If you nock an arrow to a bow, you get to fire the bow once with that arrow, not twice.
If you finish a marathon, you get one finisher shirt for that marathon.
If you come in first in an Olympic event, you only get one gold medal.
You can continue to state your view as much as you like, but it is unlikely that you will find three people on these forums that will agree with you. Most importantly, your GM will unlikely agree with you.
And the trait is also not exactly something that makes sense in general, there is no requirement for the charge to end next to the target or for the gore attack to happen immedeatly after you stop moving.
This is where your confusion is coming from. There absolutely is a requirement which must be fulfilled, but you are not viewing it through the right scope.
There's no requirement for the charge to "end" next to the target. You aren't stopping next to them, attacking as normal, and getting a bonus from it; that's just a standard move + attack. You are charging the target. You are sprinting in a direct line into the target, and hitting them with your head. The fact that your miniature remains in the adjacent square is just keeping the system simple for battle mats. For all intents and purposes, your enemy is pressed up against the edge of their square, and you slam into them right at the edge of your square.
There is a requirement for the Gore attack to happen immediately after charging because that's literally what the Charge ability dictates. We all know a linebacker slamming into you full speed is going to hurt more than one stopping right in front of your face before delivering a headbutt, right?
Charge modifies Gore, not the other way around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
And the trait is also not exactly something that makes sense in general, there is no requirement for the charge to end next to the target or for the gore attack to happen immedeatly after you stop moving.
This is where your confusion is coming from. There absolutely is a requirement which must be fulfilled, but you are not viewing it through the right scope.
There's no requirement for the charge to "end" next to the target. You aren't stopping next to them, attacking as normal, and getting a bonus from it; that's just a standard move + attack. You are charging the target. You are sprinting in a direct line into the target, and hitting them with your head. The fact that your miniature remains in the adjacent square is just keeping the system simple for battle mats. For all intents and purposes, your enemy is pressed up against the edge of their square, and you slam into them right at the edge of your square.
There is a requirement for the Gore attack to happen immediately after charging because that's literally what the Charge ability dictates. We all know a linebacker slamming into you full speed is going to hurt more than one stopping right in front of your face before delivering a headbutt, right?
Charge modifies Gore, not the other way around.
Yes I know what an charge is and what it is supposed to look like, but at the same time the name of an trait holds no power over what an abillity does, if i changed the name of burning hands to pinterpretation oison cloud and changed none of the mechanics, it would still force all creatures in a 15 ft cone to make a dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 fire damage, half as much on a sucessful save, it would have a very weird name and confused a lot of people, but it would still be the same.
What i Said above was purely from an rules as written, treating the rules as just abstract mechanics. In the minds of the players in the moment it is a rhino, but technically on paper it is just some numbers you defeat with your own numbers, barely anyone, in fact almost defenetly nobody (not even me or my group) plays the game this litterally and this by the rules (at least not just for the sake of following the rules), but it is technically the "correct" interpretation for whatever it is worth
Artifice, you have a good head on your shoulders, don't get discouraged by everyone coming out of the woodwork to dunk on Barbarian/Moon Druids as if they aren't one of the best T1 builds out there, and pretty decent beyond.
You're correct that a Wildshaped character retains its class features, including Extra Attack and their Proficiency Bonus.
You're correct that the wording of the Rhino's Charge ability provides a bonus to gore attack(s) "on the same turn", not just those occurring immediately after the 20 feet of straight movement.
Others can complain about RAI and 'what makes sense' all they want, but we aren't talking about a simulation of authentic rhino behavior/physiology, we're talking about a formalized game system, and yours is a correct and literal interpretation of the abilities in play. Stay strong against the haters!
What you're maybe not correct about is whether a Gore is really a weapon, or if its an ability. Plenty of abilities use an Action to make a melee attack, without being able to be slotted into Extra Attack's Attack Action rotation. Like, the special melee spell attack that Vampiric Touch provides you. Or, even a Shove or Grapple: you can only slot those into an Extra Attack rotation because they specifically tell you they can be, not because all melee attacks are eligible for slotting into an Attack Action by default.
One interpretation of Natural Weapons is that they are true weapons, and can be used just like a Longsword etc as part of an Attack Action.
The altnerate interpretation is that Gore seems to be a full Action special abilityj that isn't the same as the Attack Action. You could of course instead make multiple Unarmed Strikes as a Rhino using your Barbarian Extra Attack feature... but the only way to do multiple Gores would be if the Rhino had a Multiattack ability that provided they could do so.
I'm not sure which side to come down on on that, Natural Weapons are so poorly defined that I'm not sure there's enough to grab on to say what's RAW or even RAI either way.
Artificemeal, what you said was exactly an interpretation. Not “the RAW” interpretation. You interpret “a gore attack” to be “each” gore attack, whereas it is exactly equally valid to treat that phrase as “any” or “a singular” apparently the way you treat the movement requirement. There are several interpretations that you could make. Yours is the cheesiest, and that is why I prefer better ones.
