Setup: Player moves out of range from a Goblin Boss creating an Opportunity Attack for the creature.
The following is in the Goblin Boss stat Block
Multiattack. The goblin makes two attacks with its scimitar. The second attack has disadvantage.
Scimitar.Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) slashing damage.
Question: I know to take the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature but if I'm using a weapon that is tagged as Multiattack do I get to make both attack rolls or just one attack with the weapon?
you can only get 1 attack, multiattack is an action on the statblock, not a reaction
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
NNCHRIS: SOUL THIEF, MASTER OF THE ARCANE, AND KING OF NEW YORKNN Gdl Creator of Ilheia and her Knights of the Fallen Stars ldG Lesser Student of Technomancy [undergrad student in computer science] Supporter of the 2014 rules, and a MASSIVE Homebrewer. Come to me all ye who seek salvation in wording thy brews! Open to homebrew trades at any time!! Or feel free to request HB, and Ill see if I can get it done for ya! Characters (Outdated)
Multiattack is when the monster uses an Action on its own turn, the same as Extra Attack for a Player Character. An Opportunity Attack is its own separate thing with its own tule that states a single attack.
Opportunity Attacks
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity attack.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.
Multiattack is when the monster uses an Action on its own turn, the same as Extra Attack for a Player Character. An Opportunity Attack is its own separate thing with its own tule that states a single attack.
Opportunity Attacks
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity attack.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.
Yep, you highlight the same text I applied in my question. Thanks for validating this for me.
Agree with the above, that Multiattack is an "action," and not itself a "melee attack," and thus isn't an eligible selection for an Opportunity Attack (but would be, for a Readied action).
Two observations though:
First, I don't really know how I'd survey all printed monsters to confirm or deny whether any do this already... but all it would take is a Monster action to be phrased as something like "Rip and Tear. Melee Weapon Attack: the creature makes two claw attacks..." to (inadvertently?) make a Multiattack-like action into something they could do as an OA. I don't know that "melee attack" is sufficiently defined in the PHB to prevent the MM labeling two linked attacks as a single attack, if poor playtesting were to miss it.
Second, I'm very surprised and concerned to see that basic Opportunity Attack rules don't specify "melee weapon attack"?!?! Unless there's other language out there I'm missing, what stops Booming Blade from already being Opportunity Attack eligible, even without War Caster, since it's a "melee attack"????
First, I don't really know how I'd survey all printed monsters to confirm or deny whether any do this already... but all it would take is a Monster action to be phrased as something like "Rip and Tear. Melee Weapon Attack: the creature makes two claw attacks..." to (inadvertently?) make a Multiattack-like action into something they could do as an OA. I don't know that "melee attack" is sufficiently defined in the PHB to prevent the MM labeling two linked attacks as a single attack, if poor playtesting were to miss it.
There are no monster attacks that are listed that way (I've given monster listings a few passes over the years, I'd remember something that unusual). That example also goes against the standard formatting they have been using to list monster attacks. There are a fair few that do additional damage usually after a save, if there were any that allowed a second attack, it would be after a hit.
Second, I'm very surprised and concerned to see that basic Opportunity Attack rules don't specify "melee weapon attack"?!?! Unless there's other language out there I'm missing, what stops Booming Blade from already being Opportunity Attack eligible, even without War Caster, since it's a "melee attack"????
The difference is a melee spell attack can be used as an opportunity attack, but casting a spell can't (unless allowed by a feature). Spells have their own rules that apply in addition to attack rules.
For example, the lich's paralyzing touch is a melee spell attack that can be used as an opportunity attack.
I think that the slippery slope between a Giant Frog having a Bite and a Swallow that interact, versus a future frog sneaking in with Swallow being described within Bite's block, is a real possibility to keep your eye out for. I'll trust you that it isn't currently an issue, but plenty of monster attacks apply a secondary effect or save after hitting with an attack, isn't outside the realm of possibility that a similar feature could be written to provide a secondary attack after hitting with an attack.
I'm not sure I agree that Chapter 10 is enough to prevent spells being cast as Opportunity Attacks if they're "melee attack"s. I mean, there's this...
Reactions
Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.
... which suggests that a spell will tell you if it can be cast as a Reaction. But, that isn't really the whole story, since War Caster lets you use a spell as a Reaction that the spell description doesn't describe. Why does War Caster operate as a feature allowing such casting, but the Opportunity Attack section doesn't? I get that Ready is its own special thing, you're loading a full regular Action into a Reaction, but War Caster doesn't seem all that different from Opportunity Attack in specifically describing a way that specific types of spells might be cast as a Reaction?
And in Chapter 9, the PHB doesn't even commit that Cast a Spell is always necessarily an Action (which indeed, we know to be true since we routinely use it as a Bonus or a Reaction, based on spell description):
Cast a Spell
Spellcasters such as wizards and clerics, as well as many monsters, have access to spells and can use them to great effect in combat. Each spell has a casting time, which specifies whether the caster must use an action, a reaction, minutes, or even hours to cast the spell. Casting a spell is, therefore, not necessarily an action. Most spells do have a casting time of 1 action, so a spellcaster often uses his or her action in combat to cast such a spell. See chapter 10 for the rules on spellcasting.
So, where's the language that provides you can't cast a "melee attack" spell as an Opportunity Attack, when Opportunity Attack tells you that you can make a "melee attack" in response to a trigger? Opportunity Attack doesn't specifically tell us that we can use "weapon attack"s but obviously allows them, so why is it any different for "spell attack"s?
