I only just realised extra attack and multiattack stack

[Lines]

So, I'd always assumed they didn't, considering multiattack was listed as an action by itself. That means you could use your action to take an attack or multiattack action, no way to combine - except that I just noticed this (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/08/rangers-badger-multi-attack/). The ranger can only command his beast to take the attack, dash, disengage, dodge or help actions (notice multiattack is not listed there), which means that if it can only be used as an action, instead of a form of attack, it can't be used. However, we've had it confirmed it can be used when you take the attack action - which means it's an attack that just happens to also be listed as an action, which means you can use it multiple times with extra attack.

Which means a monk/druid can attack four times an action in bear form, and the peak damage a werebear fighter can do is 16 attacks per round!

[RickAllison]

So, I'd always assumed they didn't, considering multiattack was listed as an action by itself. That means you could use your action to take an attack or multiattack action, no way to combine - except that I just noticed this (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/08/rangers-badger-multi-attack/). The ranger can only command his beast to take the attack, dash, disengage, dodge or help actions (notice multiattack is not listed there), which means that if it can only be used as an action, instead of a form of attack, it can't be used. However, we've had it confirmed it can be used when you take the attack action - which means it's an attack that just happens to also be listed as an action, which means you can use it multiple times with extra attack.

Which means a monk/druid can attack four times an action in bear form, and the peak damage a werebear fighter can do is 16 attacks per round!

I really want to say there is a Sage Advice against that, but I can't find one anywhere. Although I would rule you couldn't, at this point it is definitely a ruling based on balance rather than based on RAW, RAI, or what-have-you.

[Talamare]

Explain yourself please, the mechanics

I think everyone already knew and assumed you can use Multiattack when commanding your beast, it's why Giant Badger is considered a good beast to choose.

and I know for a fact the Druid's on my table use Mutliattack as well when they are in Beast Form.

Now explain, how that knowledge leaps to 16 attacks per turn?

[Lines]

I really want to say there is a Sage Advice against that, but I can't find one anywhere. Although I would rule you couldn't, at this point it is definitely a ruling based on balance rather than based on RAW, RAI, or what-have-you.

Yep. Including multiattack in the list of possible beast options, or just not giving them a list of options since why the hell would you needlessly restrict what they can do? The rules literally don't allow you to tell a dog to fetch.


Explain yourself please, the mechanics

I think everyone already knew and assumed you can use Multiattack when commanding your beast, it's why Giant Badger is considered a good beast to choose.

and I know for a fact the Druid's on my table use Mutliattack as well when they are in Beast Form.

Now explain, how that knowledge leaps to 16 attacks per turn?
I already explained it, not sure why you want me to write it twice. You're free to copy and paste it as much as you want though?

And no, by the rules you can't use multiattack, since it's listed as an action and it isn't one of the actions a ranger can order his beast to perform. The sage advice however says you can multiattack, which means that it is a form of attack, not an action, which means when you extra attack each attack can be a multiattack.

[Talamare]

I already explained it, not sure why you want me to write it twice. You're free to copy and paste it as much as you want though?

And no, by the rules you can't use multiattack, since it's listed as an action and it isn't one of the actions a ranger can order his beast to perform. The sage advice however says you can multiattack, which means that it is a form of attack, not an action, which means when you extra attack each attack can be a multiattack.

Okay, at lv11 you command your Beast to make 2 attacks, netting 4 actual attacks. Then you make one yourself and I suppose use a bonus action to take a 6th attack.

I'm still missing 10 attacks tho

[Lines]

Okay, at lv11 you command your Beast to make 2 attacks, netting 4 actual attacks. Then you make one yourself and I suppose use a bonus action to take a 6th attack.

I'm still missing 10 attacks tho

Not sure what you're getting at here. What has this got to do with rangers, aside from the SA showing that multiattack doesn't have to be an action being ranger related?

[RickAllison]

Okay, at lv11 you command your Beast to make 2 attacks, netting 4 actual attacks. Then you make one yourself and I suppose use a bonus action to take a 6th attack.

I'm still missing 10 attacks tho

Here is the werebear fighter theory:

4 attacks from the Extra Attack feature for a level 20 Fighter.
Action Surge gives 4 more, for 8 total.
Werebears gain a Multiattack that makes two attacks.
If Multiattack can be used for an attack in the Attack action, then the werebear fighter makes 16 attacks total.

[Talamare]

Not sure what you're getting at here. What has this got to do with rangers, aside from the SA showing that multiattack doesn't have to be an action being ranger related?