Of course you did happen to find the one other person on these forums who would agree that “how I read it has to be RAW.”
I won't wade into the "feasibility discussion" (although i'm inclined to follow Chicken Champs reasoning above based on the reading of the abilities, and because the "gore" is listed as a melee weapon attack, I would rule it counts as an attack). But in a hypothetical matchup against a lvl 11 fighter (Champion, 20 strength, Dueling and Protection fighting styles, wearing chain mail, wielding a shield and longsword one-handed), and assuming the extra attack and extra damage to both attacks would be allowed with the rhino:
Round damage (Druid/Barb Rhino): 2 attacks (+7 to hit, 4d8+5 (23 avg)) = 46 damage per round, contingent on successful hit and movement requirements (28 damage otherwise), also would require possibly getting opportunity attacks for repeated attempts
Round damage (Fighter): 3 attacks (+9 to hit, 1d8+7 (11.5 avg) = 34.5 damage per round, contingent on successful hit
So the rhino could feasibly do more damage but:
Movement requirements would have to be met each turn to maintain damage (possible given the 40 feet of available movement, but would likely invoke opportunity attacks)
Rhino AC and HP are paltry compared to fighter (11/45 vs 19/103 with my hypothetical fighter)
Fighter damage could be modified by magic items, additional levels, or alternate class configurations
Fighter will hit more often, boosting damage over prolonged combat.
at lvl 11, many monsters have high AC, resistance to normal damage, or both, limiting the damage potential of the rhino.
If (X) and (Y) then (Z) is a fairly straightforward logical construct. If X (the rhinoceros moves at least 20 feet straight toward a target) and Y (then hits it with a gore attack on the same turn), then Z (the target takes an extra 9 (2d8) bludgeoning damage). There are no extra terms implied by necessity in this straightforward equation, no "unless attack Yn is not the first Y following X" or "unless subsequent movement Xn has come between X1 and Y" or "but Z may occur no more than once per turn."
In Artifices hypothetical where a RhinoDruid has satisfied X (moved 20 feet straight towards a target), every time there's a new Y (hits with a gore attack on the same turn), you have a valid function for Z (the target takes an extra 9 (2d8) bludgeoning damage). Yes, the ability could easily be rewritten to not allow that, but as it's written right now, it appears to. As everyone has so gleefully pointed out, a Barb/Druid has sacrificed Druid progression to set up this combo, so I'm not sure why it's so mandatory that a DM interpret this interaction in the light least favorable to the player by implying unwritten conditions.
But again, I'm not sure that Extra Attack allows one to make multiple named Natural Weapon attack modes attacks in one turn. I used to assume so, but I'm just really not sure whether there's any language that requires that interpretation any longer. The Introduction of the MM never provides that a Monster is taking the "Attack Action" when using its individual attack modes, or its Multiattack ability.
Actions
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actionsavailable to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
Melee and Ranged Attacks
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the “weapon” might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player’s Handbook.
Creature vs. Target. The target of a melee or ranged attack is usually either one creature or one target, the difference being that a “target” can be a creature or an object.
Hit. Any damage dealt or other effects that occur as a result of an attack hitting a target are described after the “Hit” notation. You have the option of taking average damage or rolling the damage; for this reason, both the average damage and the die expression are presented.
Miss. If an attack has an effect that occurs on a miss, that information is presented after the “Miss:” notation.
Multiattack
A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability. A creature can’t use Multiattack when making an opportunity attack, which must be a single melee attack.
The Player's Handbook section on Actions in combat, which the MM intro refers us to, provides this:
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
The "Making an Attack" section is a little long to quote, and never really explicitly talks about attacks in a way that would discriminate between making an Attack Action attack or a different special attack that might be granted by a feature not compatable with the Attack Action. Frustrating.
The Extra Attack feature of the fighter doesn't say much either, other than that it is explicitly only granting extra attacks that are part of the Attack Action, not extra attacks whenever and however one might be allowed to make an attack (such as on an Opportunity Attack, or a Bonus Action attack, or whatever).
So what are we left with? The MM never really explicitly tells us that Monsters are using the Attack Action when they Gore. The Player's Handbook never really defines the Attack Action in a way which provides what sorts of attacks can be made as part of it, though it does suggest that this will typically be a "sword, firing an arrow, or brawling with your fists." Extra Attack is specially only helpful for Attack Action attacks, not any and all attacks one might make using an Action.
I don't know where to land on it, if "Natural Weapons" are truly just "Weapons," and if an attack mode like Gore is a "Natural Weapon" and not an ability, then yeah, use the Attack Action to Gore (and get extra attacks from Extra Attack feature). Otherwise.... dead end, Gore is an action to make one Gore.
What you're maybe not correct about is whether a Gore is really a weapon, or if its an ability.
