I see most tend to agree that the "Attack" action and "Cast a Spell" action are excluded from one another and take that to mean that no spells can be used in an attack action, but where does it actually state that spells can't be used for an attack action?
There do seem to be, however, multiple areas that directly convey the opposite:
1. In the Attack Action paragraph it states: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack," without specifying weapon attack. The PHB is very explicit in differentiating between "weapon attack" and a general "attack" in almost every other character option, so why not here?
You may ask: How does the PHB govern melee and ranged attacks?
2. Melee Attacks - "A few spells also involve making a melee attack."
3. Ranged Attacks - "Many spells also involve making a ranged attack."
Ok, but that's not in the "Attack Action" paragraph, how are those specifically governed?
4. Attack: "See the 'Making an Attack' section for the rule that govern attacks".
Ok lets see what that section says...
5. 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,"
That must be a mistake! What if my table is questioning a spell's use as an attack?
6. Making an Attack: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple. If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."
So when a fighter's extra attack feature does not specify "weapon attack" nor does the "Attack Action" paragraph do so, where do the core rules state I cannot use the extra attack for cantrip ranged or melee attack spells?
Every round you get a Move, an Action, and a Bonus Action.
You can take multiple different kinds of Actions. One of them is Cast a spell. It takes an action.
another is Attack.
When you take the Attack action you can "with this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.".
That is all you can do.
But there are special features in certain classes that change this, listed among the various classes.
In fighter, there is something called Extra Attack. It reads:
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.
So there are two different things. On is the Attack action. another are multiple attacks you take during the Attack action. You are confusing them.
I see most tend to agree that the "Attack" action and "Cast a Spell" action are excluded from one another and take that to mean that no spells can be used in an attack action, but where does it actually state that spells can't be used for an attack action?
You actually have most of the answer right there. "Attack" and "Cast a Spell" are two separate and different actions and you can't do one action inside another. So while the "Attack" action allows quite a lot you cannot normally use it to cast a spell as that requires the "Cast a Spell" action.
Some spells has text that says "On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use your action to.." (or similar) and then specifies an effect that you can do. This can sometimes give you something that forces a save from an opponent (like Call Lightning) or be something that allows you to make an attack (like Flame Blade). But those are, as the text says, a specific action that you can do and thus still shouldn't be mixed up with taking the "Attack" action.
So when a fighter's extra attack feature does not specify "weapon attack" nor does the "Attack Action" paragraph do so, where do the core rules state I cannot use the extra attack for cantrip ranged or melee attack spells?
They don't, because they don't need to. And also because there is no such limitation. It isn't normally possible (because of it being different actions) but it isn't actually prohibited, you just need something, some kind of feature that gives you a way to do it, like the Bladesinging Wizard. Its version of extra attack says;
Extra Attack
6th-level Bladesinging feature
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.
So here you can actually cast a spell with your "Attack" action. But it isn't something that just anybody can do whenever they like to.
You've gotta note that, just because it doesn't explicitly point out that it's something you can't do, doesn't mean it's something you can do. Like, the same argument you're making could be used to say that you could summon a laser rifle and then shoot with it when you take the Attack action. You could say that nothing lets me summon a laser rifle, and I could say that nothing lets you cast that spell you're trying to cast without using the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
So when a fighter's extra attack feature does not specify "weapon attack" nor does the "Attack Action" paragraph do so, where do the core rules state I cannot use the extra attack for cantrip ranged or melee attack spells?
Cast a Spell is a completely different combat action than Attack. If you want to use your action in combat to cast a spell, you must use the Cast a Spell action to do it (with occasional exceptions as listed in subclass features and the like)
Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
...but where does it actually state that spells can't be used for an attack action?
In the spell's description. Each spell has a casting time. Generally, spells that can occur on a player's turn has a casting time of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There are features like Bladesinging Extra Attack or Quicken Spell that can modify this if the spell's description meets the feature's requirements.
Thank you for such a thoroughly laid out explanation. I do understand and believe there is solid reasoning behind the Attack action being separated from Cast a Spell. My hang up was really that there seems to be more text showing that some spells are attacks, and that the Attack action is not described as being limited to weapon attacks. Which would have been really easy for WotC to do in that paragraph.
However, the Bladesinger special ability appears to be the most solid WotC text to prove intention behind the Attack action, as it gives you permission to cast a cantrip with the action implies the ability was not already there.
Thank you for such a thoroughly laid out explanation. I do understand and believe there is solid reasoning behind the Attack action being separated from Cast a Spell. My hang up was really that there seems to be more text showing that some spells are attacks, and that the Attack action is not described as being limited to weapon attacks. Which would have been really easy for WotC to do in that paragraph.
