The 2024 PHB glossary makes a distinction between Attack, Spell Attack Roll and Attack Roll. Hex and hunters mark both use “attack roll” verbiage, CME uses attack, which in the glossary is described as a weapon attack or unarmed strike. CME shouldn’t proc off of spell attacks.
Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Attack Roll
An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also chapter 1 (“D20 Tests”).
Spell Attack
A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See alsochapter 7 (“Casting Spells”).
CME
You conjure spirits from the Elemental Planes that flit around you in a 15-foot Emanation for the duration. Until the spell ends, any attack you make deals an extra 2d8 damage when you hit a creature in the Emanation. This damage is Acid, Cold, Fire, or Lightning (your choice when you make the attack).
HEX
You place a curse on a creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 Necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack roll. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. The target has Disadvantage on ability checks made with the chosen ability.
HUNTERS MARK
You magically mark one creature you can see within range as your quarry. Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 Force damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack roll. You also have Advantage on any Wisdom (Perception or Survival) check you make to find it.
CME works with spell attacks.
Making an Attack, page 25: When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack. Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has the following structure..."
I’m starting to worry you aren’t even reading this thing. Where are my fellow DMs at? ;)
Alright now I’m excited. I come here for the legaleaze baby. That whether is in acknowledgment of the structure of the action, but if you follow that “Attack” definition we see the same glossary heading outlining an attack as a strike with a weapon or unarmed strike. The text you’re quoting again uses that “attack roll” distinction. I would argue that this “making an attack” structure text is more about the order of operations than the definition of what an Attack is. That definition is elsewhere.
I think you’ve got reasonable doubt from that block of text, but overall following the definitions more strongly supports what I’m arguing. As with all things it is gonna come down to DM discretion, and WOTC has never released anything that wasn’t a little nebulous. If our goal as a DM is to help balance CME, I have gotta say, it specifically uses “attack” where other spells use “attack roll” and that attack definition would suggest that its martial attacks only.
End of the day, man it’s good to be back getting semantic in the threads about a game I love, gang.
It's talking about attacks. Making an attack includes spell attacks. It's written right there. I'm quoting a text that talks about what it is to "make an attack"; which is what CME says. You are quoting texts that describe what the Attack action is, an Attack roll, and a Spell attack. If we want to know what an "attack" is, then we look for the definition of "attack". You go the glossary, it tells you page 25, you go to page 25, it says that attacking with a melee weapon, ranged weapon, or spell is an attack.
It comes down to DM discretion in the sense that, if they follow the PHB, they'll rule that a spell attack is an attack. If they rule like you say then they're houseruling. I don't know what's so complicated. Read the text that I quoted again. It's very specifically describing what making an attack means, and it includes spells. What's so complicated about that?
Balancing has nothing to do with this. Not allowing spell attacks to work with CME for balance purposes is fine, but it's houseruling.
Actually, using your own quote:
Attack Roll
An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also chapter 1 (“D20 Tests”).
It says that an attack roll represents making an attack with a weapon, Unarmed Strike, or a spell. So, if you make an attack roll it means that you made an attack, which is what procs CME. How is this even remotely difficult to understand?
thats an attack roll, not an attack, separately defined.
it talks “about” attacks, it does not define them. They have a definition for that. It talks about the order of operations for making an attack, and acknowledges that it is the same order that is used for spell attack rolls. Which are separately defined.
you’re cherry picking a piece of text that isn’t intended to define anything, but speaks purely to how to order various actions. If you want to find what is classified as an “Attack” vs an “Attack Roll” they have definitions for those both. Using the verbiage they have defined, that appears in both forms in different spells, CME procs off of “Attacks” not “Spell Attack Rolls.” You’re ignoring definitions expressly written into this book to be used with the orders and interactions throughout in order to reverse engineer a separate definition for what an attack is from a block of text not intended to define anything.
It's very simple. You say I'm cherry picking a piece of text that isn't intended to define anything? Fine, let's go to the one that does. We're trying to define what procs CME. The spell description of CME says "any attack you make". Great, now we need to define what it means to "make an attack". Well, the most obvious section is the one titled "Making an Attack". That section very explicitly included spell attacks.
You, on the other side, are quoting the Attack action section, which is completely irrelevant. You're also quoting the section Attack roll, also irrelevant. The description of CME never mentions the Attack action nor Attack rolls. It only mentions Making an Attack, so that's the term you should be looking at. And that description includes spell attacks, it's clear as day.
We need a jury of impartial cleric mains here.
You are relying heavily on page 25 and let’s have a look.
MakinganAttack
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack.Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make anattack . Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make anattack roll as part of a spell, anattack has the following structure:
“When you take the attack action you make an attack” Taking the attack action is making an attack.
“Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make anattack.” You may make an attack using your bonus action or reaction in some cases.
“Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make anattack roll as part of a spell, anattack has the following structure.” Or make an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has the following structure.
This does not define what an attack is, it outlines a structure for making an attack, one that is also used for spell attack rolls. It does however reaffirm that taking the attack action IS making an attack. When discussing spells however it again refers to the Spell Attack Roll, before returning the the intended structure or making an attack, it does not anywhere say “when you make a spell attack roll you make an attack” as we see with the attack action above in the same text.
It does say that making an attack roll as part of a spell is an attack. Why would they include that in the section "Making an Attack" if it wasn't actually making an attack?
The Attack action is making an attack? Yes? We already knew that? That's not the point at all. It says that when you take the Attack action you make an attack, but it also says that some other actions also let you make an attack. So it's not exclusive. Talking about the Attack action is completely irrelevant.
At this point I'm convinced that you're trolling. There's no way that there's someone who actually can't understand this. It's extremely simple, it's not even the nebulous stuff that WotC does, like you said. This one is super, super easy to understand. You have to be trolling.
If you're not trolling and you're actually incapable of understanding this, then this discussion is completely pointless. We're discussing the definition of a term, I give you the definition of the term in the book, and you choose to ignore it and then quote definitions of other things.
In either case, it's pointless to keep talking to you about this, so I'm gonna stop here. This isn't even the topic of the thread. I just wanted to make it clear you're spreading misinformation for the sake of other people reading this, especially beginners. I already did that, so I'm done. You can houserule as much as you want and call it RAW, I don't care.
What on earth is going on in this thread? Why are you pedantically arguing about obvious well established things? If you make any kind of attack roll that thing that triggered it was an attack. The only place there is any possible ambiguity is Grappling because Grappling is now part of the unarmed strike rules but does not involve an attack roll. But even there I think it's pretty clear it is not considered "an attack" since there is no attack roll involved.
You would think that people like this don't exist, right? But then they show up.
What on earth is going on in this thread? Why are you pedantically arguing about obvious well established things? If you make any kind of attack roll that thing that triggered it was an attack. The only place there is any possible ambiguity is Grappling because Grappling is now part of the unarmed strike rules but does not involve an attack roll. But even there I think it's pretty clear it is not considered "an attack" since there is no attack roll involved.
Well,
A creature can grapple another creature. Characters typically grapple by using an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey. However a grapple is initiated, it follows these rules. See also “Unarmed Strike” and “Grappled.”
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
grapple would be an attack….
as for the pedantry, it’s a new book with new conventions. I’m arguing to establish an understanding for those conventions. Don’t worry, this won’t affect hex and hunters mark, they explicitly say Attack or Spell Attack Roll.
You are relying heavily on page 25 and let’s have a look.
MakinganAttack
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack.Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make anattack . Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make anattack roll as part of a spell, anattack has the following structure:
“When you take the attack action you make an attack” Taking the attack action is making an attack.
“Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make anattack.” You may make an attack using your bonus action or reaction in some cases.
“Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make anattack roll as part of a spell, anattack has the following structure.” Or make an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has the following structure.
This does not define what an attack is, it outlines a structure for making an attack, one that is also used for spell attack rolls. It does however reaffirm that taking the attack action IS making an attack. When discussing spells however it again refers to the Spell Attack Roll, before returning the the intended structure or making an attack, it does not anywhere say “when you make a spell attack roll you make an attack” as we see with the attack action above in the same text.
You're trying to argue here that "making an attack roll as part of a spell" does not involve "making an attack", in a sentence that says "whether you do X, Y, or Z, an attack has the following structure..." X, Y, and Z are all attacks. It includes them in the category right there.
Now, part of the problem is 5e's original sin: the decision to make "attack" and "Attack action" separate but related terms of art, which is guaranteed to lead to confusion. Nonetheless, spell attacks are attacks, just not the Attack action. This isn't ambiguous. And since Conjure Minor Elementals does not limit itself to attacks that are part of the Attack action. it applies to attacks that are part of the Magic action.
Didn’t mean to ruffle so many feathers folks. I was trying to outline a reading that would work to balance CME while as far as I’ve noticed so far affecting absolutely nothing else.
My bad.
So how are you ruling Eldritch/ Scorching in regards to CME at your tables?
Action surge doesn’t double magic: “You can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action, except the Magicaction.”
and
Nick doesn’t double: “When you make the extra attack of the Lightproperty, you can make it as part of the Attackaction instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.”