Gore.Melee Weapon Attack:
Looks pretty clear to me. What's not as clear is whether Charge can add damage more than once per turn, because it's not clearly written and the critter doesn't have multiple attacks.
Pantagruel, not all Melee Weapon Attacks are necessarily eligible to be made as part of the Attack Action. Take, for example, the Bonus Action d4 attack that Polearm Master grants. That is undeniably a Melee Weapon Attack. There also appears to be no way to ever make it as part of the Attack Action, only as part of the special Bonus Action attack that Polearm Master grants.
Looking at other abilities that allow for a charge we can conclude that the RAI (arguably RAW but I'm not gonna start that argument) is charge bonus equals 1 attack.
From the Cavalier:
Ferocious Charger
Starting at 15th level, you can run down your foes, whether you’re mounted or not. If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line right before attacking a creature and you hit it with the attack, that target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Strength modifier) or be knocked prone. You can use this feature only once on each of your turns.
Centaur also have a charge and they also have a multi attack. However the charge only applies to the Pike attack not the stomp. Again we can conclude that charge only applies once.
... and the fact that they provide that explicitly is excellent RAI justification for not reading that as an implicit unwritten assumption in the Rhinos ability. "They could have written that, and have done so for other classes/monsters, but didn't this time" is the best possible argument for supporting Artifice's reading :)
... and the fact that they provide that explicitly is excellent RAI justification for not reading that as an implicit unwritten assumption in the Rhinos ability. "They could have written that, and have done so for other classes/monsters, but didn't this time" is the best possible argument for supporting Artifice's reading :)
Why would they need to clarify and overwrite for a monster that was ONE attack? I didn't want to get into RAW vs RAI but looks like you wanted to. This monster has one attack, that means we only need to write our rules for the monster in reference to one attack; RAW they had one attack so the rule is written as if they won't get more than one attack therefore the RAW charge applies once. End of it.
The fact that I had to go to specific classes that have MORE than one attack thereby proving that they wrote specific things in to counter multi-attacks once again provides the evidence that RAW is charge applies once. Why did they clarify on these specific cases? Because if they had to write in every time something couldn't do something our books would be 3000 pages long.
Like, one big argument in favor of treating Gore to be a Natural Weapon (not an ability), is that not all monsters are... monsters, a lot use weapons. The Bandit, for example, has a Scimitar action listed in its stat block. That sure seems like a regular old melee weapon attack with a scimitar that one would make using the Attack Action! The Monster Manual Introduction tells us that the Bandit is allowed to take the Attack Action... so if it does so, can it make a Scimitar attack with that Attack Action, or is it stuck doing Unarmed Strikes? Why would the answer for the Bandit and his Scimitar be any different than the for the Rhino and its Gore, since both are melee weapon attacks?
Clearly, there are Action entries for monsters that shouldn't be treated as Attack Action-eligible. If something doesn't describe itself as a Melee Weapon Attack, there's one good bright line we could draw. Are there any examples out there of a MM Action entry that is described as a Melee Weapon Attack that doesn't seem like a Weapon/Natural Weapon, and which doesn't make sense to be able to do multiple times with one (Extra Attack) Attack Action? I can't think of one.
... and the fact that they provide that explicitly is excellent RAI justification for not reading that as an implicit unwritten assumption in the Rhinos ability. "They could have written that, and have done so for other classes/monsters, but didn't this time" is the best possible argument for supporting Artifice's reading :)
Except that they probably considered it redundant because the creature doesn't have multiple attacks.
Checking the MM, we see "The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the “weapon” might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player’s Handbook."
That strongly implies that anything classed as a weapon attack can use the same rules as a weapon.
On the topic of the d4 attack from polearm mastery, it's not a different weapon, it's an attack with a weapon you're already using (and you can use that weapon for any purpose a weapon can be used). It does a d4 damage instead of the normal damage of the weapon because that's a special rule for that attack.
... and the fact that they provide that explicitly is excellent RAI justification for not reading that as an implicit unwritten assumption in the Rhinos ability. "They could have written that, and have done so for other classes/monsters, but didn't this time" is the best possible argument for supporting Artifice's reading :)
Why would they need to clarify and overwrite for a monster that was ONE attack? I didn't want to get into RAW vs RAI but looks like you wanted to. This monster has one attack, that means we only need to write our rules for the monster in reference to one attack; RAW they had one attack so the rule is written as if they won't get more than one attack therefore the RAW charge applies once. End of it.
The fact that I had to go to specific classes that have MORE than one attack thereby proving that they wrote specific things in to counter multi-attacks once again provides the evidence that RAW is charge applies once. Why did they clarify on these specific cases? Because if they had to write in every time something couldn't do something our books would be 3000 pages long.