Even if they did specify weapon attacks, your logic would still dictate that you could cast spells with the Attack action, because there are a couple spells (Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade) that actually include weapon attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Thank you for such a thoroughly laid out explanation. I do understand and believe there is solid reasoning behind the Attack action being separated from Cast a Spell. My hang up was really that there seems to be more text showing that some spells are attacks, and that the Attack action is not described as being limited to weapon attacks. Which would have been really easy for WotC to do in that paragraph.
But that's the thing, it isn't limited to being weapon attacks. And it isn't meant to be either but that doesn't mean that you can automatically use it to attack with a spell anyway because spells use another action (normally).
The thing that one needs to accept and embrace is the fact that making an attack is NOT the same thing as taking the "Attack" action.
Thank you for such a thoroughly laid out explanation. I do understand and believe there is solid reasoning behind the Attack action being separated from Cast a Spell. My hang up was really that there seems to be more text showing that some spells are attacks, and that the Attack action is not described as being limited to weapon attacks. Which would have been really easy for WotC to do in that paragraph.
However, the Bladesinger special ability appears to be the most solid WotC text to prove intention behind the Attack action, as it gives you permission to cast a cantrip with the action implies the ability was not already there.
I thank you again
I am glad everyone's explanations were helpful. The rules around attacks and actions are not the easiest to parse as there are a lot of similar sounding terms that refer to different concepts.
I just wanted to add that the reason the text of the Attack Action rule is not more specific about what kinds of attacks it allows is because it is a general rule and has to be written in a way that is mindful of its scope. There are monsters, such as a Lich, that can make spell attacks (Paralyzing Touch in the Liches case) with the Attack Action.
I don't know of any player features that enable something like this but I can easily see one existing. The closest player example I can recall is Circle of Stars Druid's Stary Form feature. If they use it to assume the Archer form they get an ad hoc Bonus Action to make a ranged spell attack.
Thank you for such a thoroughly laid out explanation. I do understand and believe there is solid reasoning behind the Attack action being separated from Cast a Spell. My hang up was really that there seems to be more text showing that some spells are attacks, and that the Attack action is not described as being limited to weapon attacks. Which would have been really easy for WotC to do in that paragraph.
However, the Bladesinger special ability appears to be the most solid WotC text to prove intention behind the Attack action, as it gives you permission to cast a cantrip with the action implies the ability was not already there.
I thank you again
I am glad everyone's explanations were helpful. The rules around attacks and actions are not the easiest to parse as there are a lot of similar sounding terms that refer to different concepts.
I just wanted to add that the reason the text of the Attack Action rule is not more specific about what kinds of attacks it allows is because it is a general rule and has to be written in a way that is mindful of its scope. There are monsters, such as a Lich, that can make spell attacks (Paralyzing Touch in the Liches case) with the Attack Action.
I don't know of any player features that enable something like this but I can easily see one existing. The closest player example I can recall is Circle of Stars Druid's Stary Form feature. If they use it to assume the Archer form they get an ad hoc Bonus Action to make a ranged spell attack.
Monks of the Way of the Sun Soul can use Radiant Sun Bolt to make ranged spell attacks as part of their Attack action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Thank you for such a thoroughly laid out explanation. I do understand and believe there is solid reasoning behind the Attack action being separated from Cast a Spell. My hang up was really that there seems to be more text showing that some spells are attacks, and that the Attack action is not described as being limited to weapon attacks. Which would have been really easy for WotC to do in that paragraph.
However, the Bladesinger special ability appears to be the most solid WotC text to prove intention behind the Attack action, as it gives you permission to cast a cantrip with the action implies the ability was not already there.
I thank you again
I'd like to point something out about spells performing melee and ranged attacks, that might additionally give context to why they are the way they are.
Even though they can't be used as part of an Attack action or Extra Attack, the fact that spells make you attack reacts with other rules involving attacks. Specifically, they can auto-crit or auto-fail on a nat 20 or nat 1, melee spell attacks can be used to deal nonlethal damage, and effects that prevent a creature from attacking prevent you from using attack spells but may not prevent other damaging spells (such as AoE effects).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I see most tend to agree that the "Attack" action and "Cast a Spell" action are excluded from one another and take that to mean that no spells can be used in an attack action, but where does it actually state that spells can't be used for an attack action?
There do seem to be, however, multiple areas that directly convey the opposite:
1. In the Attack Action paragraph it states: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack," without specifying weapon attack. The PHB is very explicit in differentiating between "weapon attack" and a general "attack" in almost every other character option, so why not here?
You may ask: How does the PHB govern melee and ranged attacks?
2. Melee Attacks - "A few spells also involve making a melee attack."
3. Ranged Attacks - "Many spells also involve making a ranged attack."
Ok, but that's not in the "Attack Action" paragraph, how are those specifically governed?