I’m starting to worry you lot aren’t even reading this thing. Where are my fellow DMs at?
sorry to disagree with you but you fail to notice that i said this apply's to Valor bards & Bladesingers since they can replace one of their attacks ( w/o needing to use the magic action ) with a cantrip you know ( eldritch blast )
quote: from Bladesinger
Extra Attack
Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
Also Action surge will imo and most others opionen double with nick, but even if not we are talking about 1 attack out of 13 ..... thats negletible also as most already said, scorching ray will apply, and then we are talking about ( max ) : 6+9 + AS 5 ( attack, extra attck->Eldritch Blast, Nick) + Scorching Ray ( 8th lvl ) + AS ( attack, extra attack->Eldricht Blast ) : 4x 1d6 + 5 + 12d8+ 8x 1d10 + 5 + 12d8+ 9x 2d6 + 12d8 if you got the time to buff up, add in bestow curse at 5th lvl then you add another +1d8 on each attack 4x63 + 8x65 + 9x60 = 1312 x 0,6 ( Hit chance of 60% ) ~ 790 dpR
with that dpR who needs CC ? if you change CME to upcast with +1d8 we are talking about : 450 about dpR still way too much
since font of magic doesn't require any kind of action, he can just use it to regain its 2 SP and do the same thing next round ( w/o AS ) with a 7th lvl spell ......
Actually different question and I promise I’m not trolling, would you all deem the damage from something like fireball to be an attack for the purposes of CME. Fireball does not include a spell attack roll, which precludes it from the working definition from “Making an Attack.”
Actually different question and I promise I’m not trolling, would you all deem the damage from something like fireball to be an attack for the purposes of CME. Fireball does not include a spell attack roll, which precludes it from the working definition from “Making an Attack.”
since it doesn't require you to hit the target with a dice roll ( attack roll ) but uses a saving throw for me it would not get the damage "bonus" from CME and other spells
Action surge doesn’t double magic: “You can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action, except the Magicaction.”
and
Nick doesn’t double: “When you make the extra attack of the Lightproperty, you can make it as part of the Attackaction instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.”
I’m starting to worry you lot aren’t even reading this thing. Where are my fellow DMs at?
sorry to disagree with you but you fail to notice that i said this apply's to Valor bards & Bladesingers since they can replace one of their attacks ( w/o needing to use the magic action ) with a cantrip you know ( eldritch blast )
quote: from Bladesinger
Extra Attack
Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
Also Action surge will imo and most others opionen double with nick, but even if not we are talking about 1 attack out of 13 ..... thats negletible also as most already said, scorching ray will apply, and then we are talking about ( max ) : 6+9 + AS 5 ( attack, extra attck->Eldritch Blast, Nick) + Scorching Ray ( 8th lvl ) + AS ( attack, extra attack->Eldricht Blast ) : 4x 1d6 + 5 + 12d8+ 8x 1d10 + 5 + 12d8+ 9x 2d6 + 12d8 if you got the time to buff up, add in bestow curse at 5th lvl then you add another +1d8 on each attack 4x63 + 8x65 + 9x60 = 1312 x 0,6 ( Hit chance of 60% ) ~ 790 dpR
with that dpR who needs CC ? if you change CME to upcast with +1d8 we are talking about : 450 about dpR still way too much
since font of magic doesn't require any kind of action, he can just use it to regain its 2 SP and do the same thing next round ( w/o AS ) with a 7th lvl spell ......
Hey no worries! I understand I’m here with a hot take.
Action Surge says you can’t use it with the magic action, so you’d need to use your first attack to eldritch, extra, nick, dual. Your surged attack would be weapon, extra attack. Your surged attack string would not have a bonus action for a dual wield and nick states that you can only make one nick attack per turn.
Still a very good combo, but I think not quite as broken as some are worried about, regardless of my clearly unpopular interpretations about spell attacks haha.
EDIT: actually with that valor bard line about replacing an attack you could for sure use eldritch twice, probably. It’s a contest between action surge saying you can’t use magic and valor bard extra attack saying whenever you make an attack you can cast a cantrip.
personally I think I’d go with double eldritch is fair.
Didn’t mean to ruffle so many feathers folks. I was trying to outline a reading that would work to balance CME while as far as I’ve noticed so far affecting absolutely nothing else.
If you think an ability is the problem, changing the rules is unlikely to do anything but give you a second problem.
So how are you ruling Eldritch/ Scorching in regards to CME at your tables?
It works like it says it does. I am extremely unconvinced that it's a problem. (And no, this is not an invitation to try to convince me with high-level multiclass builds burning multiple high-level slots to do silly amounts of damage. If you can produce at-level, at most minorly optimized, scenarios, then I'll listen, because those are the sorts of thing that happen at normal tables.)
Actually different question and I promise I’m not trolling, would you all deem the damage from something like fireball to be an attack for the purposes of CME. Fireball does not include a spell attack roll, which precludes it from the working definition from “Making an Attack.”
It's not an attack. There's no plausible argument that it counts as an attack.