Should I not respond and wait for other people to reply to see if I'm the only one confused by this?...

Come on Lines, I have a lot of respect for ya. Explain it a little better, maybe state the build you have in mind or something...

Edit -

Here is the werebear fighter theory:

4 attacks from the Extra Attack feature for a level 20 Fighter.
Action Surge gives 4 more, for 8 total.
Werebears gain a Multiattack that makes two attacks.
If Multiattack can be used for an attack in the Attack action, then the werebear fighter makes 16 attacks total.

Thank you Rick! Understand it now~
So its basically abusing Lycanthropy rushed rules?
I and probably everyone else would Rule that Multiattack from Werebear doesn't stack with Extra Attack the class feature. One or the Other
There is already precedence that Extra Attack by another name doesn't stack with Extra Attack. Thirsting Blade from Warlock.

[RickAllison]

Also, by the logic a Monk/Druid in bear form would get six attacks. Extra Attack for 2 multiattacks for four claw attacks, then two from Flurry of Blows (that could not be used for multiattack, in case that wasn't clear).

[Giant2005]

So, I'd always assumed they didn't, considering multiattack was listed as an action by itself. That means you could use your action to take an attack or multiattack action, no way to combine - except that I just noticed this (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/08/rangers-badger-multi-attack/). The ranger can only command his beast to take the attack, dash, disengage, dodge or help actions (notice multiattack is not listed there), which means that if it can only be used as an action, instead of a form of attack, it can't be used. However, we've had it confirmed it can be used when you take the attack action - which means it's an attack that just happens to also be listed as an action, which means you can use it multiple times with extra attack.

Which means a monk/druid can attack four times an action in bear form, and the peak damage a werebear fighter can do is 16 attacks per round!

That tweet is out-dated. They changed their mind and made it no longer possible with the release of the errata.

[JoeJ]

Thank you Rick! Understand it now~
So its basically abusing Lycanthropy rushed rules?
I and probably everyone else would Rule that Multiattack from Werebear doesn't stack with Extra Attack the class feature. One or the Other

Yeah, I don't think very many DMs are going to allow that. It seems pretty clear to me that Multiattack is just the monster version of Extra Attack, which means that they don't stack.

[Lines]

Should I not respond and wait for other people to reply to see if I'm the only one confused by this?...

Come on Lines, I have a lot of respect for ya. Explain it a little better, maybe state the build you have in mind or something...

Oh ok. I didn't realise it was unclear, apologies.

1. Multiattack is listed as an action some creatures can take - by an initial reading of the rules, that means when you use the attack action, you cannot use multiattack. This is because both multiattack and the attack action are actions, it is for this same reason you cannot attack with firebolts as an attack action, firebolt is already its own action.

2. For this reason, by an initial reading of the rules, a beastmaster cannot command his beast to perform the multiattack action. This is because there is a set list of actions the beast can perform, and multiattack is not one of those actions.

3. The ruling here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/08/rangers-badger-multi-attack/) explains that a beast companion can be commanded to multiattack. This means that one of the actions a companion can perform can be used to multiattack. The beast has the attack, dash, disengage, dodge or help actions, which logically must mean it can be used as part of the attack action.

4. Which means that multiattack is not an action, but an attack that is listed under actions the same way a claw attack might be. Which means that with the extra attack and multiattack features (say, a druid 2/monk 5 transformed into a brown bear), a character can make a multiattack for each attack they get. With extra attack (3), for instance, that means you can make 3 attacks, each of which is a multiattack, for a total of 6 attacks with that attack action.

[RickAllison]

That tweet is out-dated. They changed their mind and made it no longer possible with the release of the errata.

Where is it in the errata? I just checked through all three and I couldn't find a mention of Multiattack or Extra Attack anywhere...

EDIT: Just found it!

[Lines]

Yeah, I don't think very many DMs are going to allow that. It seems pretty clear to me that Multiattack is just the monster version of Extra Attack, which means that they don't stack.
But they aren't. Extra attack allows you to make extra attacks as part of the attack action, while multiattack is an action which grants a specific set of attacks - but, according to the tweet, is not actually an action but rather a specific type of attack.


That tweet is out-dated. They changed their mind and made it no longer possible with the release of the errata.

Foiled once more! Guess the giant badger's back to being a useless pet for a beastmaster.

[JoeJ]

But they aren't. Extra attack allows you to make extra attacks as part of the attack action, while multiattack is an action which grants a specific set of attacks - but, according to the tweet, is not actually an action but rather a specific type of attack.