War Caster is there to give you an additional option for opportunity attacks. Your character has specialized in fighting in the heat of the moment that they are now capable of reacting with single action spells as a reaction, provided they are within 5 feet of the target and that person moves out of range. War Caster specifically states that the only spells you can cast in this instance are ones that normally have a casting time of 1 action and can only affect one creature.
You’re referring to Booming Blade, but even those spells are using the “Casting a Spell” action, and thus are allowable by War Caster, not allowable by normal opportunity attack standards. The language already exists that you can’t cast those spells as an opportunity attack, unless you specifically have the War Caster feat or the spell you want to cast has a normal casting time of 1 Reaction.
You're not really addressing the problem here head on. Here's the link of logic for weapon attacks, you tell me where you disagree specifically:
Chapter 9, Actions in Combat, Attack: You can make one weapon attack as an Action, unless other features give you more attacks/action.
Chapter 9, Making an Attack: "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell... the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."
Chapter 9, Making an Attack, Melee Attacks: A melee attack typically involves weapons, but "a few spells also involve making a melee attack."
Chapter 9, Making an Attack, Melee Attacks, Opportunity Attack: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature." No mention of "weapon" or "spell," this section just is a subset of "Melee Attacks," which have just been defined as including both.
OK to use melee weapon attacks to make that attack? Yes, clearly, despite Chapter 9 having defined a weapon attack as belonging to the Attack action. Opportunity Attack is now a new action we're introduced to, which uses a reaction following a trigger, by which one might make a weapon attack separate from the Attack action.
Spoiler alert... it looks pretty much the same for spell attacks.
Chapter 10, Spellcasting, Casting a Spell: You can cast a spell with whatever action economy the spell describes.
Chapter 9, Actions in Combat, Cast a Spell: You cast a spell with the "Cast a Spell" action. "Cast a Spell" has no more particular default action economy, apart from what the spell describes.
Chapter 9, Making an Attack: "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell... the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."
Chapter 9, Making an Attack, Melee Attacks: A melee attack typically involves weapons, but "a few spells also involve making a melee attack."
Chapter 9, Making an Attack, Melee Attacks, Opportunity Attack: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature." No mention of "weapon" or "spell," this section just is a subset of "Melee Attacks," which have just been defined as including both.
OK to use melee spell attacks to make that attack? Apparently yes, because the logic chain of casting a spell attack with the Opportunity Attack action appears to me to be no more or less supported than that of making a weapon attack with the Opportunity Attack despite Chapter 9 having defined a weapon attack as belonging to the Attack action.
Both melee weapon attacks and melee spell attacks are melee attacks. The melee attack section explicitly mentions both types of melee attacks only sentences earlier than the Opportunity Attack section, demonstrating that this isn't a case of "well clearly we're only talking about weapon attacks in this sub-chapter." The Opportunity Attack section uses general "melee attack" language with no mention of weapons, despite having the room and vocabulary to do so.
If Opportunity Attacks were meant to be a "melee weapon attack" only, I have a hard time rationalizing why they wouldn't say so. Unless there's other language somewhere else that you can point to, I'm chalking this up to "surprising, but definitively RAW."
I think that the slippery slope between a Giant Frog having a Bite and a Swallow that interact, versus a future frog sneaking in with Swallow being described within Bite's block, is a real possibility to keep your eye out for. I'll trust you that it isn't currently an issue, but plenty of monster attacks apply a secondary effect or save after hitting with an attack, isn't outside the realm of possibility that a similar feature could be written to provide a secondary attack after hitting with an attack.
I do make a habit of reading (skimming) new entries when they come out, so I'll let you know if I see one.
But even if there is an attack that provides follow up attacks in its description (similar to chaos bolt for example), that would be allowed by the opportunity attack rules. It is 1 attack that triggers another, not a 2 attack action (as multiattack is).
I'm not sure I agree that Chapter 10 is enough to prevent spells being cast as Opportunity Attacks if they're "melee attack"s. I mean, there's this...
Reactions
Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.
... which suggests that a spell will tell you if it can be cast as a Reaction. But, that isn't really the whole story, since War Caster lets you use a spell as a Reaction that the spell description doesn't describe. Why does War Caster operate as a feature allowing such casting, but the Opportunity Attack section doesn't? I get that Ready is its own special thing, you're loading a full regular Action into a Reaction, but War Caster doesn't seem all that different from Opportunity Attack in specifically describing a way that specific types of spells might be cast as a Reaction?
War caster specifically changes the rules for casting spells, opportunity attack rules don't. Normally, you can't cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action as a reaction because the spellcasting rules prevent that.
And in Chapter 9, the PHB doesn't even commit that Cast a Spell is always necessarily an Action (which indeed, we know to be true since we routinely use it as a Bonus or a Reaction, based on spell description):
Cast a Spell
Spellcasters such as wizards and clerics, as well as many monsters, have access to spells and can use them to great effect in combat. Each spell has a casting time, which specifies whether the caster must use an action, a reaction, minutes, or even hours to cast the spell. Casting a spell is, therefore, not necessarily an action. Most spells do have a casting time of 1 action, so a spellcaster often uses his or her action in combat to cast such a spell. See chapter 10 for the rules on spellcasting.
