I have seen quite a bit of cross over in Magic the Gathering fiction and D&D 5e content, my question is should their be some more standardization in terms or more 5e spells named for MtG cards? ie vampire touch is renamed lifelink, spell to bind flyers called earth bind, spell that projects melee attack into the air called Reach just to name a few spells that come to mind. Other things might be creatures such as a Kird Ape that gains abilities while in a forest and other creature ideas.
I don't believe there should be 'standardization' in terms between the two because it doesn't really serve any purpose. Having one spell renamed to lifelink isn't actually going to help an MtG player understand what the spell does, they'll still need to read it.
Ultimately D&D doesn't work like MtG and the only thing they have been sharing is setting material, not mechanics.
I don't believe there should be 'standardization' in terms between the two because it doesn't really serve any purpose. Having one spell renamed to lifelink isn't actually going to help an MtG player understand what the spell does, they'll still need to read it.
And then D&D players would need to learn the new spell names. Off of my lawn with that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't fancy changing names, but for mechanics in future additions I do kind of like the idea there being 5 kinds of Magic, one color for each means of access. EG:
White: Divine
Red: Ki
Green: Primal
Blue: Psionic
Black: Arcane
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I would be happy if they just standardized keywords for features across the board. Extra attack and multi-attack for example. It has been nearly 10 years and I still get players (veterans no less) who still think Extra Attack is synonymous with a 2nd Full Action... Calling it Multi-attack like it is in monster stat blocks would reduce that confusion.
I would be happy if they just standardized keywords for features across the board. Extra attack and multi-attack for example. It has been nearly 10 years and I still get players (veterans no less) who still think Extra Attack is synonymous with a 2nd Full Action... Calling it Multi-attack like it is in monster stat blocks would reduce that confusion.
I would be happy if they just standardized keywords for features across the board. Extra attack and multi-attack for example. It has been nearly 10 years and I still get players (veterans no less) who still think Extra Attack is synonymous with a 2nd Full Action... Calling it Multi-attack like it is in monster stat blocks would reduce that confusion.
But Extra Attack and Multi-Attack are not the same thing either?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would be happy if they just standardized keywords for features across the board. Extra attack and multi-attack for example. It has been nearly 10 years and I still get players (veterans no less) who still think Extra Attack is synonymous with a 2nd Full Action... Calling it Multi-attack like it is in monster stat blocks would reduce that confusion.
Different names because they do different things.
Some monsters have a "multi-attack" description which says they can do 1 attack with one thing and 1 attack with another thing, other monsters say that they can 2 attacks with one thing, other monsters say that ...
I would be happy if they just standardized keywords for features across the board. Extra attack and multi-attack for example. It has been nearly 10 years and I still get players (veterans no less) who still think Extra Attack is synonymous with a 2nd Full Action... Calling it Multi-attack like it is in monster stat blocks would reduce that confusion.
Different names because they do different things.
Some monsters have a "multi-attack" description which says they can do 1 attack with one thing and 1 attack with another thing, other monsters say that they can 2 attacks with one thing, other monsters say that ...
They are similar enough that when I tell players to think of "Extra Attack like Multi-Attack but for PCs" they get it better than trying to explain the difference between Action and Attack Action. Mechanically they really are no different. Extra Attack is just a more open optioned Multi-attack... It still means creature xyz can do abc number of attacks and in the case of monsters they are limited to x number of A attack, y number of B attack, z number of C attack, etc...
Terminology matters and Extra Attack is a confusing term but Multi-Attack is not.
On the flip side, neither I nor my players ever had trouble understanding what Extra Attack meant and most of them are not familiar with the term Multi-Attack. I depends on your background. Turns out designing a game for a broad audience is hard. But 5e has been wildly popular, so I think they've handled stuff like this pretty well.
On the flip side, neither I nor my players ever had trouble understanding what Extra Attack meant and most of them are not familiar with the term Multi-Attack. I depends on your background. Turns out designing a game for a broad audience is hard. But 5e has been wildly popular, so I think they've handled stuff like this pretty well.
Fair enough... But I have had to explain the feature enough (in other D&D forums not just at my tables) over the years and the question comes up enough even now online that indications are it is not as clear a term as the term Multi-attack would make it.
All this is a bit off topic, but I have felt that 5e has needed better defined terms and rules for a while. They don't need a rule for everything, but the rules they do have could be better written.
They are similar enough that when I tell players to think of "Extra Attack like Multi-Attack but for PCs" they get it better than trying to explain the difference between Action and Attack Action. Mechanically they really are no different.
Actually, multi-attack is in some ways better. If you ready a multi-attack, you get the full attack routine, but Extra Attack only functions on your turn.
They are similar enough that when I tell players to think of "Extra Attack like Multi-Attack but for PCs" they get it better than trying to explain the difference between Action and Attack Action. Mechanically they really are no different.
Actually, multi-attack is in some ways better. If you ready a multi-attack, you get the full attack routine, but Extra Attack only functions on your turn.
Interesting rules interaction ... You have a source for that ruling? Not that I doubt you; but as my FLGS's in store "expert" slash "judge" the patrons expect me to be able back my "decrees" with a precedent or cite RAW book, page, and verse. (Nevermind that I tell them their DM has final say and can over rule me at their table).
They are similar enough that when I tell players to think of "Extra Attack like Multi-Attack but for PCs" they get it better than trying to explain the difference between Action and Attack Action. Mechanically they really are no different.
Actually, multi-attack is in some ways better. If you ready a multi-attack, you get the full attack routine, but Extra Attack only functions on your turn.
Interesting rules interaction ... You have a source for that ruling? Not that I doubt you; but as my FLGS's in store "expert" slash "judge" the patrons expect me to be able back my "decrees" with a precedent or cite RAW book, page, and verse. (Nevermind that I tell them their DM has final say and can over rule me at their table).