If you can find a DM willing to buy that much cheese, good for you.

[Lines]

If you can find a DM willing to buy that much cheese, good for you.

Not my fault they didn't write the rules properly. DM can change the rules it if he wants (and should, why on earth does the beast need to be ordered to attack 10 times a minute and have a set list of actions), but as it currently stands multiattack is a form of attack and thus can be used several times with the attack action.

[RickAllison]

If you can find a DM willing to buy that much cheese, good for you.

An important part of play-testing is taking rules and finding the exploits that allow for all the cheese. That's probably why the errata has taken the form it has, because someone pointed out the abuse that following the original reasoning could lead to. It's an important and necessary cycle!

EDIT: Lines, correction, they didn't write the Sage Advice properly. When it got to actual RAW with the errata, they wrote it just fine!

[Foxhound438]

The ranger can only command his beast to take the attack, dash, disengage, dodge or help actions (notice multiattack is not listed there), which means that if it can only be used as an action, instead of a form of attack, it can't be used.

check the PHB errata. it's an official rules document and has provisions for that exact situation. that rules change definitively excludes "multiattack" from the "attack action".

[Lines]

An important part of play-testing is taking rules and finding the exploits that allow for all the cheese. That's probably why the errata has taken the form it has, because someone pointed out the abuse that following the original reasoning could lead to. It's an important and necessary cycle!

EDIT: Lines, correction, they didn't write the Sage Advice properly. When it got to actual RAW with the errata, they wrote it just fine!

It should be noted I'd never use it in game - not because it's cheese (I love cheese!) but because it requires several levels dedicated specifically to it and I never make characters around a single tactic, unless it's something like the master of many forms in which that tactic can be used to make more tactics.

EDIT: I see your edit. Looks like its back to beasts being unable to multiattack, giant badger's back to being useless. For those reading and slower on the uptake than Rick, they still can't multiattack - the only thing which allows them to do so is the level 11 feature, at which point multiattacking is strictly worse than just using claws twice. If you're capable of doing something, but will never do it because it is just a flat out worse version of something you can do, is there a practical distinction between that and not being able to do it?

[RickAllison]

It should be noted I'd never use it in game - not because it's cheese (I love cheese!) but because it requires several levels dedicated specifically to it and I never make characters around a single tactic, unless it's something like the master of many forms in which that tactic can be used to make more tactics.

EDIT: I see your edit. Looks like its back to beasts being unable to multiattack, giant badger's back to being useless. For those reading and slower on the uptake than Rick, they still can't multiattack - the only thing which allows them to do so is the level 11 feature, at which point multiattacking is strictly worse than just using claws twice. If you're capable of doing something, but will never do it because it is just a flat out worse version of something you can do, is there a practical distinction between that and not being able to do it?

The way I was reading it was that you couldn't have them use two attacks with Multiattack, but that the Attack action still included Multiattack. What that sets up is the badger getting a power boost at the early levels where he can attack twice compared to the other companions, but he loses steam when Extra Attack can be applied to the other companions.

[JoeJ]

According to the errata, a ranger's companion can Multiattack if it has that ability. So giant badgers are still good. And it still makes sense to interpret Multiattack as the form of Extra Attack that monsters and NPCs get for the purposes of wild shaping and/or werebears.

[Lines]

The way I was reading it was that you couldn't have them use two attacks with Multiattack, but that the Attack action still included Multiattack. What that sets up is the badger getting a power boost at the early levels where he can attack twice compared to the other companions, but he loses steam when Extra Attack can be applied to the other companions.
Definitely not the case. It's specifically bestial fury, the level 11 ability, that lets them use multiattack.


According to the errata, a ranger's companion can Multiattack if it has that ability. So giant badgers are still good. And it still makes sense to interpret Multiattack as the form of Extra Attack that monsters and NPCs get for the purposes of wild shaping and/or werebears.
No, it can only use multiattack at level 11, at which point why wouldn't you use the completely superior option of making two attacks with the attack action?

[RickAllison]

According to the errata, a ranger's companion can Multiattack if it has that ability. So giant badgers are still good. And it still makes sense to interpret Multiattack as the form of Extra Attack that monsters and NPCs get for the purposes of wild shaping and/or werebears.

Well, good until Ranger 11. At that point, the only advantage I can see on giant badger over the wolf is the burrow speed, which is situational at best.