So, where's the language that provides you can't cast a "melee attack" spell as an Opportunity Attack, when Opportunity Attack tells you that you can make a "melee attack" in response to a trigger? Opportunity Attack doesn't specifically tell us that we can use "weapon attack"s but obviously allows them, so why is it any different for "spell attack"s?
The language that provides you can't cast an action melee spell as an opportunity attack is in the rules you just quoted: "Each spell has a casting time, which specifies whether the caster must use an action, a reaction, minutes, or even hours to cast the spell."
The opportunity attack rules do not have language that specifically overrules this.
Weapon attacks don't have any additional rules that restricts when they can be made (as spells do with casting time), so weapon attacks can be used whenever a rule says it can without needing another rule to agree.
I think that the slippery slope between a Giant Frog having a Bite and a Swallow that interact, versus a future frog sneaking in with Swallow being described within Bite's block, is a real possibility to keep your eye out for. I'll trust you that it isn't currently an issue, but plenty of monster attacks apply a secondary effect or save after hitting with an attack, isn't outside the realm of possibility that a similar feature could be written to provide a secondary attack after hitting with an attack.
This is actually pretty neat. The Giant Frog can opportunity attack with a bite which causes the victim to be grappled. So the target can't get away. I like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
Weapon Attacks absolutely do have additional rules that restrict when they can be made. Chapter 9, Actions in Combat, specifically tells you that it takes the Attack action to make one weapon attack. No other general ability to make weapon attacks is provided. Any time you make a weapon attack and it isn't one weapon attack as part of the Attack action, you're operating under and exception or additional feature expanding on that default ability. I'm not sure how you can plausibly argue that Chapter 9 is any less explicit that weapon attacks take the Attack than spells take the [Tooltip Not Found]. And yet, Opportunity Attack comes along and provides an exception for weapon attacks (without saying its unique to weapon attacks), but DOESN'T for spell attacks (without saying it doesn't apply to spell attacks), only two paragraphs after defining the general term "melee attack" to include both????? Give me a break, really, that's just not credible.
The logic used to carve out Opportunity Attack as an alternative to/exception to Attack is pretty much exactly the same as that which would be used for [Tooltip Not Found]. I don't buy the "War Caster is an exception, Opportunity Attack isn't" argument, there's no such thing as an "exception" tag in 5E, it's just a matter of finding general rules (you make weapon attacks with Attack, you make spell attacks with [Tooltip Not Found]), and then finding a more specific circumstance that can change that (except, you can make either with an Opportunity Attack, if they're melee attacks and the enemy triggers you by leaving your reach without Disengaging). That's an exception, and its a RAW one.
Weapon Attacks absolutely do have additional rules that restrict when they can be made. Chapter 9, Actions in Combat, specifically tells you that it takes the Attack action to make one weapon attack. No other general ability to make weapon attacks is provided. Any time you make a weapon attack and it isn't one weapon attack as part of the Attack action, you're operating under and exception or additional feature expanding on that default ability. I'm not sure how you can plausibly argue that Chapter 9 is any less explicit that weapon attacks take the Attack than spells take the Cast a Spell. And yet, Opportunity Attack comes along and provides an exception for weapon attacks (without saying its unique to weapon attacks), but DOESN'T for spell attacks (without saying it doesn't apply to spell attacks), only two paragraphs after defining the general term "melee attack" to include both????? Give me a break, really, that's just not credible.
The logic used to carve out Opportunity Attack as an alternative to/exception to Attack is pretty much exactly the same as that which would be used for Cast a Spell. I don't buy the "War Caster is an exception, Opportunity Attack isn't" argument, there's no such thing as an "exception" tag in 5E, it's just a matter of finding general rules (you make weapon attacks with Attack, you make spell attacks with Cast a Spell), and then finding a more specific circumstance that can change that (except, you can make either with an Opportunity Attack, if they're melee attacks and the enemy triggers you by leaving your reach without Disengaging). That's an exception, and its a RAW one.
I could not find any such rule about weapon attacks being restricted to the attack action. There is a rule that says you can make a weapon attack with the attack action, but that is permissive and not restrictive.
Spells have restrictive rules. Specifically:
Casting Time
Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.
Weapon attacks don't have any rules that set requirements to be met. Thus, they can be made any time they are called for. This is the 1 difference that matters. This is the difference between paralyzing touch and shocking grasp and why one can be an opportunity attack while the other can't.
The language in Chapter 10 describing the "casting time" requirement in a spell description is no more or less permissive than when that rule is first introduced in Chapter 9 for the [Tooltip Not Found] action. They are the same requirement, presented in two relevant places, not Chapter 10 providing an additional restriction on spellcasting action economy that was not already in place in Chapter 9.
Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.
Neither of those sections have the language "you must use the [Tooltip Not Found] action and only that action to cast a spell," so I'm not really sure why you're implying that that is something that is said about spells but not about weapon attacks? The [Tooltip Not Found] action is not referenced even once in Chapter 10, despite you implying that you DID find such a rule about spells?
Yes it's true: Chapter 9 provides that a weapon attack can be made by an Attack action, but does not say that a weapon attack "requires" an action, bonus action, or reaction, or that a player "must" use an action, bonus action, or reaction to make the attack. Is that meaningfully different from the language in [Tooltip Not Found]? No, I don't believe so. Do you honestly take that to mean that a weapon attack does not "require" an action, bonus action, or reaction, as individually specified by the ability allowing you to make that attack? Spell attacks are defined by their spells, weapon attacks are defined by their ability/whateveryouwannacallit (god I wish "action" didn't mean both Action-type and action-economy and action-activity, 5E is hard to talk about)....