Charge (1/turn). If the rhinoceros moves at least 20 feet straight toward a target and then hits it with a gore attack on the same turn, the target takes an extra 9 (2d8) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.
or
Charge. Once per turn, if the rhinoceros moves at least 20 feet straight toward a target and then hits it with a gore attack on the same turn, the target takes an extra 9 (2d8) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.
Hardly a 3000 page proposition, I'm sure they could have found a way to include it if it was important to the balance of this ability.
... and the fact that they provide that explicitly is excellent RAI justification for not reading that as an implicit unwritten assumption in the Rhinos ability. "They could have written that, and have done so for other classes/monsters, but didn't this time" is the best possible argument for supporting Artifice's reading :)
Except that they probably considered it redundant because the creature doesn't have multiple attacks.
It's not that hard to imagine that a caster might cast Haste on a Rhinoceros, either a PC on its summoned Rhino ally, or as part of a combat encounter.... or on any of the other dozens of critters with this or a similar ability. If the writers didn't provide for a limitation restricting Charge to once per turn, no such restriction exists, that's the rules as they've been written. Assuming a whole layer of unwritten rules floating just below the written text, and giving that unwritten miasma actual authority to the extent that it can supercede or replace actual written text... that's just not "Rules as Written" interpretation, it's something above and beyond. Play your game that way if you'd like, but don't presume that your assumptions are somehow necessary and required in the text.
I won't wade into the "feasibility discussion" (although i'm inclined to follow Chicken Champs reasoning above based on the reading of the abilities, and because the "gore" is listed as a melee weapon attack, I would rule it counts as an attack). But in a hypothetical matchup against a lvl 11 fighter (Champion, 20 strength, Dueling and Protection fighting styles, wearing chain mail, wielding a shield and longsword one-handed), and assuming the extra attack and extra damage to both attacks would be allowed with the rhino:
Round damage (Druid/Barb Rhino): 2 attacks (+7 to hit, 4d8+5 (23 avg)) = 46 damage per round, contingent on successful hit and movement requirements (28 damage otherwise), also would require possibly getting opportunity attacks for repeated attempts
Round damage (Fighter): 3 attacks (+9 to hit, 1d8+7 (11.5 avg) = 34.5 damage per round, contingent on successful hit
So the rhino could feasibly do more damage but:
Movement requirements would have to be met each turn to maintain damage (possible given the 40 feet of available movement, but would likely invoke opportunity attacks)
Rhino AC and HP are paltry compared to fighter (11/45 vs 19/103 with my hypothetical fighter)
Fighter damage could be modified by magic items, additional levels, or alternate class configurations
Fighter will hit more often, boosting damage over prolonged combat.
at lvl 11, many monsters have high AC, resistance to normal damage, or both, limiting the damage potential of the rhino.
You left out rage bonus damage (as ArtificeMeal did) Double charge rhino does 50 damage (+2 for each hit bonus rage damage). Assuming ~60% hit rate for the rhino, you're looking at expected 30 damage.
For the fighter with no resources (remember that the barb/druid burnt a short rest and a long rest resource to do this), they could do better with a greatsword. 3x(2d6+5) = 36 dmg. If the rhino is hitting 60% of the time, the fighter will be hitting 70% of the time, and therefore be expecting ~25 damage. The rhino wins against a vanilla fighter who has upgraded his attack stat and uses a good weapon. Start adding in bonuses due to magic weapons, fighting styles, feats, etc, and the fighter would improve. None of that stuff really helps the rhino.
Checking the MM, we see "The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the “weapon” might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player’s Handbook."
That strongly implies that anything classed as a weapon attack can use the same rules as a weapon.
On the topic of the d4 attack from polearm mastery, it's not a different weapon, it's an attack with a weapon you're already using (and you can use that weapon for any purpose a weapon can be used). It does a d4 damage instead of the normal damage of the weapon because that's a special rule for that attack.
Pantagruel, I do agree with you that Gore (and anything else classfied as a weapon attack in its Action entry) can probably use the same rules as a weapon in general (i.e., 'natural weapons are weapons, for any and all abilities or interactions which look for an attack 'with a weapon'). Like I said, I'm not sure I can find any examples in the MM of a "melee weapon attack" that was clearly intended to be a special once-per-turn ability, and not just the sort of attack one would make with ones weapon(s) using the Attack Action. So I'm with you there, and as I lead into this with, I've always in the past assumed that a Druid with the Extra Attack feature is allowed to Gore/whatever more than once, using the Attack Action because Gore is a weapon.