EDIT: Lines is right. So all the giant badger gets is a burrow speed.

[JoeJ]

Well, good until Ranger 11. At that point, the only advantage I can see on giant badger over the wolf is the burrow speed, which is situational at best.

EDIT: Lines is right. So all the giant badger gets is a burrow speed.

That's just silly. So I guess I know what one of my house rules is now.

[Lines]

That's just silly. So I guess I know what one of my house rules is now.

Honestly, just change it to you can use an action to order the beast to take an action of which it is capable of, at 5 you can make an attack if you do so, at 11 you can order the beast to take two actions. And at 20 you can command it as a bonus action, and then figure out something fun for hunters at 20.

[Talamare]

Isn't the Giant Badger the only one with Multiattack that you can legally choose as BM?
I think most people would allow them, especially since even then they still aren't the best pet to choose.

On sometype of MC Druid/Martial to get Extra Attack on the other hand...?
Hard to say if it would be too strong or not. I think it might be slightly too good. Mainly because Druids already have insane levels of tanking, they don't need insane damage to go with it. As well as there are a ton of potentially dangerous cases, too much work to bother looking thru it.

[Lines]

Isn't the Giant Badger the only one with Multiattack that you can legally choose as BM?
Yes, but it can't use multiattack until a better option appears, why why choose it?


I think most people would allow them, especially since even then they still aren't the best pet to choose.
Everyone should houserule the beastmaster immediately. It should never be used according to the present rules. So, yes.

[RickAllison]

Yes, but it can't use multiattack until a better option appears, why why choose it?


Everyone should houserule the beastmaster immediately. It should never be used according to the present rules. So, yes.

That's not quite true. The niche halfling-riding-a-pteranodon can be rather entertaining and effective.

[Giant2005]

Everyone should houserule the beastmaster immediately. It should never be used according to the present rules. So, yes.

That is a pretty strong statement and pretty inaccurate really. The BM is perfectly fine as it is if you use cheap tactics to keep your companion alive.
Sure it isn't ideal, but it is functional.

[Gastronomie]

This thread is sorta pointless because, even if everyone in WoC became drug-addicts and a Sage Advice confirmed that it was legal by raw, virtually no DM in his right mind would ever allow a were-bear fighter PC to make 16 attacks per turn.

Honestly, even if every single post in this thread supported this idea, and even if the friggin' Sage Advice supported this idea, it's always the DM of your campaign who has the final say. So the best thing is to ask him instead of on here.

/threadsolved

[Lines]

That is a pretty strong statement and pretty inaccurate really. The BM is perfectly fine as it is if you use cheap tactics to keep your companion alive.
Sure it isn't ideal, but it is functional.

Functional and fun are different things. It should be houseruled because the way it works is unintuitive and in many places bad (badger can't multiattack! dog can't fetch!) and can be easily improved upon.


This thread is sorta pointless because, even if everyone in WoC became drug-addicts and a Sage Advice confirmed that it was legal by raw, virtually no DM in his right mind would ever allow a were-bear fighter PC to make 16 attacks per turn.

Honestly, even if every single post in this thread supported this idea, and even if the friggin' Sage Advice supported this idea, it's always the DM of your campaign who has the final say. So the best thing is to ask him instead of on here.

/threadsolved

I agree in principle, but keep in mind I didn't know about the errata (the stupid errata, you can fix everything by not having a fixed list of actions for the beast) and thus thought it was RAW at the start, which you don't really have to ask your DM about.

[Giant2005]

Functional and fun are different things. It should be houseruled because the way it works is unintuitive and in many places bad (badger can't multiattack! dog can't fetch!) and can be easily improved upon.

I agree - I even made my own fix to solve the issues (as shown in my signature). I just don't think anyone should be taking something as subjective as "fun" and presenting it as a universal fact. I have played a BM with the rules as written, even with the stupid multi-attack rule, and enjoyed virtually every second of it.

[MaxWilson]

So, I'd always assumed they didn't, considering multiattack was listed as an action by itself. That means you could use your action to take an attack or multiattack action, no way to combine - except that I just noticed this (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/08/rangers-badger-multi-attack/). The ranger can only command his beast to take the attack, dash, disengage, dodge or help actions (notice multiattack is not listed there), which means that if it can only be used as an action, instead of a form of attack, it can't be used. However, we've had it confirmed it can be used when you take the attack action - which means it's an attack that just happens to also be listed as an action, which means you can use it multiple times with extra attack.