Iin either event 5E permits you to make the attacks you are permitted to make in the way you are permitted to make them. Don't hide the ball on this permissive vs. restrictive language, you and I both know that in 5E combat actions are restrictive: in combat, you can take the actions presented in Chapter 9, and anything that you might attempt that isn't provided for only insofar as the DM has the authority for novel actions to "tell you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure." Everything you can do in combat, you can do because something in Chapter 9 tells you that you can do it, or another class feature or something elsewhere adds it to the list.
The "regular" actions allowed in combat are Attack, [Tooltip Not Found], Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, and [Tooltip Not Found]. Only one of those allows weapon attacks to be made (Attack) and only one of those allows spells to be cast ([Tooltip Not Found]). But mere moments later we're introduced to other actions that provide exceptions! Two-Weapon Fighting, to allow you to make a melee or thrown weapon attack as a Bonus Action if triggers are met, even though you can't normally use a bonus action to make a weapon attack! And Opportunity Attack, to make a melee [weapon or spell] attack as a Reaction if triggers are met, even though you can't normally use a reaction to make a melee [weapon or spell] attack!
Nothing says that Opportunity Attacks are only weapon attacks. Nothing provides that casting a spell the normal way is any harder to provide an exception/alternative to than making an attack the normal way.
Unless you can quote some language we haven't been over yet, this is coming down to arguing RAI (debatable) vs. RAW (pretty clearly open to OA Spell Attacks). But with every passing year from the publishing of the PHB and Basic Rules, the failure of errata to address core rule interactions like this might be seen as persuasive evidence against the very existence of such RAI.
Sorry, the restrictions placed on spells in Ch10 are not different than the restrictions placed on spells in Ch9. That wasn't even the argument I was making. I agree, the fact that spells are very clearly restricted by casting time in both chapters. That said, I will now cut out all of your argument which does not address what I said... Actually none of this reply actually refutes my argument (might want to give it another go), but here are the parts I have something to say about:
Yes it's true: Chapter 9 provides that a weapon attack can be made by an Attack action, but does not say that a weapon attack "requires" an action, bonus action, or reaction, or that a player "must" use an action, bonus action, or reaction to make the attack. Is that meaningfully different from the language in Cast a Spell? No, I don't believe so. Do you honestly take that to mean that a weapon attack does not "require" an action, bonus action, or reaction, as individually specified by the ability allowing you to make that attack? Spell attacks are defined by their spells, weapon attacks are defined by their ability/whateveryouwannacallit (god I wish "action" didn't mean both Action-type and action-economy and action-activity, 5E is hard to talk about)....
I'm not entirely sure what your argument is here. You basically agree that weapon attacks are not restricted by the type of action you are taking. Then say that that is not different from [Tooltip Not Found]. Which is correct, but not comparable. Cast a spell is an action option (you are right about terminology being annoying), weapon attack is not. Also, saying spell attacks are defined by their spells isn't entirely true as there are spell attacks that are not spells. Rather a spell may define a spell attack.
In either event 5E permits you to make the attacks you are permitted to make in the way you are permitted to make them. Don't hide the ball on this permissive vs. restrictive language, you and I both know that in 5E combat actions are restrictive: in combat, you can take the actions presented in Chapter 9, and anything that you might attempt that isn't provided for only insofar as the DM has the authority for novel actions to "tell you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure." Everything you can do in combat, you can do because something in Chapter 9 tells you that you can do it, or another class feature or something elsewhere adds it to the list.
Here you are just exemplifying what makes the combat rules permissive in that you can't do anything the rules don't permit you to. That is why they all have wording like "you can/may." Restrictive rules use words like "must/require" among others. Both restrictive and permissive rules must be met to do anything.
The "regular" actions allowed in combat are Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, and Use an Object. Only one of those allows weapon attacks to be made (Attack) and only one of those allows spells to be cast (Cast a Spell). But mere moments later we're introduced to other actions that provide exceptions! Two-Weapon Fighting, to allow you to make a melee or thrown weapon attack as a Bonus Action if triggers are met, even though you can't normally use a bonus action to make a weapon attack! And Opportunity Attack, to make a melee [weapon or spell] attack as a Reaction if triggers are met, even though you can't normally use a reaction to make a melee [weapon or spell] attack!
The only disagreement I have with this part is that two weapon fighting and opportunity attacks are not exceptions (because they don't go against other rules), they are additional permissions.
Also of note, opportunity attack permits you to make a spell attack, not cast a spell. What is important is that the spell attack of attack spells do not exist on their own, they are the effect of the spell. You must cast the spell in order for the effect to occur, the effect can not be used without casting the spell.
Nothing says that Opportunity Attacks are only weapon attacks. Nothing provides that casting a spell the normal way is any harder to provide an exception/alternative to than making an attack the normal way.
Other spell attacks do exist outside of spells, that is why the rule us worded the way it is. Spell attack ≠ Cast a spell.
Unless you can quote some language we haven't been over yet, this is coming down to arguing RAI (debatable) vs. RAW (pretty clearly open to OA Spell Attacks). But with every passing year from the publishing of the PHB and Basic Rules, the failure of errata to address core rule interactions like this might be seen as persuasive evidence against the very existence of such RAI.
