Im playing a monk druid and I have the spell primal savagery. I have over 5 levels in monk so, I have 2 attacks per attack action and on unarmed strike. If I use primal savagery which is considered a "melee spell attack" would I be able to attack once more as a part of my action, or would the spell make it so that I can only do one swipe of my claws.
Primal Savagery: You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. After you make the attack, your teeth or fingernails return to normal.
Bonus attack: Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
I think you're getting caught between an "attack" and an "action". As a 5th level monk you can use your action to make two attacks. OR... you can use your action to cast the spell Primal Savagery, with which you get to make one attack roll. So, yeah, you can make two attack rolls with a weapon or one attack roll with Primal Savagery.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
It is confusing with the poor word choices throughout 5th ed. But think of it this way. You get 1 action, you can attack with a weapon or cast a spell. Some spells will let you attack with a weapon as part of casting the spell - but you are still taking the cast a spell action so everything that normally triggers from a weapon attack doesn't (such as two weapon fighting or bonus attacks).
It’s exactly the same bad wording presented in Booming Blade. Unfortunately you are not able to combine any feature from Monk with Primal Savagery, because the cantrip requires you to cast a spell — you didn’t take the “Attack action” in order to trigger your extra attacks, neither the one granted by Martial Arts or even Flurry of Blows.
It’s exactly the same bad wording presented in Booming Blade. Unfortunately you are not able to combine any feature from Monk with Primal Savagery, because the cantrip requires you to cast a spell — you didn’t take the “Attack action” in order to trigger your extra attacks, neither the one granted by Martial Arts or even Flurry of Blows.
It’s exactly the same bad wording presented in Booming Blade. Unfortunately you are not able to combine any feature from Monk with Primal Savagery, because the cantrip requires you to cast a spell — you didn’t take the “Attack action” in order to trigger your extra attacks, neither the one granted by Martial Arts or even Flurry of Blows.
How is it bad wording?
For some people (more and more it seems) its "bad" because they don't like it, and not because it's "wrong" or "poorly worded"
Im playing a monk druid and I have the spell primal savagery. I have over 5 levels in monk so, I have 2 attacks per attack action and on unarmed strike. If I use primal savagery which is considered a "melee spell attack" would I be able to attack once more as a part of my action, or would the spell make it so that I can only do one swipe of my claws.
Primal Savagery: You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. After you make the attack, your teeth or fingernails return to normal.
Bonus attack: Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
It's important to remember the difference between action in the colloquial term as just "something you do", and Action, as in a specific labeled thing in the ruleset. The same goes for attack and Attack. Lots of things you do involve making an attack, but the Attack action is something specific. There is a segment of your turn where you choose an Action. You can take the Attack action, and benefit from things like Extra Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Martial Arts. All of these require that you take the Attack action on your turn. Casting the cantrip Primal Savagery requires the use of your Action, as in that segment of your turn. If you're casting a spell with your Action, you aren't taking the Attack action. So any abilities that trigger "when you take the Attack action on your turn" can't happen.
Im playing a monk druid and I have the spell primal savagery. I have over 5 levels in monk so, I have 2 attacks per attack action and on unarmed strike. If I use primal savagery which is considered a "melee spell attack" would I be able to attack once more as a part of my action, or would the spell make it so that I can only do one swipe of my claws.
Primal Savagery: You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. After you make the attack, your teeth or fingernails return to normal.
Bonus attack: Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
It's important to remember the difference between action in the colloquial term as just "something you do", and Action, as in a specific labeled thing in the ruleset.
This... a million times, this!
OP, as everyone has already stated/eluded to, what you are asking about is not allowed by the RAW (rules as written).
You have one Action available for use on your turn in combat. Casting a spell uses the [Tooltip Not Found] action, and you make melee/ranged attack(s) with the Attack action. These are mutually exclusive actions.