Action Surge says you can’t use it with the magic action, so you’d need to use your first attack to eldritch, extra, nick, dual. Your surged attack would be weapon, extra attack. Your surged attack string would not have a bonus action for a dual wield and nick states that you can only make one nick attack per turn.
EDIT: actually with that valor bard line about replacing an attack you could for sure use eldritch twice, probably. It’s a contest between action surge saying you can’t use magic and valor bard extra attack saying whenever you make an attack you can cast a cantrip.
Casting a spell is not the Magic action, just like making an attack is not the Attack action. If you have means of casting spells as part of the actions Action Surge allows you to make, you can cast the spell. There's no rules conflict to adjudicate.
Didn’t mean to ruffle so many feathers folks. I was trying to outline a reading that would work to balance CME while as far as I’ve noticed so far affecting absolutely nothing else.
If you think an ability is the problem, changing the rules is unlikely to do anything but give you a second problem.
So how are you ruling Eldritch/ Scorching in regards to CME at your tables?
It works like it says it does. I am extremely unconvinced that it's a problem. (And no, this is not an invitation to try to convince me with high-level multiclass builds burning multiple high-level slots to do silly amounts of damage. If you can produce at-level, at most minorly optimized, scenarios, then I'll listen, because those are the sorts of thing that happen at normal tables.)
Actually different question and I promise I’m not trolling, would you all deem the damage from something like fireball to be an attack for the purposes of CME. Fireball does not include a spell attack roll, which precludes it from the working definition from “Making an Attack.”
It's not an attack. There's no plausible argument that it counts as an attack.
Action Surge says you can’t use it with the magic action, so you’d need to use your first attack to eldritch, extra, nick, dual. Your surged attack would be weapon, extra attack. Your surged attack string would not have a bonus action for a dual wield and nick states that you can only make one nick attack per turn.
EDIT: actually with that valor bard line about replacing an attack you could for sure use eldritch twice, probably. It’s a contest between action surge saying you can’t use magic and valor bard extra attack saying whenever you make an attack you can cast a cantrip.
Casting a spell is not the Magic action, just like making an attack is not the Attack action. If you have means of casting spells as part of the actions Action Surge allows you to make, you can cast the spell. There's no rules conflict to adjudicate.
Level 2: Action Surge
You can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action, except the Magicaction.
Once you use this feature, you can’t do so again until you finish a Short or Long Rest. Starting at level 17, you can use it twice before a rest but only once on a turn.
Action
On your turn, you can take one action. Choose which action to take from those below or from the special actions provided by your features. See also chapter 1 (“Actions”). These actions are defined elsewhere in this glossary
Magic [Action]
When you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action or use a feature or magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated.
If you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 minute or longer, you must take the Magic action on each turn of that casting, and you must maintain Concentration while you do so. If your Concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. See also“Concentration.”
I agree that CME is not really an issue, I also agree that fireball shouldn’t proc it. I believe I’ve come around on spell attack rolls procing it.
my presence here is largely because I have a player at my table who expressed to me a concern that CME was broken, as I interpreted it I did not think so. As I will be interpreting it now as per these conversations I still don’t believe it’s an issue, even with some spell synergy.
What on earth is going on in this thread? Why are you pedantically arguing about obvious well established things? If you make any kind of attack roll that thing that triggered it was an attack. The only place there is any possible ambiguity is Grappling because Grappling is now part of the unarmed strike rules but does not involve an attack roll. But even there I think it's pretty clear it is not considered "an attack" since there is no attack roll involved.
Didn’t mean to ruffle so many feathers folks. I was trying to outline a reading that would work to balance CME while as far as I’ve noticed so far affecting absolutely nothing else.
If you think an ability is the problem, changing the rules is unlikely to do anything but give you a second problem.
So how are you ruling Eldritch/ Scorching in regards to CME at your tables?
It works like it says it does. I am extremely unconvinced that it's a problem. (And no, this is not an invitation to try to convince me with high-level multiclass builds burning multiple high-level slots to do silly amounts of damage. If you can produce at-level, at most minorly optimized, scenarios, then I'll listen, because those are the sorts of thing that happen at normal tables.)
Actually different question and I promise I’m not trolling, would you all deem the damage from something like fireball to be an attack for the purposes of CME. Fireball does not include a spell attack roll, which precludes it from the working definition from “Making an Attack.”
It's not an attack. There's no plausible argument that it counts as an attack.
Action Surge says you can’t use it with the magic action, so you’d need to use your first attack to eldritch, extra, nick, dual. Your surged attack would be weapon, extra attack. Your surged attack string would not have a bonus action for a dual wield and nick states that you can only make one nick attack per turn.
EDIT: actually with that valor bard line about replacing an attack you could for sure use eldritch twice, probably. It’s a contest between action surge saying you can’t use magic and valor bard extra attack saying whenever you make an attack you can cast a cantrip.