I mean I already quoted the rule that says you can't cast action spells with your reaction, and you didn't actually counter that point. You just said "it also says that in combat rules," acted like being double wrong was your victory, and continued onto some consequential points that don't directly refute my point about the quoted rule in any way.
But I guess here are a few more quotes proving that spell effects are in fact effects of spells and can't be invoked without the cast a spell (bonus/re)action:
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target.
There is even one about how the spell attack provided by the spell is part of the spell's effect.
[Edit] This reply put me half an hour behind at work (I started it because I was ahead). And you didn't even address my point from the last post.
Apologies if my reply was too long and concealed my point.
You said, “I could not find any such rule about weapon attacks being restricted to the attack action.” My response is, “Yeah, and I cannot find any such rule about spells being restricted to the Cast a Spell action, samesies.”
You quoted language about action economy, but seem to be trying to use it to say something about which actions allow spells to be cast, that casting a spell MUST be the Cast a Spell action. I agree that Cast a Spell is the only basic action type we are presented that allows you to make cast a spell providing a spell attack, JUST like Attack is the only basic action type we are presented that allows you to make a weapon attack... until Opportunity Attack comes along and expands our options for both.
Did you quote the wrong language? I don’t understand what the smoking gun you’re pointing to in #14 is that should be making your case.
Apologies if my reply was too long and concealed my point.
You said, “I could not find any such rule about weapon attacks being restricted to the attack action.” My response is, “Yeah, and I cannot find any such rule about spells being restricted to the Cast a Spell action, samesies.”
You quoted language about action economy, but seem to be trying to use it to say something about which actions allow spells to be cast, that casting a spell MUST be the Cast a Spell action. I agree that Cast a Spell is the only basic action type we are presented that allows you to make cast a spell providing a spell attack, JUST like Attack is the only basic action type we are presented that allows you to make a weapon attack... until Opportunity Attack comes along and expands our options for both.
Did you quote the wrong language? I don’t understand what the smoking gun you’re pointing to in #14 is that should be making your case.
You are wrong here. AoO allows you to make an attack. It does not allow you to cast a spell. You are free to use any single melee attack you currently have access to at the appropriate range, be it an unarmed strike, a swing of the sword you are currently wielding, a bite of your dragon teeth (if you are a dragon), or the spell attack sting of your lich's paralysing touch (if you happen to be a Lich).
All player characters that currently exist do not have any melee spell attacks available to them except during the actual casting of a spell. An AoO does not let you start the casting of a spell to get access to a melee spell attack. You just plain don't have those attacks available.
An argument could be made for Vampiric Touch and Flame Blade, since those do create melee spell attacks which you can use later. It's stated that you can only really use them on your turn as an action, but I think I personally would allow them as an AoO too. It sits well in the spirit of the rules.
Apologies if my reply was too long and concealed my point.
You said, “I could not find any such rule about weapon attacks being restricted to the attack action.” My response is, “Yeah, and I cannot find any such rule about spells being restricted to the Cast a Spell action, samesies.”
You quoted language about action economy, but seem to be trying to use it to say something about which actions allow spells to be cast, that casting a spell MUST be the Cast a Spell action. I agree that Cast a Spell is the only basic action type we are presented that allows you to make cast a spell providing a spell attack, JUST like Attack is the only basic action type we are presented that allows you to make a weapon attack... until Opportunity Attack comes along and expands our options for both.
Did you quote the wrong language? I don’t understand what the smoking gun you’re pointing to in #14 is that should be making your case.
The rules for [Tooltip Not Found] outright says it is not really just an action. But I wasn't even referring to it being locked to a specific type of action (even though anytime you are casting a spell, that is in fact the action you are taking).
All spells are restricted by their casting times. You can't cast an action spell as an attack of opportunity, because that is not the timing. Nothing in opportunity attacks say that spells with a casting time of 1 action can be used. That is required text in order to do so, that is why war caster has it.
I don't know why my quoting of the casting time rules has made you so focused on the cast a spell action being an action option and not the rule I have quoted. This is the second time now that you have completely missed my very simple point: "you can't cast a spell at a time other than its casting time." And you can tell when a rule is making an exception to this rule because it will mention this rule (as rule exceptions always do).
You're not really addressing the problem here head on. Here's the link of logic for weapon attacks, you tell me where you disagree specifically:
Chapter 9, Making an Attack, Melee Attacks: A melee attack typically involves weapons, but "a few spells also involve making a melee attack."
Chapter 10, Spellcasting, Casting a Spell: You can cast a spell with whatever action economy the spell describes.
These are the problem.
First, the spell may involve making a melee attack, not is a melee attack.
Second, the rule on Spellcasting requires the Action the Spell describes to cast. As Opportunity attacks specify that they use your Reaction "you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature", so a Spell can't be used in this unless a specific rule says otherwise.
(See War Caster: When a hostile creature’s movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature. (Note how it doesn't say that you cast a spell as an attack of opportunity but that when you could make an attack of Opportunity, instead you can cast a spell (outside of the general spellcasting rules)))
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Setup: Player moves out of range from a Goblin Boss creating an Opportunity Attack for the creature.