Which means a monk/druid can attack four times an action in bear form, and the peak damage a werebear fighter can do is 16 attacks per round!

The logic in bold doesn't follow, IMO.

At most you could infer that "Multi-attack" should be added to the set of allowed actions for beasts. You cannot infer that Multiattack is not really an action.


I agree - I even made my own fix to solve the issues (as shown in my signature). I just don't think anyone should be taking something as subjective as "fun" and presenting it as a universal fact. I have played a BM with the rules as written, even with the stupid multi-attack rule, and enjoyed virtually every second of it.

The best argument I've seen for "beastmaster is underpowered" is that beasts don't get magic weapons and so are destined to eventually become irrelevant at high levels. I'm skeptical of that argument on a number of levels (you could wind up fighting Death Slaads and giants, which have no immunity or resistance to weapons; you could find ways to equip your beast with weapons; you could research spells which grant magical attacks to your beast) but it is at least a plausible argument that low-level beastmasters could play very differently from high-level beastmasters. What were the highest-level threats you tackled with your beastmaster before he died or the campaign ended?

The only thing stopping me from playing a beastmaster ranger with a Mage Armored 40+ HP King Cobra with AC 21-23 and Blindsight + Darkness is the fact that melee is suboptimal in 5E compared to ranged combat. (You could potentially stack on Inspired Leader temp HP and Warding Bond for +1 AC/saves and resistance to damage.)

[Giant2005]

The best argument I've seen for "beastmaster is underpowered" is that beasts don't get magic weapons and so are destined to eventually become irrelevant at high levels. I'm skeptical of that argument on a number of levels (you could wind up fighting Death Slaads and giants, which have no immunity or resistance to weapons; you could find ways to equip your beast with weapons; you could research spells which grant magical attacks to your beast) but it is at least a plausible argument that low-level beastmasters could play very differently from high-level beastmasters. What were the highest-level threats you tackled with your beastmaster before he died or the campaign ended?
I have no idea what level threats my BM faced before that campaign vanished on me - it was too long ago for me to remember. Although I didn't face anything that resisted or was immune to physical damage and that is probably the part you care about.
The other thing is that magic weapons that enhance natural attacks do exist (The insignia of claws for example), it is just most DMs seem to forget about their existence as the DMG doesn't spell it out specifically. They are just a magic weapon the same as any other +1,2, or 3 weapon.


The only thing stopping me from playing a beastmaster ranger with a Mage Armored 40+ HP King Cobra with AC 21-23 and Blindsight + Darkness is the fact that melee is suboptimal in 5E compared to ranged combat. (You could potentially stack on Inspired Leader temp HP and Warding Bond for +1 AC/saves and resistance to damage.)
I'm not sure that I agree that melee combat is sub-optimal (although recently I played in a game where even the ranged guy insisted on fighting in melee and things really did suck because there wasn't enough room in the cave for everyone to be in melee range), but I do think that the lack of companion options with ranged attacks is a problem. Whether or not melee is sub-optimal, the ranged playstyle shouldn't be denied, which is why I also created a homebrew companion option (Giant Bombardier Beetle) that specializes in ranged combat, for my homebrew fix.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not sure that I agree that melee combat is sub-optimal (although recently I played in a game where even the ranged guy insisted on fighting in melee and things really did suck because there wasn't enough room in the cave for everyone to be in melee range), but I do think that the lack of companion options with ranged attacks is a problem. Whether or not melee is sub-optimal, the ranged playstyle shouldn't be denied, which is why I also created a homebrew companion option (Giant Bombardier Beetle) that specializes in ranged combat, for my homebrew fix.

I'm having trouble understanding why these two things happened in the same game. If there's room for two melee guys at the point of contact, then everyone else has engage from range (which is a big part of why melee is suboptimal--it's hard to concentrate force). If the ranged guy insists on displacing a melee guy, he's definitely playing suboptimally.

In a situation like you seem to have been in where the melee-oriented enemy is assaulting your chokepoint, generally the optimal response is for the melee guys in the chokepoint to play defensively (Dodge, Push Prone + Grapple, etc.) while the ranged guys do the killing from complete safety. Obviously that ceases to be true if the enemy has ranged artillery, e.g. melee zombies coupled with Grey Slaads chucking Cloudkills and Fireballs.

[bid]

3. The ruling here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/08/rangers-badger-multi-attack/) explains that a beast companion can be commanded to multiattack. This means that one of the actions a companion can perform can be used to multiattack. The beast has the attack, dash, disengage, dodge or help actions, which logically must mean it can be used as part of the attack action.
Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command the beast to take the Attack action, the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack action if it has that action.