Casting a spell is not the Magic action, just like making an attack is not the Attack action. If you have means of casting spells as part of the actions Action Surge allows you to make, you can cast the spell. There's no rules conflict to adjudicate.
Level 2: Action Surge
You can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action, except the Magicaction.
Once you use this feature, you can’t do so again until you finish a Short or Long Rest. Starting at level 17, you can use it twice before a rest but only once on a turn.
Action
On your turn, you can take one action. Choose which action to take from those below or from the special actions provided by your features. See also chapter 1 (“Actions”). These actions are defined elsewhere in this glossary
Magic [Action]
When you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action or use a feature or magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated.
If you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 minute or longer, you must take the Magic action on each turn of that casting, and you must maintain Concentration while you do so. If your Concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. See also“Concentration.”
I agree that CME is not really an issue, I also agree that fireball shouldn’t proc it. I believe I’ve come around on spell attack rolls procing it.
my presence here is largely because I have a player at my table who expressed to me a concern that CME was broken, as I interpreted it I did not think so. As I will be interpreting it now as per these conversations I still don’t believe it’s an issue, even with some spell synergy.
i personally agree with your player, but its your game so you can do as you like. But you have to remember spirit shroud ( similiar spell, is just doing 1d8 @3rd lvl and adds +1d8 / 2 spell lvls above 3rd ) and compare it to CME so you see the problem. When one of the most known youtuber says he personaly won't allow CME in this form at his table you know that something is wrong with the spell :) You also don't have to go into really high lvl, and / or a lot of MC take a lvl 11 Valor Bard / Bladesinger with 1 lvl of Warlock and your already looking at 6 attacks with each + 6d8 for ~100 dpR w/o any resources needed to spent
But there are more combinations then just CME, AoA with Polymorph or impr. Warding flare, or Twilight clr CD are very nasty too .....
AoA at 4th lvl thats a 20 HP hit every time someone hits you, now add in 100+ temp HP from Polymorph ( caster buddy ) or some other ways to get temp HP w/o conc and conc on spirit guardians .....
Yeah it will be interesting to see what, if anything they change about Spirit Shroud if and when they release a 2024 version. A lot of the reverse synergy stuff feels undertuned compared to 2024 DPR.
It works like it says it does. I am extremely unconvinced that it's a problem. (And no, this is not an invitation to try to convince me with high-level multiclass builds burning multiple high-level slots to do silly amounts of damage. If you can produce at-level, at most minorly optimized, scenarios, then I'll listen, because those are the sorts of thing that happen at normal tables.)
Bladesinger Wizard - 11 (or Valor Bard - 11) + Fighter-1 (12th level character, so end game but still within pervue of most campaigns.)
Weapon Masteries: Scimitar, Rapier, Shortsword, Shortbow Feats: Warcaster, Dual Wielder = the +1 Dex and +1 Int get us a +4 DEX overall, and a +3 INT overall Spells: True Strike, CME (at 5th level = 4d8 extra damage)
It works like it says it does. I am extremely unconvinced that it's a problem. (And no, this is not an invitation to try to convince me with high-level multiclass builds burning multiple high-level slots to do silly amounts of damage. If you can produce at-level, at most minorly optimized, scenarios, then I'll listen, because those are the sorts of thing that happen at normal tables.)
Bladesinger Wizard - 11 (or Valor Bard - 11) + Fighter-1 (12th level character, so end game but still within pervue of most campaigns.)
Weapon Masteries: Scimitar, Rapier, Shortsword, Shortbow Feats: Warcaster, Dual Wielder = the +1 Dex and +1 Int get us a +4 DEX overall, and a +3 INT overall Spells: True Strike, CME (at 5th level = 4d8 extra damage)
That caster is still heavily optimized. (So is the fighter.)
Also: average damage per round needs to include the round where the caster does zero. And how's their constitution save? (Even with advantage, making yourself an obvious target like CME does is gonna lead to broken concentration soon enough.)
How's it compare to casting a different 5th-level spell in that round? (Cloudkill, Cone of cold, Conjure elemental, etc.)
And, of course, the fighter can do this all day. The caster can't. If I give you three rounds of combat before you lose concentration, you do, in fact, average ~16 DPR more than the fighter for the fights that you can do it in.
Worth doing? Probably. Over the top? I don't see it.
That is after two rounds though. The fighter is on top for rounds 1 (45>0) and 2 (90>82.3). If the bard maintains concentration into turn three then they begin to greatly outpace the fighter, but they earned it by standing on the sidelines yelling “Ka-Me….Ha-Me…..” for the first two rounds, ha.
