some 5e nuance questions

[Chugger]

Got my head around most of 5e now (yeah, right) and have some questions about areas I'm still not so sure about (the phb was not written very clearly imho in a lot of spots).

1. Green Flame Blade. I'm guessing this is castable only once per turn, but let's say a fighter has Magic Init feat - and these cantrips are linked to melee attacks. One could try arguing that if he gets two melee attacks (level 5), he can cast GFB twice in a turn (it's linked to melee attack). There is no restriction against casting 2 cantrips a turn, if I read that part of the phb correctly - and GFB uses a melee attack as the somatic part. I guess the counter argument would be that GFB says it is a spell that takes one action (implicitly the action is used up by the cantrip casting). The lvl 5 extra attack (say for fighter) says you can "attack twice" - implied in that action - so I'm leaning toward the answer to this being "castable only once per turn". Perhaps some bonus action spell could be cast, like a war cleric doing healing word - and then this war cleric (who has magic init feat) could GFB on his/her action - that attack.

Anyway, I'm guessing that one GFB (or BB) per turn is what most would rule - but since RAI is not always RAW (clearly a life cleric w/ magic init doing goodberry should not create 4-point-healing goodberries by RAW, but by RAI some official said yes they do 4 - or so I've seen all over the board - therefore RAI is not always RAW). But ... okay, EK gets War Magic to let them cast a cantrip as action and a weapon attack as a bonus action. This would imply that, say, a non EK fighter w/ Magic Init feat casting GFB _loses_ his extra weapon attacks on any turn he casts a cantrip, such as GFB or BB. So unless you're an EK w/ War Mag, not only can't you cast GFB twice per turn, if you cast it even once you lose your extra attacks (or so it would seem). BUT over on the Extra Attack part is says you can attack twice "whenever you take the attack option on your turn." Casting an offensive cantrip is a spell attack - it is taking the attack option - the phb doesn't specify weapon attack here so one can only assume they meant it generally because they specify when they (seem to) mean to limit the scope of something. Or they just didn't think this through (what I'm starting to believe).

As a DM I'd rule that some other cantrip like true strike or firebolt eats up a whole action. GFB and BB are special because they're linking w/ melee attacks and allow your extra attack(s) that turn - but you can only do the cantrip part once. Has there been any official ruling on this please? I couldn't find one (I looked, maybe not well enough).

2. I keep seeing old references to a lock/sor combo where you can twin EB and do stupid high damage. But my (bought a few months ago) phb says on twinning spells "to be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell's current level." Which implies someone put the kibosh on this twinning abuse (if it was that). I'm guessing the highest cantrip for a fire-drac sorc would then be a twinned firebolt averaging if all hit (8d10 + 2 x cha bonus) - or 44 + 10 (2 beams from twining, so twice the ch dam bonus) = 54. Is that about right? EB would be 22 + 20 (5 per beam) = 42? Is there something I'm missing or not getting right? (doing average damage assuming all hits)

3. Double attack or dual wield. The off-hand attack is a bonus action attack, right? So if I'm a lvl 5 fighter w/ 2 short swords I can hit twice with my main hand but only once with my off-hand, right? (with styles and feat it gets a little better - add dx bonus to off-hand - wield 1d8 weaps, like a pair of rapiers - or str weaps). What about an action surge? Does it just "double" the above attack? It says in phb you get a "possible" (extra?) bonus action with the surge. So is that (lvl 5 fighter) 2 main hand attacks and one off-hand attack AND another 2 main hand attacks and an off hand attack - or just 4 total main hand attacks and one off-hand?

What about a bladelock/hexlock using two finesse weapons. I'm guessing only the main hand one is the pact weapon. Hex adds to any attack but lifedrinker only to the pact, or so it seems (I see disagreement over this or "ask your dm" all over the forums). Let's say we got a lvl 4 drow lock w/ the dual w feat using a pair of rapiers. On one turn he can do 2 pact-weap attacks + dx bonus and hex - plus one off-hand attack w/ hex bonus but no dex bonus. That would be 3d8 + 3d6 + 6 (dx bonus twice) = 24 + 6 = 30 average damage if all hit? Or a half elf with the elf weapons option using 2 sh sw and a higher dx at lvl 4 would be 3d6 + 3d6 + 8 = 21 + 8 = 29? I'm seeing why dual wielding is not liked - the second weapon seems not to scale at all (unless you get a magic weap for it - it would then scale a bit).