But I don't agree that necessarily all weapon attacks are necessarily eligible for use with the Attack Action. I really don't think you can explicitly choose to make a d4 haft attack with Polearm Master as anything other than your Bonus Action after making a regular attack with the head. Would a DM allow it? Sure, why not. Is there any explicit language in Polearm Master that says "You can choose to deal either d4 or the weapon's normal damage die whenever you make an attack with a polearm"? No. That special Bonus Action Attack made with the d4 haft is a melee weapon attack, but is not something you can do as part of your Attack Action without special DM permission.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a currently written clear example of a special melee weapon attack that you'd want to make as part of your Attack Action. But I think there are clear areas where something like that could show up in the future... a monk subclass, where their Bonus Action unarmed Strike from Martial Arts and/or Flurry of Blows is a stepped up dice from their regular progression? A magical weapon, that provides a distinct Bonus Action attack whenever you make an attack with it, such as some sort of magical whip that strikes an extra time with a different damage die? A monster with a "rend" attack for massive damage, which they can only make as a Bonus Action if they've hit with two claw attacks on the same turn using their Action? It isn't hard to imagine the sort of class feature, item, or monster where this could become an issue, if one were to just jump the gun and say "melee weapon attack? you can use it with your Attack Action!" without there actually being any rule text saying that's the case in the PHB or elsewhere.
I'll admit I'm off the deep end of splitting hairs here. If you're all in agreement that a Rhinoceros that has Extra Attack can make two or more Gore attacks as part of the Attack Action, then for the sense of this thread, we can call it good enough and say that Artifice was right.
Well, the rhino does more damage than the dueling style champion who is not using a magic weapon, but that's a pretty unlikely condition at level 11. Convert to a great weapon fighter with great weapon mastery and allow a +1 weapon, and against an ac 16 target we have:
Raging Rhino: 2 attacks, 60% to hit for 4d8+7 (30 dpr), +0.1 crits for +4d8 (1.8 dpr), net 31.8
Great Weapon Champion: 3 attacks, 50% to hit for 2d6+16 (reroll 1-2) (36.5 dpr), +0.3 crits for +2d6 (2.5 dpr), +0.27 bonus action attacks for 2d6+16 (3.28 dpr), net 42.28
As a Goblin Barbarian 5/Druid 6 with 13 Str, and 18 Con (could probably be 20 by then, but whatever), the RhinoGuy has 114 HP in humanoid form (effectively doubled to 228 when raging), and another 45 (effectively 90 when raging) per Rhino, up to twice per combat. 400 effective maximum HP in a fight, more if he's burning spell slots to heal himself. Assuming... 13/14/16/8/15/8 as a starting spread, ASI for 14 Str and 16 Wis at level 4 druid, and ASI for 18 Con at level 4 barb, wearing medium armor with a shield in humanoid form gives 19 AC or he's 18 AC with a shield while naked, and in Rhino form has AC 12 (if ASI's are a class feature retained while Wild Shaped, like feats are) or 11 (if ASI's are not). That's a pretty beefy boy, able to make three Gore attacks per round while raging (Berserker) (average 27 on hit).
The comparable level 11 GWM fighter also has 18 or 19 AC, but with 18 Con, only has 114 effective maximum HP, a little more with second wind. He's making three 2d6+15 (average 22 on hit) attacks per round, sometimes a fourth when he hits someone, but is hitting less often due to -5 malus.
I dunno, the Rhino seems a lot better than the GWM fighter at 11 in my book. He's got the HP to spare to use Reckless attack every round, to be making all three attacks with Advantage, while GWM guy is going to be hitting at -25%+not having advantage.
If you nock an arrow to a bow, you get to fire the bow once with that arrow, not twice.
If you finish a marathon, you get one finisher shirt for that marathon.
If you come in first in an Olympic event, you only get one gold medal.
You can continue to state your view as much as you like, but it is unlikely that you will find three people on these forums that will agree with you. Most importantly, your GM will unlikely agree with you.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
This is where your confusion is coming from. There absolutely is a requirement which must be fulfilled, but you are not viewing it through the right scope.
There's no requirement for the charge to "end" next to the target. You aren't stopping next to them, attacking as normal, and getting a bonus from it; that's just a standard move + attack. You are charging the target. You are sprinting in a direct line into the target, and hitting them with your head. The fact that your miniature remains in the adjacent square is just keeping the system simple for battle mats. For all intents and purposes, your enemy is pressed up against the edge of their square, and you slam into them right at the edge of your square.
There is a requirement for the Gore attack to happen immediately after charging because that's literally what the Charge ability dictates. We all know a linebacker slamming into you full speed is going to hurt more than one stopping right in front of your face before delivering a headbutt, right?
Charge modifies Gore, not the other way around.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yes I know what an charge is and what it is supposed to look like, but at the same time the name of an trait holds no power over what an abillity does, if i changed the name of burning hands to pinterpretation oison cloud and changed none of the mechanics, it would still force all creatures in a 15 ft cone to make a dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 fire damage, half as much on a sucessful save, it would have a very weird name and confused a lot of people, but it would still be the same.