They have a +6 and advantage, so a 2% chance of losing concentration against a DC 10. They also could have a higher AC than the Fighter since it would be obvious to take Magic Initiate (Wizard) as their background feat to get themselves Shield for a AC = 15+2+5 = 22, vs the Fighter's 18. Obviously CME is to be saved for the boss fight and not wasted a two-round skirmish against a swarm of mooks.
Cone of Cold deals on average 25 damage per target, which means over 3 rounds of combat you'd need to hit at least 4 enemies and no allies to out-damage CME, but why waste a 5th level spell dealing mediocre damage to a horde when you could instead disable them with Hypnotic Pattern at the cost of only a 3rd level slot, or you could grab Fire Ball to which deals 21 damage per target at the cost of only a 3rd level slot.
Though those are all poor arguments if you really want to dispute the power of CME you ought to be pointing out it's reliance on melee which means the enemies it is effective against could instead be trapped within a dome of Wall of Force thus defeated on round 1. Though I'm not sure that's really such a good argument.. is it ok to give spellcasters double the single-target DPR as martials because that is still significantly worse than their other options?
They have a +6 and advantage, so a 2% chance of losing concentration against a DC 10.
And 25% chance of losing it on a measly 12-point shot. (They can also take far fewer of those shots than the fighters, which will have been a real handicap over the course of their career.)
They also could have a higher AC than the Fighter since it would be obvious to take Magic Initiate (Wizard) as their background feat to get themselves Shield for a AC = 15+2+5 = 22, vs the Fighter's 18. Obviously CME is to be saved for the boss fight and not wasted a two-round skirmish against a swarm of mooks.
Cone of Cold deals on average 25 damage per target, which means over 3 rounds of combat you'd need to hit at least 4 enemies and no allies to out-damage CME, but why waste a 5th level spell dealing mediocre damage to a horde when you could instead disable them with Hypnotic Pattern at the cost of only a 3rd level slot, or you could grab Fire Ball to which deals 21 damage per target at the cost of only a 3rd level slot.
Though those are all poor arguments if you really want to dispute the power of CME you ought to be pointing out it's reliance on melee which means the enemies it is effective against could instead be trapped within a dome of Wall of Force thus defeated on round 1. Though I'm not sure that's really such a good argument.. is it ok to give spellcasters double the single-target DPR as martials because that is still significantly worse than their other options?
If they optimize themselves to hell and back so that this is the thing they're set up to do? In exchange for being a low-HP front-line wizard who's level 12 with a save DC of only 15? Sure, go wild.
If you wanna argue that casters overshadow martials at mid-high levels, go for it. You're not wrong, especially with short adventuring days so the martials' bullet-sponginess and ability to punch all day without tiring are undervalued. But you're really not selling CME as a unique problem.
Valor Bard - 12, CME (5th) - 2x shortswords, ASIs only = 3 attacks for 45.3 DPR Fighter - 12, Greatsword, ASIs only = 28.6 DPR
I'll note that that fighter has neither fighting style nor subclass, and I haven't crunched the numbers enough to be sure if you included the mastery or not, though I think you did.
It does say that making an attack roll as part of a spell is an attack. Why would they include that in the section "Making an Attack" if it wasn't actually making an attack?
The Attack action is making an attack? Yes? We already knew that? That's not the point at all. It says that when you take the Attack action you make an attack, but it also says that some other actions also let you make an attack. So it's not exclusive. Talking about the Attack action is completely irrelevant.
At this point I'm convinced that you're trolling. There's no way that there's someone who actually can't understand this. It's extremely simple, it's not even the nebulous stuff that WotC does, like you said. This one is super, super easy to understand. You have to be trolling.
If you're not trolling and you're actually incapable of understanding this, then this discussion is completely pointless. We're discussing the definition of a term, I give you the definition of the term in the book, and you choose to ignore it and then quote definitions of other things.
In either case, it's pointless to keep talking to you about this, so I'm gonna stop here. This isn't even the topic of the thread. I just wanted to make it clear you're spreading misinformation for the sake of other people reading this, especially beginners. I already did that, so I'm done. You can houserule as much as you want and call it RAW, I don't care.
You would think that people like this don't exist, right? But then they show up.
Well,
A creature can grapple another creature. Characters typically grapple by using an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey. However a grapple is initiated, it follows these rules. See also “Unarmed Strike” and “Grappled.”
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
grapple would be an attack….
as for the pedantry, it’s a new book with new conventions. I’m arguing to establish an understanding for those conventions. Don’t worry, this won’t affect hex and hunters mark, they explicitly say Attack or Spell Attack Roll.
You're trying to argue here that "making an attack roll as part of a spell" does not involve "making an attack", in a sentence that says "whether you do X, Y, or Z, an attack has the following structure..." X, Y, and Z are all attacks. It includes them in the category right there.