3. It seems to me if you misty step behind a target and then attack it "from behind" you'd have surprise of some sort on it - and get to hit at advantage. But I see nothing in the rules about this (except alt rules in the DMG). I would think such a maneuver would grant surprise regardless of whichever versions of the rules a table is using. Anyone know if there is an "official" word on this please? Or have I missed something? I'm guessing MS was envisioned as a defensive spell (as was exp retreat) - but both can be used offensively, of course - but for MS I'm wondering how people (and the officials) handle a poof and backstab (and yes I know facing "doesn't matter" but it does or could - i.e. if you don't like the facing rules in the dmg but wanted to rule this as an exception - a DM could - but is there an official stance?).

4. Been many years since I've taken statistics. Anyone remember the formula for comparing a Savage Attacker feat attack w/ an attack w/out that feat please?

5. Does Polearm Mastery feat work with a quarterstaff wielded one-handed please? One handed with a shield? (specifically the opposite end attack seems to need 2 hands to work in reality - but DnD is not a reality emulator).

6. If I cast one of the many save or suck spells (like hold person) and the target fails - but its turn is right after mine - it gets to immediately save - and let's say it makes this one. So I've wasted my action to neutralize its action, because its second save was at the "end" of it's turn. Is that how the mechanic works if the initiative order is as I've said? How do you deal with this if you want your meleers to have a chance to beat on a held target? Do you have to first know the init order (perhaps go through a full round to find out when the target goes) and then in round two use ready action (or coordinated init/attack, if the DM allows) to delay the casting til after its turn? I guess that's it - mainly am wondering if I got the initial (above) mechanic right.

7. Oh, another statistics formula request - let's say I could take great weapon master and hope to get advantage in combat often (friend casts faerie fire - or friend is a wolf barb). What is the formula for comparing my chance to hit a certain AC with and without advantage please?

8. Heck, I'm realizing I should have made each of these a topic. Ugh. Don't wanna go back and do that. Well, if you can help w/ any of them please try. I will appreciate it - and I'm sure there are others who want to know answers to these issues. Thanks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Got my head around most of 5e now (yeah, right) and have some questions about areas I'm still not so sure about (the phb was not written very clearly imho in a lot of spots).

1. Green Flame Blade. I'm guessing this is castable only once per turn, but let's say a fighter has Magic Init feat - and these cantrips are linked to melee attacks. One could try arguing that if he gets two melee attacks (level 5), he can cast GFB twice in a turn (it's linked to melee attack). There is no restriction against casting 2 cantrips a turn, if I read that part of the phb correctly - and GFB uses a melee attack as the somatic part. I guess the counter argument would be that GFB says it is a spell that takes one action (implicitly the action is used up by the cantrip casting). The lvl 5 extra attack (say for fighter) says you can "attack twice" - implied in that action - so I'm leaning toward the answer to this being "castable only once per turn". Perhaps some bonus action spell could be cast, like a war cleric doing healing word - and then this war cleric (who has magic init feat) could GFB on his/her action - that attack.

Anyway, I'm guessing that one GFB (or BB) per turn is what most would rule - but since RAI is not always RAW (clearly a life cleric w/ magic init doing goodberry should not create 4-point-healing goodberries by RAW, but by RAI some official said yes they do 4 - or so I've seen all over the board - therefore RAI is not always RAW). But ... okay, EK gets War Magic to let them cast a cantrip as action and a weapon attack as a bonus action. This would imply that, say, a non EK fighter w/ Magic Init feat casting GFB _loses_ his extra weapon attacks on any turn he casts a cantrip, such as GFB or BB. So unless you're an EK w/ War Mag, not only can't you cast GFB twice per turn, if you cast it even once you lose your extra attacks (or so it would seem). BUT over on the Extra Attack part is says you can attack twice "whenever you take the attack option on your turn." Casting an offensive cantrip is a spell attack - it is taking the attack option - the phb doesn't specify weapon attack here so one can only assume they meant it generally because they specify when they (seem to) mean to limit the scope of something. Or they just didn't think this through (what I'm starting to believe).

As a DM I'd rule that some other cantrip like true strike or firebolt eats up a whole action. GFB and BB are special because they're linking w/ melee attacks and allow your extra attack(s) that turn - but you can only do the cantrip part once. Has there been any official ruling on this please? I couldn't find one (I looked, maybe not well enough).