The following is in the Goblin Boss stat Block
Question: I know to take the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature but if I'm using a weapon that is tagged as Multiattack do I get to make both attack rolls or just one attack with the weapon?
you can only get 1 attack, multiattack is an action on the statblock, not a reaction
NNCHRIS: SOUL THIEF, MASTER OF THE ARCANE, AND KING OF NEW YORKNN
Gdl Creator of Ilheia and her Knights of the Fallen Stars ldG
Lesser Student of Technomancy [undergrad student in computer science]
Supporter of the 2014 rules, and a MASSIVE Homebrewer. Come to me all ye who seek salvation in wording thy brews!
Open to homebrew trades at any time!! Or feel free to request HB, and Ill see if I can get it done for ya!
Characters (Outdated)
Multiattack is when the monster uses an Action on its own turn, the same as Extra Attack for a Player Character. An Opportunity Attack is its own separate thing with its own tule that states a single attack.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yep, you highlight the same text I applied in my question. Thanks for validating this for me.
Got it. thanks for clearing that up.
Agree with the above, that Multiattack is an "action," and not itself a "melee attack," and thus isn't an eligible selection for an Opportunity Attack (but would be, for a Readied action).
Two observations though:
First, I don't really know how I'd survey all printed monsters to confirm or deny whether any do this already... but all it would take is a Monster action to be phrased as something like "Rip and Tear. Melee Weapon Attack: the creature makes two claw attacks..." to (inadvertently?) make a Multiattack-like action into something they could do as an OA. I don't know that "melee attack" is sufficiently defined in the PHB to prevent the MM labeling two linked attacks as a single attack, if poor playtesting were to miss it.
Second, I'm very surprised and concerned to see that basic Opportunity Attack rules don't specify "melee weapon attack"?!?! Unless there's other language out there I'm missing, what stops Booming Blade from already being Opportunity Attack eligible, even without War Caster, since it's a "melee attack"????
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There are no monster attacks that are listed that way (I've given monster listings a few passes over the years, I'd remember something that unusual). That example also goes against the standard formatting they have been using to list monster attacks. There are a fair few that do additional damage usually after a save, if there were any that allowed a second attack, it would be after a hit.
The difference is a melee spell attack can be used as an opportunity attack, but casting a spell can't (unless allowed by a feature). Spells have their own rules that apply in addition to attack rules.
For example, the lich's paralyzing touch is a melee spell attack that can be used as an opportunity attack.
I think that the slippery slope between a Giant Frog having a Bite and a Swallow that interact, versus a future frog sneaking in with Swallow being described within Bite's block, is a real possibility to keep your eye out for. I'll trust you that it isn't currently an issue, but plenty of monster attacks apply a secondary effect or save after hitting with an attack, isn't outside the realm of possibility that a similar feature could be written to provide a secondary attack after hitting with an attack.
I'm not sure I agree that Chapter 10 is enough to prevent spells being cast as Opportunity Attacks if they're "melee attack"s. I mean, there's this...
... which suggests that a spell will tell you if it can be cast as a Reaction. But, that isn't really the whole story, since War Caster lets you use a spell as a Reaction that the spell description doesn't describe. Why does War Caster operate as a feature allowing such casting, but the Opportunity Attack section doesn't? I get that Ready is its own special thing, you're loading a full regular Action into a Reaction, but War Caster doesn't seem all that different from Opportunity Attack in specifically describing a way that specific types of spells might be cast as a Reaction?
And in Chapter 9, the PHB doesn't even commit that Cast a Spell is always necessarily an Action (which indeed, we know to be true since we routinely use it as a Bonus or a Reaction, based on spell description):
So, where's the language that provides you can't cast a "melee attack" spell as an Opportunity Attack, when Opportunity Attack tells you that you can make a "melee attack" in response to a trigger? Opportunity Attack doesn't specifically tell us that we can use "weapon attack"s but obviously allows them, so why is it any different for "spell attack"s?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
War Caster is there to give you an additional option for opportunity attacks. Your character has specialized in fighting in the heat of the moment that they are now capable of reacting with single action spells as a reaction, provided they are within 5 feet of the target and that person moves out of range. War Caster specifically states that the only spells you can cast in this instance are ones that normally have a casting time of 1 action and can only affect one creature.
You’re referring to Booming Blade, but even those spells are using the “Casting a Spell” action, and thus are allowable by War Caster, not allowable by normal opportunity attack standards. The language already exists that you can’t cast those spells as an opportunity attack, unless you specifically have the War Caster feat or the spell you want to cast has a normal casting time of 1 Reaction.
You're not really addressing the problem here head on. Here's the link of logic for weapon attacks, you tell me where you disagree specifically:
OK to use melee weapon attacks to make that attack? Yes, clearly, despite Chapter 9 having defined a weapon attack as belonging to the Attack action. Opportunity Attack is now a new action we're introduced to, which uses a reaction following a trigger, by which one might make a weapon attack separate from the Attack action.
Spoiler alert... it looks pretty much the same for spell attacks.
OK to use melee spell attacks to make that attack? Apparently yes, because the logic chain of casting a spell attack with the Opportunity Attack action appears to me to be no more or less supported than that of making a weapon attack with the Opportunity Attack despite Chapter 9 having defined a weapon attack as belonging to the Attack action.
Both melee weapon attacks and melee spell attacks are melee attacks. The melee attack section explicitly mentions both types of melee attacks only sentences earlier than the Opportunity Attack section, demonstrating that this isn't a case of "well clearly we're only talking about weapon attacks in this sub-chapter." The Opportunity Attack section uses general "melee attack" language with no mention of weapons, despite having the room and vocabulary to do so.
