can be made later on the same turn. Wether you must have a Bonus Action available or not is irrelevant if the extra attack turns up not using it, this aspect remained unchanged with Nick Mastery.