I'll only answer this one. An Action (note the capital letter) is a specific thing. Casting a cantrip requires using the Cast a Spell Action (unless it specifies otherwise). The Extra Attack feature requires taking the Attack Action. They're not compatible. So you can't use GFB or BB in the same turn you use Extra Attack unless you either a) burn an Action Surge or b) have sorcerer levels and Quicken the cantrip.

[Kane0]

1. Green Flame Blade.
A fighter could action surge to cast GFB as an action twice, or a sorcerer could use quicken spell to use GFB as a standard and as a bonus action

2. Sorlock EB
I think they may mean quicken spell to cast EB as action and again as bonus action. You could twin firebolt, chromatic orb or another single attack/single target spell though.

3. Double attack or dual wield.
Aye, all your normal attacks with your main hand and a bonus action to make one attack with the off hand. Action surge gets you an extra action, so you could get another bundle of main hand attacks but still only the one bonus action attack. Action surge is wierdly worded.
You are right on bladelock, it applies to pact weapon and not the off hand whereas hex applies to any attack you hit with.

3. Misty step and getting in behind
Your DM determines when surprise applies (usually when the target is unaware of you and not anticipating hostile action), and the DMG has optional rules for flanking. Those optional rules are commonly regarded as 'not very good'
Surprise is wordy and somewhat vague, I think there's a big thread or three around somewhere on it.

4. Savage attacker formula
Not I sorry, there are a couple of forumites that have this covered though, just have a quick search.

5. Does Polearm Mastery with quarterstaves
Yeah it does, though quite a few people don't like it.

6. Save or suck spells and initiative
Yeah you have it right. You can ready an action to get your spell in at another time rather than right before its turn but you can't delay your entire turn. Its up to the DM on how they run initiative and who knows what.

7. GWM & Advantage
I believe Kryx has you covered here, its in his signature

[Millstone85]

I'll only answer this one. An Action (note the capital letter) is a specific thing. Casting a cantrip requires using the Cast a Spell Action (unless it specifies otherwise). The Extra Attack feature requires taking the Attack Action. They're not compatible. So you can't use GFB or BB in the same turn you use Extra Attack unless you either a) burn an Action Surge or b) have sorcerer levels and Quicken the cantrip.This is correct, except about the capital letters.

It is "the Attack action" and "the Cast a Spell action".

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is correct, except about the capital letters.

It is "the Attack action" and "the Cast a Spell action".

Hmmm, you're right. I had always read those as capitalized. You have one action, of which the Attack action and the Cast a Spell action are typical uses. However, bonus action is not always (or ever?) capitalized. I guess I was generalizing from things like Cunning Action (which as a proper noun is capitalized). TIL.

[Chugger]

I'll only answer this one. An Action (note the capital letter) is a specific thing. Casting a cantrip requires using the Cast a Spell Action (unless it specifies otherwise). The Extra Attack feature requires taking the Attack Action. They're not compatible. So you can't use GFB or BB in the same turn you use Extra Attack unless you either a) burn an Action Surge or b) have sorcerer levels and Quicken the cantrip.

I appreciate your trying to explain this to me, but it's not clear - and it's not your fault. 5e has its complex nuances - and I like 5e for the most part. But I don't see in the rules (I'll go back and look) where action and attack action are precisely defined. I'm guessing you're saying that taking a melee attack, say, as a lvl 5 fighter, is an action - and the second attack is tied to that. Casting a spell is a whole action that if used during the action part of a turn eats up the whole action.

I'm actually seeing on a sorcadin guide an interpretation where the guide writer (who seems pretty confident) says that a sorcadin casting Green Flame Blade does _not_ get their extra attack - the cantrip casting eats up the whole action. Is this what you're saying? (maybe I do get it - I just don't feel confident - the people who wrote this needed to tell us officially how this works in more detail - that they think it's clear - well, if any of you are old enough to get "stereo instruction jokes" ... probably not, but what went wrong with old stereos was the same people who built the stereos wrote the instructions, so of course they already knew how it worked - so they did not explain it to someone who had no clue how it worked because they couldn't imagine that - the instructions should have been written with the help of someone who had no clue (or should have been compiled or ruled by some such person) - I see a similar thing here (has seen official quotes that are way to "well it's obvious that" - and it ain't :D ).

I can see what you're saying about action surge and quicken. Thanks.

[Chugger]

1. Green Flame Blade.
A fighter could action surge to cast GFB as an action twice, or a sorcerer could use quicken spell to use GFB as a standard and as a bonus action

2. Sorlock EB
I think they may mean quicken spell to cast EB as action and again as bonus action. You could twin firebolt, chromatic orb or another single attack/single target spell though.