Now, part of the problem is 5e's original sin: the decision to make "attack" and "Attack action" separate but related terms of art, which is guaranteed to lead to confusion. Nonetheless, spell attacks are attacks, just not the Attack action. This isn't ambiguous. And since Conjure Minor Elementals does not limit itself to attacks that are part of the Attack action. it applies to attacks that are part of the Magic action.
Didn’t mean to ruffle so many feathers folks. I was trying to outline a reading that would work to balance CME while as far as I’ve noticed so far affecting absolutely nothing else.
My bad.
So how are you ruling Eldritch/ Scorching in regards to CME at your tables?
sorry to disagree with you but you fail to notice that i said this apply's to Valor bards & Bladesingers
since they can replace one of their attacks ( w/o needing to use the magic action ) with a cantrip you know ( eldritch blast )
quote: from Bladesinger
Extra Attack
Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
Also Action surge will imo and most others opionen double with nick, but even if not we are talking about 1 attack out of 13 ..... thats negletible
also as most already said, scorching ray will apply, and then we are talking about ( max ) :
6+9 + AS 5 ( attack, extra attck->Eldritch Blast, Nick) + Scorching Ray ( 8th lvl ) + AS ( attack, extra attack->Eldricht Blast ) :
4x 1d6 + 5 + 12d8+
8x 1d10 + 5 + 12d8+
9x 2d6 + 12d8
if you got the time to buff up, add in bestow curse at 5th lvl then you add another +1d8 on each attack
4x63 + 8x65 + 9x60 = 1312 x 0,6 ( Hit chance of 60% ) ~ 790 dpR
class split : 2 sorc / 1 warlock / 2 ftr / 15 bard
with that dpR who needs CC ?
if you change CME to upcast with +1d8 we are talking about : 450 about dpR still way too much
since font of magic doesn't require any kind of action, he can just use it to regain its 2 SP and do the same thing next round ( w/o AS ) with a 7th lvl spell ......
Actually different question and I promise I’m not trolling, would you all deem the damage from something like fireball to be an attack for the purposes of CME. Fireball does not include a spell attack roll, which precludes it from the working definition from “Making an Attack.”
since it doesn't require you to hit the target with a dice roll ( attack roll ) but uses a saving throw for me it would not get the damage "bonus" from CME and other spells
Hey no worries! I understand I’m here with a hot take.
Action Surge says you can’t use it with the magic action, so you’d need to use your first attack to eldritch, extra, nick, dual. Your surged attack would be weapon, extra attack. Your surged attack string would not have a bonus action for a dual wield and nick states that you can only make one nick attack per turn.
Still a very good combo, but I think not quite as broken as some are worried about, regardless of my clearly unpopular interpretations about spell attacks haha.
EDIT: actually with that valor bard line about replacing an attack you could for sure use eldritch twice, probably. It’s a contest between action surge saying you can’t use magic and valor bard extra attack saying whenever you make an attack you can cast a cantrip.
personally I think I’d go with double eldritch is fair.
If you think an ability is the problem, changing the rules is unlikely to do anything but give you a second problem.
It works like it says it does. I am extremely unconvinced that it's a problem. (And no, this is not an invitation to try to convince me with high-level multiclass builds burning multiple high-level slots to do silly amounts of damage. If you can produce at-level, at most minorly optimized, scenarios, then I'll listen, because those are the sorts of thing that happen at normal tables.)
It's not an attack. There's no plausible argument that it counts as an attack.
Casting a spell is not the Magic action, just like making an attack is not the Attack action. If you have means of casting spells as part of the actions Action Surge allows you to make, you can cast the spell. There's no rules conflict to adjudicate.
Level 2: Action Surge
You can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action, except the Magicaction.
Once you use this feature, you can’t do so again until you finish a Short or Long Rest. Starting at level 17, you can use it twice before a rest but only once on a turn.
Action
On your turn, you can take one action. Choose which action to take from those below or from the special actions provided by your features. See also chapter 1 (“Actions”). These actions are defined elsewhere in this glossary
Magic [Action]
When you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action or use a feature or magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated.
If you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 minute or longer, you must take the Magic action on each turn of that casting, and you must maintain Concentration while you do so. If your Concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. See also“Concentration.”
I agree that CME is not really an issue, I also agree that fireball shouldn’t proc it. I believe I’ve come around on spell attack rolls procing it.
my presence here is largely because I have a player at my table who expressed to me a concern that CME was broken, as I interpreted it I did not think so. As I will be interpreting it now as per these conversations I still don’t believe it’s an issue, even with some spell synergy.