What i Said above was purely from an rules as written, treating the rules as just abstract mechanics. In the minds of the players in the moment it is a rhino, but technically on paper it is just some numbers you defeat with your own numbers, barely anyone, in fact almost defenetly nobody (not even me or my group) plays the game this litterally and this by the rules (at least not just for the sake of following the rules), but it is technically the "correct" interpretation for whatever it is worth
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Artifice, you have a good head on your shoulders, don't get discouraged by everyone coming out of the woodwork to dunk on Barbarian/Moon Druids as if they aren't one of the best T1 builds out there, and pretty decent beyond.
You're correct that a Wildshaped character retains its class features, including Extra Attack and their Proficiency Bonus.
You're correct that the wording of the Rhino's Charge ability provides a bonus to gore attack(s) "on the same turn", not just those occurring immediately after the 20 feet of straight movement.
Others can complain about RAI and 'what makes sense' all they want, but we aren't talking about a simulation of authentic rhino behavior/physiology, we're talking about a formalized game system, and yours is a correct and literal interpretation of the abilities in play. Stay strong against the haters!
What you're maybe not correct about is whether a Gore is really a weapon, or if its an ability. Plenty of abilities use an Action to make a melee attack, without being able to be slotted into Extra Attack's Attack Action rotation. Like, the special melee spell attack that Vampiric Touch provides you. Or, even a Shove or Grapple: you can only slot those into an Extra Attack rotation because they specifically tell you they can be, not because all melee attacks are eligible for slotting into an Attack Action by default.
One interpretation of Natural Weapons is that they are true weapons, and can be used just like a Longsword etc as part of an Attack Action.
The altnerate interpretation is that Gore seems to be a full Action special abilityj that isn't the same as the Attack Action. You could of course instead make multiple Unarmed Strikes as a Rhino using your Barbarian Extra Attack feature... but the only way to do multiple Gores would be if the Rhino had a Multiattack ability that provided they could do so.
I'm not sure which side to come down on on that, Natural Weapons are so poorly defined that I'm not sure there's enough to grab on to say what's RAW or even RAI either way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Artificemeal, what you said was exactly an interpretation. Not “the RAW” interpretation. You interpret “a gore attack” to be “each” gore attack, whereas it is exactly equally valid to treat that phrase as “any” or “a singular” apparently the way you treat the movement requirement. There are several interpretations that you could make. Yours is the cheesiest, and that is why I prefer better ones.
Of course you did happen to find the one other person on these forums who would agree that “how I read it has to be RAW.”
I won't wade into the "feasibility discussion" (although i'm inclined to follow Chicken Champs reasoning above based on the reading of the abilities, and because the "gore" is listed as a melee weapon attack, I would rule it counts as an attack). But in a hypothetical matchup against a lvl 11 fighter (Champion, 20 strength, Dueling and Protection fighting styles, wearing chain mail, wielding a shield and longsword one-handed), and assuming the extra attack and extra damage to both attacks would be allowed with the rhino:
Round damage (Druid/Barb Rhino): 2 attacks (+7 to hit, 4d8+5 (23 avg)) = 46 damage per round, contingent on successful hit and movement requirements (28 damage otherwise), also would require possibly getting opportunity attacks for repeated attempts
Round damage (Fighter): 3 attacks (+9 to hit, 1d8+7 (11.5 avg) = 34.5 damage per round, contingent on successful hit
So the rhino could feasibly do more damage but:
Lol, sick burn Bees :)
If (X) and (Y) then (Z) is a fairly straightforward logical construct. If X (the rhinoceros moves at least 20 feet straight toward a target) and Y (then hits it with a gore attack on the same turn), then Z (the target takes an extra 9 (2d8) bludgeoning damage). There are no extra terms implied by necessity in this straightforward equation, no "unless attack Yn is not the first Y following X" or "unless subsequent movement Xn has come between X1 and Y" or "but Z may occur no more than once per turn."
In Artifices hypothetical where a RhinoDruid has satisfied X (moved 20 feet straight towards a target), every time there's a new Y (hits with a gore attack on the same turn), you have a valid function for Z (the target takes an extra 9 (2d8) bludgeoning damage). Yes, the ability could easily be rewritten to not allow that, but as it's written right now, it appears to. As everyone has so gleefully pointed out, a Barb/Druid has sacrificed Druid progression to set up this combo, so I'm not sure why it's so mandatory that a DM interpret this interaction in the light least favorable to the player by implying unwritten conditions.
But again, I'm not sure that Extra Attack allows one to make multiple named Natural Weapon attack modes attacks in one turn. I used to assume so, but I'm just really not sure whether there's any language that requires that interpretation any longer. The Introduction of the MM never provides that a Monster is taking the "Attack Action" when using its individual attack modes, or its Multiattack ability.
The Player's Handbook section on Actions in combat, which the MM intro refers us to, provides this:
The "Making an Attack" section is a little long to quote, and never really explicitly talks about attacks in a way that would discriminate between making an Attack Action attack or a different special attack that might be granted by a feature not compatable with the Attack Action. Frustrating.