3. Double attack or dual wield.
Aye, all your normal attacks with your main hand and a bonus action to make one attack with the off hand. Action surge gets you an extra action, so you could get another bundle of main hand attacks but still only the one bonus action attack. Action surge is wierdly worded.
You are right on bladelock, it applies to pact weapon and not the off hand whereas hex applies to any attack you hit with.

3. Misty step and getting in behind
Your DM determines when surprise applies (usually when the target is unaware of you and not anticipating hostile action), and the DMG has optional rules for flanking. Those optional rules are commonly regarded as 'not very good'
Surprise is wordy and somewhat vague, I think there's a big thread or three around somewhere on it.

4. Savage attacker formula
Not I sorry, there are a couple of forumites that have this covered though, just have a quick search.

5. Does Polearm Mastery with quarterstaves
Yeah it does, though quite a few people don't like it.

6. Save or suck spells and initiative
Yeah you have it right. You can ready an action to get your spell in at another time rather than right before its turn but you can't delay your entire turn. Its up to the DM on how they run initiative and who knows what.

7. GWM & Advantage
I believe Kryx has you covered here, its in his signature

Thanks much. On 1 I'm starting to get it - the rules still seem muddy to me - but I think I get how the GGB/BB mechanic works - once per turn unless surge or the sor thing.

2. Right, need to get all the sor tricks sorted out in my mind. So a high lvl sorlock could potentially cast 8 EB beams in one turn w/ quicken, right? Once as a bonus action and again as an action? That would be what ... 8d10 plus 40 (5 cha damage bonus with the invo)? 88 average damage if all hit? Not counting possible hex.

On double attack and misty step - thanks - I suspected as much.

On the formula thanks, I'll push my brain and keep trying key terms - bet I'll find it. (but if someone has the link or formula pls tell me)

Pam and qstaff...well, the game isn't a reality simulator! :smallbiggrin:

On the rest, thanks much! Helps a lot!

[Chugger]

This is correct, except about the capital letters.

It is "the Attack action" and "the Cast a Spell action".

I know you both are trying to help - and thanks - but ... um....not sure how weighting a word's meaning by capping or not capping is a thing, if you know what I mean. As a defined logical procedure or a grammar issue with consistent meaning .... am I that old? Or are you just "getting" something I'm not getting? :D Not at all attacking - just still feeling a bit lost (though you all have helped - I'm getting a much better sense of all this now).

I did horribly - HORRIBLY - with DoS or DOS or dos...ahem. But loved Macs. For some of us our intuitive procedures work differently - our assumptive bases might be wired very differently for one thing. And what may be "obvious" to some is not nec. "obvious" to someone else. And these two (on a fair test) could have the exact same "I.Q." (if such a thing really exists). Well, thanks again. The original rules were not clear on everything, either - I should be used to this, right? :D

[Chugger]

Okay here is a thread where they discuss Savage Attacks and when to reroll, but they get it wrong. You are not stuck with the reroll on SA. You can pick either. Anyway, they are attempting to apply statistics to the problem (I'll keep looking). http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?374922-How-to-calculate-Savage-Attacker-damage

Also, looking at it, I can't tell if using say a 2h greatsword and you roll a 1 and a 6 - can you keep the six and reroll the 1? Or do you have to reroll both and pick the higher of the two?

(edit AHA ---> http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?378365-The-Savage-Attacker-feat-is-underpowered)

[Mortis_Elrod]

I know you are a bit confused and since nobody is up to explain it word for word I will for you. I know its bit much and a little disappointing but its actually fine as is. Lets start with Attack action.

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.


Now Cast a Spell 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.

So with just these two rules we know that typically you can't cast a spell and use the Attack action in the same turn. Exceptions being if the spell didn't require an action, or if you had two actions. You may still be able to attack however if such attack isn't using your action, like if you used a spell that had you attack as part of casting the spell, or if you had a feature that allowed you to attack with say a bonus action or reaction, or if you had an additional action and used it for the Attack action.

Now Extra attack is tied directly to the Attack action. If you do not use Attack option, you do not get to make an Extra Attack.

Now let's look at the spell(s) in question, Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade.
GREEN-FLAME BLADE
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 5 feet
Components:
V, M (a weapon)
Duration:
Instantaneous
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must
make a melee attack with a weapon against one crea*ture
within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.
On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects,
and green fire leaps from the target to a different
crea*ture of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it.
The second creature takes fire damage equal to your
spell casting ability modifier.
This spell's damage increases when you reach higher
levels.
At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8
fire damage to the target, and the fire damage to the sec*ond
creature increases to 1d8 +your spellcasting ability
modifier. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th
level and 17th level.