If Opportunity Attacks were meant to be a "melee weapon attack" only, I have a hard time rationalizing why they wouldn't say so. Unless there's other language somewhere else that you can point to, I'm chalking this up to "surprising, but definitively RAW."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I do make a habit of reading (skimming) new entries when they come out, so I'll let you know if I see one.
But even if there is an attack that provides follow up attacks in its description (similar to chaos bolt for example), that would be allowed by the opportunity attack rules. It is 1 attack that triggers another, not a 2 attack action (as multiattack is).
War caster specifically changes the rules for casting spells, opportunity attack rules don't. Normally, you can't cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action as a reaction because the spellcasting rules prevent that.
The language that provides you can't cast an action melee spell as an opportunity attack is in the rules you just quoted: "Each spell has a casting time, which specifies whether the caster must use an action, a reaction, minutes, or even hours to cast the spell."
The opportunity attack rules do not have language that specifically overrules this.
Weapon attacks don't have any additional rules that restricts when they can be made (as spells do with casting time), so weapon attacks can be used whenever a rule says it can without needing another rule to agree.
This is actually pretty neat. The Giant Frog can opportunity attack with a bite which causes the victim to be grappled. So the target can't get away. I like that.
"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
Weapon Attacks absolutely do have additional rules that restrict when they can be made. Chapter 9, Actions in Combat, specifically tells you that it takes the Attack action to make one weapon attack. No other general ability to make weapon attacks is provided. Any time you make a weapon attack and it isn't one weapon attack as part of the Attack action, you're operating under and exception or additional feature expanding on that default ability. I'm not sure how you can plausibly argue that Chapter 9 is any less explicit that weapon attacks take the Attack than spells take the [Tooltip Not Found]. And yet, Opportunity Attack comes along and provides an exception for weapon attacks (without saying its unique to weapon attacks), but DOESN'T for spell attacks (without saying it doesn't apply to spell attacks), only two paragraphs after defining the general term "melee attack" to include both????? Give me a break, really, that's just not credible.
The logic used to carve out Opportunity Attack as an alternative to/exception to Attack is pretty much exactly the same as that which would be used for [Tooltip Not Found]. I don't buy the "War Caster is an exception, Opportunity Attack isn't" argument, there's no such thing as an "exception" tag in 5E, it's just a matter of finding general rules (you make weapon attacks with Attack, you make spell attacks with [Tooltip Not Found]), and then finding a more specific circumstance that can change that (except, you can make either with an Opportunity Attack, if they're melee attacks and the enemy triggers you by leaving your reach without Disengaging). That's an exception, and its a RAW one.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I could not find any such rule about weapon attacks being restricted to the attack action. There is a rule that says you can make a weapon attack with the attack action, but that is permissive and not restrictive.
Spells have restrictive rules. Specifically:
Weapon attacks don't have any rules that set requirements to be met. Thus, they can be made any time they are called for. This is the 1 difference that matters. This is the difference between paralyzing touch and shocking grasp and why one can be an opportunity attack while the other can't.
The language in Chapter 10 describing the "casting time" requirement in a spell description is no more or less permissive than when that rule is first introduced in Chapter 9 for the [Tooltip Not Found] action. They are the same requirement, presented in two relevant places, not Chapter 10 providing an additional restriction on spellcasting action economy that was not already in place in Chapter 9.
Chapter 9:
Chapter 10:
Neither of those sections have the language "you must use the [Tooltip Not Found] action and only that action to cast a spell," so I'm not really sure why you're implying that that is something that is said about spells but not about weapon attacks? The [Tooltip Not Found] action is not referenced even once in Chapter 10, despite you implying that you DID find such a rule about spells?
Yes it's true: Chapter 9 provides that a weapon attack can be made by an Attack action, but does not say that a weapon attack "requires" an action, bonus action, or reaction, or that a player "must" use an action, bonus action, or reaction to make the attack. Is that meaningfully different from the language in [Tooltip Not Found]? No, I don't believe so. Do you honestly take that to mean that a weapon attack does not "require" an action, bonus action, or reaction, as individually specified by the ability allowing you to make that attack? Spell attacks are defined by their spells, weapon attacks are defined by their ability/whateveryouwannacallit (god I wish "action" didn't mean both Action-type and action-economy and action-activity, 5E is hard to talk about)....
Iin either event 5E permits you to make the attacks you are permitted to make in the way you are permitted to make them. Don't hide the ball on this permissive vs. restrictive language, you and I both know that in 5E combat actions are restrictive: in combat, you can take the actions presented in Chapter 9, and anything that you might attempt that isn't provided for only insofar as the DM has the authority for novel actions to "tell you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure." Everything you can do in combat, you can do because something in Chapter 9 tells you that you can do it, or another class feature or something elsewhere adds it to the list.
The "regular" actions allowed in combat are Attack, [Tooltip Not Found], Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, and [Tooltip Not Found]. Only one of those allows weapon attacks to be made (Attack) and only one of those allows spells to be cast ([Tooltip Not Found]). But mere moments later we're introduced to other actions that provide exceptions! Two-Weapon Fighting, to allow you to make a melee or thrown weapon attack as a Bonus Action if triggers are met, even though you can't normally use a bonus action to make a weapon attack! And Opportunity Attack, to make a melee [weapon or spell] attack as a Reaction if triggers are met, even though you can't normally use a reaction to make a melee [weapon or spell] attack!