The Extra Attack feature of the fighter doesn't say much either, other than that it is explicitly only granting extra attacks that are part of the Attack Action, not extra attacks whenever and however one might be allowed to make an attack (such as on an Opportunity Attack, or a Bonus Action attack, or whatever).
So what are we left with? The MM never really explicitly tells us that Monsters are using the Attack Action when they Gore. The Player's Handbook never really defines the Attack Action in a way which provides what sorts of attacks can be made as part of it, though it does suggest that this will typically be a "sword, firing an arrow, or brawling with your fists." Extra Attack is specially only helpful for Attack Action attacks, not any and all attacks one might make using an Action.
I don't know where to land on it, if "Natural Weapons" are truly just "Weapons," and if an attack mode like Gore is a "Natural Weapon" and not an ability, then yeah, use the Attack Action to Gore (and get extra attacks from Extra Attack feature). Otherwise.... dead end, Gore is an action to make one Gore.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Gore. Melee Weapon Attack:
Looks pretty clear to me. What's not as clear is whether Charge can add damage more than once per turn, because it's not clearly written and the critter doesn't have multiple attacks.
Pantagruel, not all Melee Weapon Attacks are necessarily eligible to be made as part of the Attack Action. Take, for example, the Bonus Action d4 attack that Polearm Master grants. That is undeniably a Melee Weapon Attack. There also appears to be no way to ever make it as part of the Attack Action, only as part of the special Bonus Action attack that Polearm Master grants.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Looking at other abilities that allow for a charge we can conclude that the RAI (arguably RAW but I'm not gonna start that argument) is charge bonus equals 1 attack.
From the Cavalier:
Centaur also have a charge and they also have a multi attack. However the charge only applies to the Pike attack not the stomp. Again we can conclude that charge only applies once.
... and the fact that they provide that explicitly is excellent RAI justification for not reading that as an implicit unwritten assumption in the Rhinos ability. "They could have written that, and have done so for other classes/monsters, but didn't this time" is the best possible argument for supporting Artifice's reading :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Why would they need to clarify and overwrite for a monster that was ONE attack? I didn't want to get into RAW vs RAI but looks like you wanted to. This monster has one attack, that means we only need to write our rules for the monster in reference to one attack; RAW they had one attack so the rule is written as if they won't get more than one attack therefore the RAW charge applies once. End of it.
The fact that I had to go to specific classes that have MORE than one attack thereby proving that they wrote specific things in to counter multi-attacks once again provides the evidence that RAW is charge applies once. Why did they clarify on these specific cases? Because if they had to write in every time something couldn't do something our books would be 3000 pages long.
Like, one big argument in favor of treating Gore to be a Natural Weapon (not an ability), is that not all monsters are... monsters, a lot use weapons. The Bandit, for example, has a Scimitar action listed in its stat block. That sure seems like a regular old melee weapon attack with a scimitar that one would make using the Attack Action! The Monster Manual Introduction tells us that the Bandit is allowed to take the Attack Action... so if it does so, can it make a Scimitar attack with that Attack Action, or is it stuck doing Unarmed Strikes? Why would the answer for the Bandit and his Scimitar be any different than the for the Rhino and its Gore, since both are melee weapon attacks?
Clearly, there are Action entries for monsters that shouldn't be treated as Attack Action-eligible. If something doesn't describe itself as a Melee Weapon Attack, there's one good bright line we could draw. Are there any examples out there of a MM Action entry that is described as a Melee Weapon Attack that doesn't seem like a Weapon/Natural Weapon, and which doesn't make sense to be able to do multiple times with one (Extra Attack) Attack Action? I can't think of one.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Except that they probably considered it redundant because the creature doesn't have multiple attacks.
Checking the MM, we see "The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the “weapon” might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player’s Handbook."
That strongly implies that anything classed as a weapon attack can use the same rules as a weapon.
On the topic of the d4 attack from polearm mastery, it's not a different weapon, it's an attack with a weapon you're already using (and you can use that weapon for any purpose a weapon can be used). It does a d4 damage instead of the normal damage of the weapon because that's a special rule for that attack.
Charge (1/turn). If the rhinoceros moves at least 20 feet straight toward a target and then hits it with a gore attack on the same turn, the target takes an extra 9 (2d8) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.
or
Charge. Once per turn, if the rhinoceros moves at least 20 feet straight toward a target and then hits it with a gore attack on the same turn, the target takes an extra 9 (2d8) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.