So no, that "yep" means you are level 11.

[Lines]

Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command the beast to take the Attack action, the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack action if it has that action.

So no, that "yep" means you are level 11.

I'm terribly sorry, I've reread this a few times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say here, unless it's repeating something we've already discussed. Could you rephrase?

[Talamare]

I'm terribly sorry, I've reread this a few times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say here, unless it's repeating something we've already discussed. Could you rephrase?

I would assume so, its fairly common to read the OP before posting.

[bid]

I'm terribly sorry, I've reread this a few times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say here, unless it's repeating something we've already discussed. Could you rephrase?
I'm glad you've come to your senses and read the errata.

[greenstone]

3. The ruling here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/08/rangers-badger-multi-attack/) explains that a beast companion can be commanded to multiattack. This means that one of the actions a companion can perform can be used to multiattack. The beast has the attack, dash, disengage, dodge or help actions, which logically must mean it can be used as part of the attack action.

4. Which means that multiattack is not an action, but an attack that is listed under actions the same way a claw attack might be.

My reading is that the beast has the attack, dash, disengage, dodge, help and multiattack Actions, all of which a ranger can command the beast to do. It doesn't mean that the multiattack Action is the attack Action.

When a fighter/druid transforms into a beast, they now have the choice of the attack, dash, disengage, dodge, help and multiattack Actions. If they choose the attack Action then they can use the Extra Attacks feature; if they choose the multiattack Action then they cannot use that feature.

[Lines]

I'm glad you've come to your senses and read the errata.

Skimmed it, didn't notice it there. Declaring it only available at 11 and so making badgers useless is bad errata.

[ChelseaNH]

The best argument I've seen for "beastmaster is underpowered" is that beasts don't get magic weapons and so are destined to eventually become irrelevant at high levels.

Is advantage irrelevant at high levels? If a combatant is no longer useful as a combatant, it can at least use the Help action.

[Lines]

Is advantage irrelevant at high levels? If a combatant is no longer useful as a combatant, it can at least use the Help action.

So can a familiar, a level 1 spell.

[greenstone]

So can a familiar, a level 1 spell.

A familiar (at least not the Warlock pact boon one) cannot Attack, therefore it cannot Help with Attacking.

Player's Basic Guide 0.3, page 59.

A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone.

[ryan92084]

A familiar (at least not the Warlock pact boon one) cannot Attack, therefore it cannot Help with Attacking.

Player's Basic Guide 0.3, page 59.

Incorrect, reading the correct passage shows why. Emphasis mine

You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn.

Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.

This is the only section relevant to using help to grant advantage on an attack. Your quote applies to ability checks which attacking is not. Event the fluff jives with this interepretation since you don't need to know how to attack to distract.

Furthermore JC has already clarified the intent (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/672601300329062400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw).

[joaber]

In my table you can use extra attack with multiattack, but you only get ONE extra attack, not an extra multiattack.
For a moon druid, you still need to deep 5 lvls in another class, this is heavy. And we play mid to high magic items, with isn't good for a moon druid.

For a beastmaster, well, you still is lackluster.

[Soular]

Come on Lines, I have a lot of respect for ya. Explain it a little better, maybe state the build you have in mind or something...

Edit -


So its basically abusing Lycanthropy rushed rules?
I and probably everyone else would Rule that Multiattack from Werebear doesn't stack with Extra Attack the class feature. One or the Other
There is already precedence that Extra Attack by another name doesn't stack with Extra Attack. Thirsting Blade from Warlock.



Ahahahaaaa! Why would you be surprised that Eslin is still pushing his furry fantasy on these boards? And why on God's green Earth would you respect him for it? He was already banned once for d0uchebaggery...

Sigh, Infraction warning incoming in 3... 2... 1...

Anyway, I am glad to see that WotC is making such effort to support their game. I can't recall the last time I saw guys like Mearles and Crawford so ardently supporting their game.

[Lines]

Ahahahaaaa! Why would you be surprised that Eslin is still pushing his furry fantasy on these boards? And why on God's green Earth would you respect him for it? He was already banned once for d0uchebaggery...

Sigh, Infraction warning incoming in 3... 2... 1...

Anyway, I am glad to see that WotC is making such effort to support their game. I can't recall the last time I saw guys like Mearles and Crawford so ardently supporting their game.

That's swell, buddy.