The "extra attack" feature says, for example, "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Therefore, it does not apply when you attack outside of your turn, such as ready. Multiattack has no such limiting verbiage, and therefore functions normally.
They are similar enough that when I tell players to think of "Extra Attack like Multi-Attack but for PCs" they get it better than trying to explain the difference between Action and Attack Action. Mechanically they really are no different.
Actually, multi-attack is in some ways better. If you ready a multi-attack, you get the full attack routine, but Extra Attack only functions on your turn.
Interesting rules interaction ... You have a source for that ruling? Not that I doubt you; but as my FLGS's in store "expert" slash "judge" the patrons expect me to be able back my "decrees" with a precedent or cite RAW book, page, and verse. (Nevermind that I tell them their DM has final say and can over rule me at their table).
The "extra attack" feature says, for example, "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Therefore, it does not apply when you attack outside of your turn, such as ready. Multiattack has no such limiting verbiage, and therefore functions normally.
Interesting... I wonder if that was intentional or just an over looked interaction? As a DM I would feel rather scummy using that against my players in any encounter other than a solo critter battle.
They are similar enough that when I tell players to think of "Extra Attack like Multi-Attack but for PCs" they get it better than trying to explain the difference between Action and Attack Action. Mechanically they really are no different.
Actually, multi-attack is in some ways better. If you ready a multi-attack, you get the full attack routine, but Extra Attack only functions on your turn.
Interesting rules interaction ... You have a source for that ruling? Not that I doubt you; but as my FLGS's in store "expert" slash "judge" the patrons expect me to be able back my "decrees" with a precedent or cite RAW book, page, and verse. (Nevermind that I tell them their DM has final say and can over rule me at their table).
The "extra attack" feature says, for example, "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Therefore, it does not apply when you attack outside of your turn, such as ready. Multiattack has no such limiting verbiage, and therefore functions normally.
Interesting... I wonder if that was intentional or just an over looked interaction? As a DM I would feel rather scummy using that against my players in any encounter other than a solo critter battle.
Honestly, it could be either answer. I don't personally rule it that way, but that is how it is written.
I have seen quite a bit of cross over in Magic the Gathering fiction and D&D 5e content, my question is should their be some more standardization in terms or more 5e spells named for MtG cards? ie vampire touch is renamed lifelink, spell to bind flyers called earth bind, spell that projects melee attack into the air called Reach just to name a few spells that come to mind. Other things might be creatures such as a Kird Ape that gains abilities while in a forest and other creature ideas.
MDC
I don't believe there should be 'standardization' in terms between the two because it doesn't really serve any purpose. Having one spell renamed to lifelink isn't actually going to help an MtG player understand what the spell does, they'll still need to read it.
Ultimately D&D doesn't work like MtG and the only thing they have been sharing is setting material, not mechanics.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
But if they were standardised, MtG should switch to using D&D names, since D&D came first ;-)
Forgotten realms dnd set already does that, kind of.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
And then D&D players would need to learn the new spell names. Off of my lawn with that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't fancy changing names, but for mechanics in future additions I do kind of like the idea there being 5 kinds of Magic, one color for each means of access. EG:
White: Divine
Red: Ki
Green: Primal
Blue: Psionic
Black: Arcane
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I would be happy if they just standardized keywords for features across the board. Extra attack and multi-attack for example. It has been nearly 10 years and I still get players (veterans no less) who still think Extra Attack is synonymous with a 2nd Full Action... Calling it Multi-attack like it is in monster stat blocks would reduce that confusion.
Agree with this a lot!
But Extra Attack and Multi-Attack are not the same thing either?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Different names because they do different things.
Some monsters have a "multi-attack" description which says they can do 1 attack with one thing and 1 attack with another thing, other monsters say that they can 2 attacks with one thing, other monsters say that ...
They are similar enough that when I tell players to think of "Extra Attack like Multi-Attack but for PCs" they get it better than trying to explain the difference between Action and Attack Action. Mechanically they really are no different. Extra Attack is just a more open optioned Multi-attack... It still means creature xyz can do abc number of attacks and in the case of monsters they are limited to x number of A attack, y number of B attack, z number of C attack, etc...
Terminology matters and Extra Attack is a confusing term but Multi-Attack is not.
On the flip side, neither I nor my players ever had trouble understanding what Extra Attack meant and most of them are not familiar with the term Multi-Attack. I depends on your background. Turns out designing a game for a broad audience is hard. But 5e has been wildly popular, so I think they've handled stuff like this pretty well.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Fair enough... But I have had to explain the feature enough (in other D&D forums not just at my tables) over the years and the question comes up enough even now online that indications are it is not as clear a term as the term Multi-attack would make it.
All this is a bit off topic, but I have felt that 5e has needed better defined terms and rules for a while. They don't need a rule for everything, but the rules they do have could be better written.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Actually, multi-attack is in some ways better. If you ready a multi-attack, you get the full attack routine, but Extra Attack only functions on your turn.
Interesting rules interaction ... You have a source for that ruling? Not that I doubt you; but as my FLGS's in store "expert" slash "judge" the patrons expect me to be able back my "decrees" with a precedent or cite RAW book, page, and verse. (Nevermind that I tell them their DM has final say and can over rule me at their table).
The "extra attack" feature says, for example, "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Therefore, it does not apply when you attack outside of your turn, such as ready. Multiattack has no such limiting verbiage, and therefore functions normally.
Interesting... I wonder if that was intentional or just an over looked interaction? As a DM I would feel rather scummy using that against my players in any encounter other than a solo critter battle.
Honestly, it could be either answer. I don't personally rule it that way, but that is how it is written.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Agree and building a game that can be expanded easily and without power creep is also harder still.
MDC