The same emphasized text is part of booming blade. In this instance when one uses the Cast a Spell action, to cast either spell one makes a melee weapon attack as part of this action. Since you cast a spell with your action you can't use Extra Attack.

[smcmike]

2. Right, need to get all the sor tricks sorted out in my mind. So a high lvl sorlock could potentially cast 8 EB beams in one turn w/ quicken, right? Once as a bonus action and again as an action? That would be what ... 8d10 plus 40 (5 cha damage bonus with the invo)? 88 average damage if all hit? Not counting possible hex.

Another Sorcerer nova trick that you are missing is adding in 2 levels of Fighter for action surge. With Quickened Spell, that lets the Sorcerer cast one spell and two cantrips in a turn, and you could apply other metamagic to those cantrips.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

Mortis_Elrod has it explained pretty well, quoting the 2 most used actions. I just want to add in on the part of the melee attacks and the use of bold letters. The thing to remember is the diffence between just making a melee attack and using the attack option.

I'll use a non spell example: lvl12 two weapon fighter uses attack action on turn to make 3 melee attacks due to his extra attack class feature.
Then uses bonus action to make melee attack for a total of 4 attacks.
Now it the monster's turn and he is scared and tries to run with disengaging.
This provokes an attack of opportunity in which the fighter uses their reaction to make 1 melee attack against the the monster.
He doesn't get 3 attacks and the reason is in the wording of Extra Attack class feature being only when you take the attack action.

[Millstone85]

Mortis_Elrod did explain it very well.


I know you both are trying to help - and thanks - but ... um....not sure how weighting a word's meaning by capping or not capping is a thing, if you know what I mean.It is a thing, at least in 5e. There is a, I think it can be called a feature, that all characters possess, and which is named Attack. But not every attack in the game is Attack. And if you have the Extra Attack class feature, the idea is that you can make several attacks as part of Attack.

A similar thing is how the PHB uses italics whenever it talks about spells, like "the darkness spell" or "when you cast mage hand". Of course, people here on the forum prefer to talk about Darkness and Mage Hand.

[LtDarien]

3. Double attack or dual wield.
Aye, all your normal attacks with your main hand and a bonus action to make one attack with the off hand. Action surge gets you an extra action, so you could get another bundle of main hand attacks but still only the one bonus action attack. Action surge is wierdly worded.
You are right on bladelock, it applies to pact weapon and not the off hand whereas hex applies to any attack you hit with.

Just want to point out that there's not a concept of Main hand and Off hand in 5e. Any time you make an attack you can use either hand. So the fighter with Extra attack and two weapons can make one attack with each one, or two attacks with the same weapon.

Two Weapon fighting just says that the bonus action attack must be made with the opposite hand of the attack used to trigger it. So you could make two attacks with either hand and one with the other.

Similarly with Action surge you can make 4/1, 3/2, 2/3, or 1/4 attacks with R/L hands.

[Beelzebubba]

I know you both are trying to help - and thanks - but ... um....not sure how weighting a word's meaning by capping or not capping is a thing, if you know what I mean. As a defined logical procedure or a grammar issue with consistent meaning .... am I that old? Or are you just "getting" something I'm not getting? :D Not at all attacking - just still feeling a bit lost (though you all have helped - I'm getting a much better sense of all this now).

I did horribly - HORRIBLY - with DoS or DOS or dos...ahem. But loved Macs. For some of us our intuitive procedures work differently - our assumptive bases might be wired very differently for one thing. And what may be "obvious" to some is not nec. "obvious" to someone else. And these two (on a fair test) could have the exact same "I.Q." (if such a thing really exists). Well, thanks again. The original rules were not clear on everything, either - I should be used to this, right? :D

Which edition did you play before? AD&D? 3E?
They use 'Turn' differently than the old school stuff, so maybe that's what confusing.

--

As far as your questions, they have some very specific game terms that have concrete meanings. Those are capitalized.

The ones we're referring to here:

Player's Handbook, p. 189.

A Round = every character getting a Turn.


A Turn = your character does stuff. It's 6 seconds.


A typical Turn lets you:
1) Interact with one item for free (open a door, draw a weapon, etc.)
2) Use your 'Move' (i.e. a human moves up to 30')
3) Take an 'Action' (Attack, Cast a Spell, Hide, etc. - see below)

#3 is the critical part here.