GO AWAY TROLL! I cast Fireball on you!
i personally agree with your player, but its your game so you can do as you like. But you have to remember spirit shroud ( similiar spell, is just doing 1d8 @3rd lvl and adds +1d8 / 2 spell lvls above 3rd ) and compare it to CME so you see the problem. When one of the most known youtuber says he personaly won't allow CME in this form at his table you know that something is wrong with the spell :) You also don't have to go into really high lvl, and / or a lot of MC take a lvl 11 Valor Bard / Bladesinger with 1 lvl of Warlock and your already looking at 6 attacks with each + 6d8 for ~100 dpR w/o any resources needed to spent
But there are more combinations then just CME, AoA with Polymorph or impr. Warding flare, or Twilight clr CD are very nasty too .....
AoA at 4th lvl thats a 20 HP hit every time someone hits you, now add in 100+ temp HP from Polymorph ( caster buddy ) or some other ways to get temp HP w/o conc and conc on spirit guardians .....
Yeah it will be interesting to see what, if anything they change about Spirit Shroud if and when they release a 2024 version. A lot of the reverse synergy stuff feels undertuned compared to 2024 DPR.
Bladesinger Wizard - 11 (or Valor Bard - 11) + Fighter-1 (12th level character, so end game but still within pervue of most campaigns.)
Weapon Masteries: Scimitar, Rapier, Shortsword, Shortbow
Feats: Warcaster, Dual Wielder = the +1 Dex and +1 Int get us a +4 DEX overall, and a +3 INT overall
Spells: True Strike, CME (at 5th level = 4d8 extra damage)
Action: Shortsword (16.4 DPR), Rapier + True Strike (27.2 DPR), Scimitar-Nick (21.7 DPR)
Bonus Action: Rapier (17 DPR)
Average damage each round: 82.3
vs
Fighter-12
Weapon Masteries: Lance, Halberd, whatever
Feats: GWM, PAM, STR ASI, pick your favourite
Action: Lance (10.4 DPR), Halberd (10.9 DPR), Halberd (10.9 DPR), Halberd-Cleave (7.2 DPR)
BA: Halberd-Butt (5.6 DPR)
Average damage each round: 45
That caster is still heavily optimized. (So is the fighter.)
Also: average damage per round needs to include the round where the caster does zero. And how's their constitution save? (Even with advantage, making yourself an obvious target like CME does is gonna lead to broken concentration soon enough.)
How's it compare to casting a different 5th-level spell in that round? (Cloudkill, Cone of cold, Conjure elemental, etc.)
And, of course, the fighter can do this all day. The caster can't. If I give you three rounds of combat before you lose concentration, you do, in fact, average ~16 DPR more than the fighter for the fights that you can do it in.
Worth doing? Probably. Over the top? I don't see it.
That is after two rounds though. The fighter is on top for rounds 1 (45>0) and 2 (90>82.3). If the bard maintains concentration into turn three then they begin to greatly outpace the fighter, but they earned it by standing on the sidelines yelling “Ka-Me….Ha-Me…..” for the first two rounds, ha.
They have a +6 and advantage, so a 2% chance of losing concentration against a DC 10. They also could have a higher AC than the Fighter since it would be obvious to take Magic Initiate (Wizard) as their background feat to get themselves Shield for a AC = 15+2+5 = 22, vs the Fighter's 18. Obviously CME is to be saved for the boss fight and not wasted a two-round skirmish against a swarm of mooks.
Cone of Cold deals on average 25 damage per target, which means over 3 rounds of combat you'd need to hit at least 4 enemies and no allies to out-damage CME, but why waste a 5th level spell dealing mediocre damage to a horde when you could instead disable them with Hypnotic Pattern at the cost of only a 3rd level slot, or you could grab Fire Ball to which deals 21 damage per target at the cost of only a 3rd level slot.
Though those are all poor arguments if you really want to dispute the power of CME you ought to be pointing out it's reliance on melee which means the enemies it is effective against could instead be trapped within a dome of Wall of Force thus defeated on round 1. Though I'm not sure that's really such a good argument.. is it ok to give spellcasters double the single-target DPR as martials because that is still significantly worse than their other options?
PS if you prefer unoptimized characters:
Valor Bard - 12, CME (5th) - 2x shortswords, ASIs only = 3 attacks for 45.3 DPR
Fighter - 12, Greatsword, ASIs only = 28.6 DPR
And 25% chance of losing it on a measly 12-point shot. (They can also take far fewer of those shots than the fighters, which will have been a real handicap over the course of their career.)
If they optimize themselves to hell and back so that this is the thing they're set up to do? In exchange for being a low-HP front-line wizard who's level 12 with a save DC of only 15? Sure, go wild.
If you wanna argue that casters overshadow martials at mid-high levels, go for it. You're not wrong, especially with short adventuring days so the martials' bullet-sponginess and ability to punch all day without tiring are undervalued. But you're really not selling CME as a unique problem.
Edit:
I'll note that that fighter has neither fighting style nor subclass, and I haven't crunched the numbers enough to be sure if you included the mastery or not, though I think you did.