Casting Primal Savagery requires the use of the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Utilizing your Martial Arts/Extra Attack features requires the use of the Attack action.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It’s exactly the same bad wording presented in Booming Blade. Unfortunately you are not able to combine any feature from Monk with Primal Savagery, because the cantrip requires you to cast a spell — you didn’t take the “Attack action” in order to trigger your extra attacks, neither the one granted by Martial Arts or even Flurry of Blows.
How is it bad wording?
Booming Blade provides a not so clear text actually: “As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”
Since you took an action and “made a melee attack” sounds like nothing magical happened. Not everyone have a deep knowledge about what is “Cast a spell action” and “Attack action”.
Primal Savagery, though, is more straight forward: ”You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you.”
The “spell attack” piece of it leaves no doubts, but the wording isn’t clear.
It’s exactly the same bad wording presented in Booming Blade. Unfortunately you are not able to combine any feature from Monk with Primal Savagery, because the cantrip requires you to cast a spell — you didn’t take the “Attack action” in order to trigger your extra attacks, neither the one granted by Martial Arts or even Flurry of Blows.
How is it bad wording?
Booming Blade provides a not so clear text actually: “As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”
Since you took an action and “made a melee attack” sounds like nothing magical happened. Not everyone have a deep knowledge about what is “Cast a spell action” and “Attack action”.
If someone is ambiguous about what the different action types in the game are, I recommend reading page 189 of the PHB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It’s exactly the same bad wording presented in Booming Blade. Unfortunately you are not able to combine any feature from Monk with Primal Savagery, because the cantrip requires you to cast a spell — you didn’t take the “Attack action” in order to trigger your extra attacks, neither the one granted by Martial Arts or even Flurry of Blows.
How is it bad wording?
Booming Blade provides a not so clear text actually: “As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”
Since you took an action and “made a melee attack” sounds like nothing magical happened. Not everyone have a deep knowledge about what is “Cast a spell action” and “Attack action”.
Primal Savagery, though, is more straight forward: ”You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you.”
The “spell attack” piece of it leaves no doubts, but the wording isn’t clear.
The Attack action is also a specific thing in the rules. Many features grant attacks that are not the Attack action. The rules are really clear about what the Cast a Spell action and the Attack action are. It doesn't require any "deep knowledge." It requires literally just reading the rules.
A lot of learning the game comes not from reading the rules but from playing with other people who have, so I'm definitely not suggesting anyone is dumb or lazy for not doing so. But saying something is "bad wording" when the actual issue is that one just hasn't read the rules isn't a very strong argument.
It’s exactly the same bad wording presented in Booming Blade. Unfortunately you are not able to combine any feature from Monk with Primal Savagery, because the cantrip requires you to cast a spell — you didn’t take the “Attack action” in order to trigger your extra attacks, neither the one granted by Martial Arts or even Flurry of Blows.
How is it bad wording?
Booming Blade provides a not so clear text actually: “As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”
Since you took an action and “made a melee attack” sounds like nothing magical happened. Not everyone have a deep knowledge about what is “Cast a spell action” and “Attack action”.
If someone is ambiguous about what the different action types in the game are, I recommend reading page 189 of the PHB.
It’s not ambiguous. I’m just simply saying that this kind of cantrips usually generate confusion. I saw lot of tables ruling this wrong not because lack of rules understanding, but because of the wording, specially when you get lost in translation (English is not the first language of my home country, so sometimes it’s a challenge for us to differentiate “Action” and “action” meanings)
It’s exactly the same bad wording presented in Booming Blade. Unfortunately you are not able to combine any feature from Monk with Primal Savagery, because the cantrip requires you to cast a spell — you didn’t take the “Attack action” in order to trigger your extra attacks, neither the one granted by Martial Arts or even Flurry of Blows.
How is it bad wording?
Booming Blade provides a not so clear text actually: “As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”
Since you took an action and “made a melee attack” sounds like nothing magical happened. Not everyone have a deep knowledge about what is “Cast a spell action” and “Attack action”.
If someone is ambiguous about what the different action types in the game are, I recommend reading page 189 of the PHB.
