Working on building a Rakdos encounter for my game, I was looking into using a Master of Cruelties as the ringleader. It has the following rule:
Aura of Blood Lust. When any other creature starts its turn within 30 feet of the master, that creature must succeed on a DC 17 Wisdom saving throw, or it must immediately take the Attack action, making one melee attack against a random creature within reach... (truncated in case there is a rule about posting full abilities)
Should the character make all his attacks, per the attack action, or should he only make one, since it is spelled out by the ability?
The Extra Attack feature says that you "can" make X number of attacks, not "must", and the Aura Of Blood List specifically says they make "one melee attack". I presume that RAW they only make one attack even if they're able to make more.
Features such as Extra Attack and monk bonus attacks are optional. I believe this blood lust feature mandates you make at least one attack. It does not mandate making all possible attacks, though if you are able to and want to (e.g. you are attacking the Master) you can.
Also, there is no forum rule that I know of that prohibits quoting for the purposes of rule discussion.
If a character has extra attack, they must take the attack action and make 1 attack on a random target. Any attacks available from extra attack can be made on targets of their choice. Two weapon fighting can also make a bonus action attack on a target of their choice.
The aura does forcibly use their action, so no other actions (like casting spells) can be made.
Wow, three completely different answers that constitute all possibilities.
Aura of Blood Lust. When any other creature starts its turn within 30 feet of the master, that creature must succeed on a DC 17 Wisdom saving throw, or it must immediately take the Attack action, making one melee attack against a random creature within reach. If no creatures are within reach, it makes a ranged attack against a random creature within range, throwing its weapon if necessary.
So, let's break down the whole text. The "making one melee attack" specifies that the attack has to, first of all, be a melee attack if possible. That is, it excludes ranged attacks in the first instance. Also, it excludes spells, as you are not using the "cast a spell" action. (e.g. the casting of GFB specifies that as part of the spell casting action, you make an attack, not vice versa). Then, if you can't make a melee attack because you have no valid targets, you have to make a ranged attack with something even if you have no conventional ranged weapons.
So the turn would look like this: - Start of turn - make a save - Fail? You now must take the "Attack" action as your action for the turn - Taking Attack action - is there a target in range of a melee attack? Yes - make one melee attack. No - make a ranged attack. - By this point, you have exhausted the RAW of the blood lust text. RAW, there is no mention of additional attacks. It does not say to continue (as per DxJxC) nor does it say that your action is concluded (as per jd2319). I argue that my interpretation makes the most sense - after making your attack, if you have extra attack, then you are free to choose to make a second attack, and against a target of your choice, because there is no text suggesting otherwise.
Wow, three completely different answers that constitute all possibilities.
So the turn would look like this: - Start of turn - make a save - Fail? You now must take the "Attack" action as your action for the turn - Taking Attack action - is there a target in range of a melee attack? Yes - make one melee attack. No - make a ranged attack. - By this point, you have exhausted the RAW of the blood lust text. RAW, there is no mention of additional attacks. It does not say to continue (as per DxJxC) nor does it say that your action is concluded (as per jd2319). I argue that my interpretation makes the most sense - after making your attack, if you have extra attack, then you are free to choose to make a second attack, and against a target of your choice, because there is no text suggesting otherwise.
My answer was more or less the same as yours. Specifically, my answer is exactly the underlined part of this quote just worded differently.
Now time for the RAI side. This demon is causing (arguably) sane people to commit acts of violence, sometimes against their will. Would it be "ethical" to the players to have them do full attacks ect? The mechanics exist to show loss of control.
I'm probably going to play it by ear. If they are too beat up when they get there, I don't mind only going as far as RAW. I'm still fairly new to DMing as a whole, but I do know a lot of Ravnican lore.
Working on building a Rakdos encounter for my game, I was looking into using a Master of Cruelties as the ringleader. It has the following rule:
Aura of Blood Lust. When any other creature starts its turn within 30 feet of the master, that creature must succeed on a DC 17 Wisdom saving throw, or it must immediately take the Attack action, making one melee attack against a random creature within reach... (truncated in case there is a rule about posting full abilities)
Should the character make all his attacks, per the attack action, or should he only make one, since it is spelled out by the ability?
The Extra Attack feature says that you "can" make X number of attacks, not "must", and the Aura Of Blood List specifically says they make "one melee attack". I presume that RAW they only make one attack even if they're able to make more.
Features such as Extra Attack and monk bonus attacks are optional. I believe this blood lust feature mandates you make at least one attack. It does not mandate making all possible attacks, though if you are able to and want to (e.g. you are attacking the Master) you can.
Also, there is no forum rule that I know of that prohibits quoting for the purposes of rule discussion.
If a character has extra attack, they must take the attack action and make 1 attack on a random target. Any attacks available from extra attack can be made on targets of their choice. Two weapon fighting can also make a bonus action attack on a target of their choice.
The aura does forcibly use their action, so no other actions (like casting spells) can be made.
Wow, three completely different answers that constitute all possibilities.
So, let's break down the whole text. The "making one melee attack" specifies that the attack has to, first of all, be a melee attack if possible. That is, it excludes ranged attacks in the first instance. Also, it excludes spells, as you are not using the "cast a spell" action. (e.g. the casting of GFB specifies that as part of the spell casting action, you make an attack, not vice versa). Then, if you can't make a melee attack because you have no valid targets, you have to make a ranged attack with something even if you have no conventional ranged weapons.
So the turn would look like this:
- Start of turn - make a save
- Fail? You now must take the "Attack" action as your action for the turn
- Taking Attack action - is there a target in range of a melee attack? Yes - make one melee attack. No - make a ranged attack.
- By this point, you have exhausted the RAW of the blood lust text. RAW, there is no mention of additional attacks. It does not say to continue (as per DxJxC) nor does it say that your action is concluded (as per jd2319). I argue that my interpretation makes the most sense - after making your attack, if you have extra attack, then you are free to choose to make a second attack, and against a target of your choice, because there is no text suggesting otherwise.
My answer was more or less the same as yours. Specifically, my answer is exactly the underlined part of this quote just worded differently.
* Also, you may use your movement and 1 interaction between attacks.
My apologies. I must’ve rolled a 1 on perception there.
So by RAW, no they don't.
Now time for the RAI side. This demon is causing (arguably) sane people to commit acts of violence, sometimes against their will. Would it be "ethical" to the players to have them do full attacks ect? The mechanics exist to show loss of control.
I'm probably going to play it by ear. If they are too beat up when they get there, I don't mind only going as far as RAW. I'm still fairly new to DMing as a whole, but I do know a lot of Ravnican lore.