4. Attack: "See the 'Making an Attack' section for the rule that govern attacks".
Ok lets see what that section says...
5. 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,"
That must be a mistake! What if my table is questioning a spell's use as an attack?
6. Making an Attack: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple. If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."
So when a fighter's extra attack feature does not specify "weapon attack" nor does the "Attack Action" paragraph do so, where do the core rules state I cannot use the extra attack for cantrip ranged or melee attack spells?
You confusion is between an Action and an attack.
Every round you get a Move, an Action, and a Bonus Action.
You can take multiple different kinds of Actions. One of them is Cast a spell. It takes an action.
another is Attack.
When you take the Attack action you can "with this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.".
That is all you can do.
But there are special features in certain classes that change this, listed among the various classes.
In fighter, there is something called Extra Attack. It reads:
So there are two different things. On is the Attack action. another are multiple attacks you take during the Attack action. You are confusing them.
You actually have most of the answer right there. "Attack" and "Cast a Spell" are two separate and different actions and you can't do one action inside another. So while the "Attack" action allows quite a lot you cannot normally use it to cast a spell as that requires the "Cast a Spell" action.
Some spells has text that says "On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use your action to.." (or similar) and then specifies an effect that you can do. This can sometimes give you something that forces a save from an opponent (like Call Lightning) or be something that allows you to make an attack (like Flame Blade).
But those are, as the text says, a specific action that you can do and thus still shouldn't be mixed up with taking the "Attack" action.
They don't, because they don't need to. And also because there is no such limitation. It isn't normally possible (because of it being different actions) but it isn't actually prohibited, you just need something, some kind of feature that gives you a way to do it, like the Bladesinging Wizard.
Its version of extra attack says;
So here you can actually cast a spell with your "Attack" action. But it isn't something that just anybody can do whenever they like to.
You've gotta note that, just because it doesn't explicitly point out that it's something you can't do, doesn't mean it's something you can do. Like, the same argument you're making could be used to say that you could summon a laser rifle and then shoot with it when you take the Attack action. You could say that nothing lets me summon a laser rifle, and I could say that nothing lets you cast that spell you're trying to cast without using the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Cast a Spell is a completely different combat action than Attack. If you want to use your action in combat to cast a spell, you must use the Cast a Spell action to do it (with occasional exceptions as listed in subclass features and the like)
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In the spell's description. Each spell has a casting time. Generally, spells that can occur on a player's turn has a casting time of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. There are features like Bladesinging Extra Attack or Quicken Spell that can modify this if the spell's description meets the feature's requirements.
Thank you for such a thoroughly laid out explanation. I do understand and believe there is solid reasoning behind the Attack action being separated from Cast a Spell. My hang up was really that there seems to be more text showing that some spells are attacks, and that the Attack action is not described as being limited to weapon attacks. Which would have been really easy for WotC to do in that paragraph.
However, the Bladesinger special ability appears to be the most solid WotC text to prove intention behind the Attack action, as it gives you permission to cast a cantrip with the action implies the ability was not already there.
I thank you again
Even if they did specify weapon attacks, your logic would still dictate that you could cast spells with the Attack action, because there are a couple spells (Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade) that actually include weapon attacks.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
But that's the thing, it isn't limited to being weapon attacks. And it isn't meant to be either but that doesn't mean that you can automatically use it to attack with a spell anyway because spells use another action (normally).
The thing that one needs to accept and embrace is the fact that making an attack is NOT the same thing as taking the "Attack" action.
I am glad everyone's explanations were helpful. The rules around attacks and actions are not the easiest to parse as there are a lot of similar sounding terms that refer to different concepts.
I just wanted to add that the reason the text of the Attack Action rule is not more specific about what kinds of attacks it allows is because it is a general rule and has to be written in a way that is mindful of its scope. There are monsters, such as a Lich, that can make spell attacks (Paralyzing Touch in the Liches case) with the Attack Action.
I don't know of any player features that enable something like this but I can easily see one existing. The closest player example I can recall is Circle of Stars Druid's Stary Form feature. If they use it to assume the Archer form they get an ad hoc Bonus Action to make a ranged spell attack.
Monks of the Way of the Sun Soul can use Radiant Sun Bolt to make ranged spell attacks as part of their Attack action.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I'd like to point something out about spells performing melee and ranged attacks, that might additionally give context to why they are the way they are.
Even though they can't be used as part of an Attack action or Extra Attack, the fact that spells make you attack reacts with other rules involving attacks. Specifically, they can auto-crit or auto-fail on a nat 20 or nat 1, melee spell attacks can be used to deal nonlethal damage, and effects that prevent a creature from attacking prevent you from using attack spells but may not prevent other damaging spells (such as AoE effects).