It’s not ambiguous. I’m just simply saying that this kind of cantrips usually generate confusion. I saw lot of tables ruling this wrong not because lack of rules understanding, but because of the wording, specially when you get lost in translation (English is not the first language of my home country, so sometimes it’s a challenge for us to differentiate “Action” and “action” meanings)
Look, we all get what you're saying, and we've all been there at some point or another. 5e is very different from past editions in many ways, and nobody is making a value judgement about anyone else's experiences. What is being said is that the general confusion you/I/others see with SCAG cantrips is not from any ambiguity with the wording of the spells themselves; it is entirely from not understanding the basic rules of 5e. That's an easy thing to fix.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Ok then. If everything is so clear what about the range of the spell. Range - self, transmutation spell. Does it work with Beast Masters Share Spells? Or Can it be cast by familiar? I guess no in both of the cases. But from simle logic perspective - You transmute Yourself so it must affect BM Animal Companion... I find it in fact to be a bad wording.
You are overthinking it. The spell has a range of self. That means it wont work with Find Familiar (requires range of touch), but will work with the share spells feature of the Beastmaster Ranger. Sharing the spell won’t have much effect though if the Beast companion is further than 5 feet away from an enemy as they would not be able to deliver the melee spell attack.
Ok then. If everything is so clear what about the range of the spell. Range - self, transmutation spell. Does it work with Beast Masters Share Spells? Or Can it be cast by familiar? I guess no in both of the cases. But from simle logic perspective - You transmute Yourself so it must affect BM Animal Companion... I find it in fact to be a bad wording.
You’ve got it. It is not eligible for use with a Familiar, but it is absolutely applicable to Share Spells (and technically Find Steed/Find Greater Steed for that matter).
Oops... accidentally deleted my previous post. Thanks for Your input, guys. But I am still not sure if it can be used with Share Spells though. I really would be glad if it is an option in RAW - there could be really interesting Ranger summoner builds then.
Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you.
That does not require the Spells range to be “self.” All that state is the spell has to have only one target, and that target has to be you. You could cast healing word on yourself, and also use Share Spell to also apply it to your companion.
You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. After you make the attack, your teeth or fingernails return to normal.
This is actually a very good and logical explanation (Definitely need to save it somewhere)! I did not think of it in this way. Much appreciated! Now I can try new stuff with this spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Im playing a monk druid and I have the spell primal savagery. I have over 5 levels in monk so, I have 2 attacks per attack action and on unarmed strike. If I use primal savagery which is considered a "melee spell attack" would I be able to attack once more as a part of my action, or would the spell make it so that I can only do one swipe of my claws.
Primal Savagery: You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. After you make the attack, your teeth or fingernails return to normal.
Bonus attack: Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
I think you're getting caught between an "attack" and an "action". As a 5th level monk you can use your action to make two attacks. OR... you can use your action to cast the spell Primal Savagery, with which you get to make one attack roll. So, yeah, you can make two attack rolls with a weapon or one attack roll with Primal Savagery.
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
Anzio Faro. Lvl 5 Prot. Aasimar Light Cleric.
Casting a cantrip is the "Cast a Spell" Action, not an "Attack" Action, so no. You would only get the single melee spell attack.
One swipe with your claws is correct.
<Insert clever signature here>
It is confusing with the poor word choices throughout 5th ed. But think of it this way. You get 1 action, you can attack with a weapon or cast a spell. Some spells will let you attack with a weapon as part of casting the spell - but you are still taking the cast a spell action so everything that normally triggers from a weapon attack doesn't (such as two weapon fighting or bonus attacks).
It’s exactly the same bad wording presented in Booming Blade. Unfortunately you are not able to combine any feature from Monk with Primal Savagery, because the cantrip requires you to cast a spell — you didn’t take the “Attack action” in order to trigger your extra attacks, neither the one granted by Martial Arts or even Flurry of Blows.
How is it bad wording?