Hardly a 3000 page proposition, I'm sure they could have found a way to include it if it was important to the balance of this ability.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's not that hard to imagine that a caster might cast Haste on a Rhinoceros, either a PC on its summoned Rhino ally, or as part of a combat encounter.... or on any of the other dozens of critters with this or a similar ability. If the writers didn't provide for a limitation restricting Charge to once per turn, no such restriction exists, that's the rules as they've been written. Assuming a whole layer of unwritten rules floating just below the written text, and giving that unwritten miasma actual authority to the extent that it can supercede or replace actual written text... that's just not "Rules as Written" interpretation, it's something above and beyond. Play your game that way if you'd like, but don't presume that your assumptions are somehow necessary and required in the text.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You left out rage bonus damage (as ArtificeMeal did) Double charge rhino does 50 damage (+2 for each hit bonus rage damage). Assuming ~60% hit rate for the rhino, you're looking at expected 30 damage.
For the fighter with no resources (remember that the barb/druid burnt a short rest and a long rest resource to do this), they could do better with a greatsword. 3x(2d6+5) = 36 dmg. If the rhino is hitting 60% of the time, the fighter will be hitting 70% of the time, and therefore be expecting ~25 damage. The rhino wins against a vanilla fighter who has upgraded his attack stat and uses a good weapon. Start adding in bonuses due to magic weapons, fighting styles, feats, etc, and the fighter would improve. None of that stuff really helps the rhino.
Pantagruel, I do agree with you that Gore (and anything else classfied as a weapon attack in its Action entry) can probably use the same rules as a weapon in general (i.e., 'natural weapons are weapons, for any and all abilities or interactions which look for an attack 'with a weapon'). Like I said, I'm not sure I can find any examples in the MM of a "melee weapon attack" that was clearly intended to be a special once-per-turn ability, and not just the sort of attack one would make with ones weapon(s) using the Attack Action. So I'm with you there, and as I lead into this with, I've always in the past assumed that a Druid with the Extra Attack feature is allowed to Gore/whatever more than once, using the Attack Action because Gore is a weapon.
But I don't agree that necessarily all weapon attacks are necessarily eligible for use with the Attack Action. I really don't think you can explicitly choose to make a d4 haft attack with Polearm Master as anything other than your Bonus Action after making a regular attack with the head. Would a DM allow it? Sure, why not. Is there any explicit language in Polearm Master that says "You can choose to deal either d4 or the weapon's normal damage die whenever you make an attack with a polearm"? No. That special Bonus Action Attack made with the d4 haft is a melee weapon attack, but is not something you can do as part of your Attack Action without special DM permission.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a currently written clear example of a special melee weapon attack that you'd want to make as part of your Attack Action. But I think there are clear areas where something like that could show up in the future... a monk subclass, where their Bonus Action unarmed Strike from Martial Arts and/or Flurry of Blows is a stepped up dice from their regular progression? A magical weapon, that provides a distinct Bonus Action attack whenever you make an attack with it, such as some sort of magical whip that strikes an extra time with a different damage die? A monster with a "rend" attack for massive damage, which they can only make as a Bonus Action if they've hit with two claw attacks on the same turn using their Action? It isn't hard to imagine the sort of class feature, item, or monster where this could become an issue, if one were to just jump the gun and say "melee weapon attack? you can use it with your Attack Action!" without there actually being any rule text saying that's the case in the PHB or elsewhere.
I'll admit I'm off the deep end of splitting hairs here. If you're all in agreement that a Rhinoceros that has Extra Attack can make two or more Gore attacks as part of the Attack Action, then for the sense of this thread, we can call it good enough and say that Artifice was right.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, the rhino does more damage than the dueling style champion who is not using a magic weapon, but that's a pretty unlikely condition at level 11. Convert to a great weapon fighter with great weapon mastery and allow a +1 weapon, and against an ac 16 target we have:
Is Raging Rhino building for DPR though?
As a Goblin Barbarian 5/Druid 6 with 13 Str, and 18 Con (could probably be 20 by then, but whatever), the RhinoGuy has 114 HP in humanoid form (effectively doubled to 228 when raging), and another 45 (effectively 90 when raging) per Rhino, up to twice per combat. 400 effective maximum HP in a fight, more if he's burning spell slots to heal himself. Assuming... 13/14/16/8/15/8 as a starting spread, ASI for 14 Str and 16 Wis at level 4 druid, and ASI for 18 Con at level 4 barb, wearing medium armor with a shield in humanoid form gives 19 AC or he's 18 AC with a shield while naked, and in Rhino form has AC 12 (if ASI's are a class feature retained while Wild Shaped, like feats are) or 11 (if ASI's are not). That's a pretty beefy boy, able to make three Gore attacks per round while raging (Berserker) (average 27 on hit).
The comparable level 11 GWM fighter also has 18 or 19 AC, but with 18 Con, only has 114 effective maximum HP, a little more with second wind. He's making three 2d6+15 (average 22 on hit) attacks per round, sometimes a fourth when he hits someone, but is hitting less often due to -5 malus.
I dunno, the Rhino seems a lot better than the GWM fighter at 11 in my book. He's got the HP to spare to use Reckless attack every round, to be making all three attacks with Advantage, while GWM guy is going to be hitting at -25%+not having advantage.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.