Nothing says that Opportunity Attacks are only weapon attacks. Nothing provides that casting a spell the normal way is any harder to provide an exception/alternative to than making an attack the normal way.
Unless you can quote some language we haven't been over yet, this is coming down to arguing RAI (debatable) vs. RAW (pretty clearly open to OA Spell Attacks). But with every passing year from the publishing of the PHB and Basic Rules, the failure of errata to address core rule interactions like this might be seen as persuasive evidence against the very existence of such RAI.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sorry, the restrictions placed on spells in Ch10 are not different than the restrictions placed on spells in Ch9. That wasn't even the argument I was making. I agree, the fact that spells are very clearly restricted by casting time in both chapters. That said, I will now cut out all of your argument which does not address what I said... Actually none of this reply actually refutes my argument (might want to give it another go), but here are the parts I have something to say about:
I'm not entirely sure what your argument is here. You basically agree that weapon attacks are not restricted by the type of action you are taking. Then say that that is not different from [Tooltip Not Found]. Which is correct, but not comparable. Cast a spell is an action option (you are right about terminology being annoying), weapon attack is not. Also, saying spell attacks are defined by their spells isn't entirely true as there are spell attacks that are not spells. Rather a spell may define a spell attack.
Here you are just exemplifying what makes the combat rules permissive in that you can't do anything the rules don't permit you to. That is why they all have wording like "you can/may." Restrictive rules use words like "must/require" among others. Both restrictive and permissive rules must be met to do anything.
The only disagreement I have with this part is that two weapon fighting and opportunity attacks are not exceptions (because they don't go against other rules), they are additional permissions.
Also of note, opportunity attack permits you to make a spell attack, not cast a spell. What is important is that the spell attack of attack spells do not exist on their own, they are the effect of the spell. You must cast the spell in order for the effect to occur, the effect can not be used without casting the spell.
Other spell attacks do exist outside of spells, that is why the rule us worded the way it is. Spell attack ≠ Cast a spell.
I mean I already quoted the rule that says you can't cast action spells with your reaction, and you didn't actually counter that point. You just said "it also says that in combat rules," acted like being double wrong was your victory, and continued onto some consequential points that don't directly refute my point about the quoted rule in any way.
But I guess here are a few more quotes proving that spell effects are in fact effects of spells and can't be invoked without the cast a spell (bonus/re)action:
There is even one about how the spell attack provided by the spell is part of the spell's effect.
[Edit] This reply put me half an hour behind at work (I started it because I was ahead). And you didn't even address my point from the last post.
Apologies if my reply was too long and concealed my point.
You said, “I could not find any such rule about weapon attacks being restricted to the attack action.” My response is, “Yeah, and I cannot find any such rule about spells being restricted to the Cast a Spell action, samesies.”
You quoted language about action economy, but seem to be trying to use it to say something about which actions allow spells to be cast, that casting a spell MUST be the Cast a Spell action. I agree that Cast a Spell is the only basic action type we are presented that allows you to make cast a spell providing a spell attack, JUST like Attack is the only basic action type we are presented that allows you to make a weapon attack... until Opportunity Attack comes along and expands our options for both.
Did you quote the wrong language? I don’t understand what the smoking gun you’re pointing to in #14 is that should be making your case.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are wrong here. AoO allows you to make an attack. It does not allow you to cast a spell. You are free to use any single melee attack you currently have access to at the appropriate range, be it an unarmed strike, a swing of the sword you are currently wielding, a bite of your dragon teeth (if you are a dragon), or the spell attack sting of your lich's paralysing touch (if you happen to be a Lich).
All player characters that currently exist do not have any melee spell attacks available to them except during the actual casting of a spell. An AoO does not let you start the casting of a spell to get access to a melee spell attack. You just plain don't have those attacks available.
An argument could be made for Vampiric Touch and Flame Blade, since those do create melee spell attacks which you can use later. It's stated that you can only really use them on your turn as an action, but I think I personally would allow them as an AoO too. It sits well in the spirit of the rules.
The rules for [Tooltip Not Found] outright says it is not really just an action. But I wasn't even referring to it being locked to a specific type of action (even though anytime you are casting a spell, that is in fact the action you are taking).
All spells are restricted by their casting times. You can't cast an action spell as an attack of opportunity, because that is not the timing. Nothing in opportunity attacks say that spells with a casting time of 1 action can be used. That is required text in order to do so, that is why war caster has it.
I don't know why my quoting of the casting time rules has made you so focused on the cast a spell action being an action option and not the rule I have quoted. This is the second time now that you have completely missed my very simple point: "you can't cast a spell at a time other than its casting time." And you can tell when a rule is making an exception to this rule because it will mention this rule (as rule exceptions always do).
These are the problem.
First, the spell may involve making a melee attack, not is a melee attack.
Second, the rule on Spellcasting requires the Action the Spell describes to cast. As Opportunity attacks specify that they use your Reaction "you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature", so a Spell can't be used in this unless a specific rule says otherwise.
(See War Caster: When a hostile creature’s movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature. (Note how it doesn't say that you cast a spell as an attack of opportunity but that when you could make an attack of Opportunity, instead you can cast a spell (outside of the general spellcasting rules)))