For some people (more and more it seems) its "bad" because they don't like it, and not because it's "wrong" or "poorly worded"
It's important to remember the difference between action in the colloquial term as just "something you do", and Action, as in a specific labeled thing in the ruleset. The same goes for attack and Attack. Lots of things you do involve making an attack, but the Attack action is something specific. There is a segment of your turn where you choose an Action. You can take the Attack action, and benefit from things like Extra Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Martial Arts. All of these require that you take the Attack action on your turn. Casting the cantrip Primal Savagery requires the use of your Action, as in that segment of your turn. If you're casting a spell with your Action, you aren't taking the Attack action. So any abilities that trigger "when you take the Attack action on your turn" can't happen.
This... a million times, this!
OP, as everyone has already stated/eluded to, what you are asking about is not allowed by the RAW (rules as written).
You have one Action available for use on your turn in combat. Casting a spell uses the [Tooltip Not Found] action, and you make melee/ranged attack(s) with the Attack action. These are mutually exclusive actions.
Casting Primal Savagery requires the use of the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Utilizing your Martial Arts/Extra Attack features requires the use of the Attack action.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Booming Blade provides a not so clear text actually: “As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”
Since you took an action and “made a melee attack” sounds like nothing magical happened. Not everyone have a deep knowledge about what is “Cast a spell action” and “Attack action”.
Primal Savagery, though, is more straight forward: ”You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you.”
The “spell attack” piece of it leaves no doubts, but the wording isn’t clear.
If someone is ambiguous about what the different action types in the game are, I recommend reading page 189 of the PHB.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The Attack action is also a specific thing in the rules. Many features grant attacks that are not the Attack action. The rules are really clear about what the Cast a Spell action and the Attack action are. It doesn't require any "deep knowledge." It requires literally just reading the rules.
A lot of learning the game comes not from reading the rules but from playing with other people who have, so I'm definitely not suggesting anyone is dumb or lazy for not doing so. But saying something is "bad wording" when the actual issue is that one just hasn't read the rules isn't a very strong argument.
It’s not ambiguous. I’m just simply saying that this kind of cantrips usually generate confusion. I saw lot of tables ruling this wrong not because lack of rules understanding, but because of the wording, specially when you get lost in translation (English is not the first language of my home country, so sometimes it’s a challenge for us to differentiate “Action” and “action” meanings)
Look, we all get what you're saying, and we've all been there at some point or another. 5e is very different from past editions in many ways, and nobody is making a value judgement about anyone else's experiences. What is being said is that the general confusion you/I/others see with SCAG cantrips is not from any ambiguity with the wording of the spells themselves; it is entirely from not understanding the basic rules of 5e. That's an easy thing to fix.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
You are overthinking it. The spell has a range of self. That means it wont work with Find Familiar (requires range of touch), but will work with the share spells feature of the Beastmaster Ranger. Sharing the spell won’t have much effect though if the Beast companion is further than 5 feet away from an enemy as they would not be able to deliver the melee spell attack.
still don’t see why it is bad wording
You’ve got it. It is not eligible for use with a Familiar, but it is absolutely applicable to Share Spells (and technically Find Steed / Find Greater Steed for that matter).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oops... accidentally deleted my previous post. Thanks for Your input, guys. But I am still not sure if it can be used with Share Spells though. I really would be glad if it is an option in RAW - there could be really interesting Ranger summoner builds then.
🙄
That does not require the Spells range to be “self.” All that state is the spell has to have only one target, and that target has to be you. You could cast healing word on yourself, and also use Share Spell to also apply it to your companion.
That spell gives you what is essentially a temporary natural weapon, and a special way to attack with it as part of the same action used to [Tooltip Not Found] before that temporary natural weapon goes away again. The spell itself doesn’t target anything or anyone else, just the caster. The attack targets another creature, but the spell does not.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is actually a very good and logical explanation (Definitely need to save it somewhere)! I did not think of it in this way. Much appreciated! Now I can try new stuff with this spell.