--

For 'Taking an Action':

Player's Handbook, p. 192.
Your questions concerns the first two types of actions you can take during combat. They are mutually exclusive. Read through those, then come back.

'For my Action, I Attack'
- The Attack action gives most characters one swing with a weapon during their Turn
- Higher level Fighters can use their Attack to get 2-3 swings during their Turn
- This is only with hand-held weapons. NOT spells.

or

'For my Action, I Cast a Spell'
- Green Flame Blade is a spell that has a casting time of '1 Action'
- so therefore you can only cast it once per Turn
- Think of the weapon as the material component that delivers the spell
- Like a taser that you charge up for a few seconds, then strike

Hopefully that helps.

--

Think about it another way, too:

The Green Flame Blade spell was made specifically so characters that only get one attack a round to NOT SUCK during combat.

If a fighter that attacked 3 times a round could use that spell every attack every round, it would be utterly broken. Nobody would ever choose another tactic. This edition of the game takes a LOT of effort to balance things out, so it purposefully prevented that from happening.

[Chugger]

B I have not played since _AD&D_ (where your avatar comes from!!!) and so your question seems to help a lot. I don't know 3.5 or 4 at all, and maybe the 5e designers were expecting players to know something from that. A turn and a round were very different with the original pamplets and ad&d - very.

Have you ever tried to read some of the old braniac German feelawfullers? Like Kant and Hegel? I struggled with them but had zero problem understanding a communications-based philosopher who reinterpreted what they said. It didn't take me long to realize I wasn't as stupid as I'd thought. The problem was that the German phils were _horrible_ communicators, at least for my brain. Among other things they have a nasty habit of repurposing normal words with normal meanings into new words with, for them, new meanings - and then they'd use the normal word with the normal meaning a few paragraphs down and don't signal you - you have to waste mental energy to figure it out (and lots more - I'll stop there). Now, if your intuition is honed to their wavelength you'll just get it. It's not an IQ issue. It's a "what's your filter" issue. Some of us end up wasting brain power parsing (like a dyslexic person struggling to read) while others "just get it" and it know what is meant easily. Between my lack of current-game-knowledge and the fact that I'm obviously not on the 5e designer's wavelength (they use a different intuitive filter or code from me), I'm in trouble. 5e is using a lot of words and terms in, what to me, is a very inconsistent - or sometimes sparse - or sometimes incomplete fashion.

Please note, I can discuss, say, the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment and say which reactions to it are probably woo and which ones might be reasonable. I'm not going to go in depth as to what is wrong with the PHB - they can hire me to help them on their next one if they want (there are some simple things they could have done which would have made this much more clear to a much wider range of people - wanna know how most newbies learn 5e? YOUTUBE! :smallbiggrin: Because most people learn by emulating <-- or at least this can be strongly argued) - but again, I do appreciate your help. (am starting to get the parts that were bugging me, thanks)

Again, somewhere hidden under the phb's not-great attempt to explain (at least not great for me) is a very decent and playable, though complex, game - this thing called 5e. I'm not attacking the game. I actually like this version a lot.

[Mortis_Elrod]

So you know how when you have a pronoun you generally capitalize it to signify its importance and the fact that's it's unique? That's exactly what's happening when we say Attack action and not attack action. It be better if it was named something different since the word "attack" is used everywhere, but it's also the most basic combat action and generally used by saying the words "I attack" so the devs probably thought that would be a perfect name.

Let's call it Swing action. You swing your sword all the time so it's not a bad name, and it's different enough to not be confuddled by the rest of attacks in 5e.

Generally every attack has a name to it, weather it's a spell, class feature, racial feature , or feat. For the most basic of all attacks, it's name is Attack. It's name could be Swing/Slap/Kick/Punch/ or Orbital Ion Canon. You know when the game is talking about it because it's treated like it has a name, with capitalized first letter.

when we talk about "melee weapon attack" we are talking about a type of any attack.


Do you see the difference? I know it's confusing at first, but does this help any? I hate the fact that 5e drives off people because nobody could foresee such an inevitable misscommunciation, and thus name things better.

[Chugger]

So you know how when you have a pronoun you generally capitalize it to signify its importance and the fact that's it's unique? That's exactly what's happening when we say Attack action and not attack action. It be better if it was named something different since the word "attack" is used everywhere, but it's also the most basic combat action and generally used by saying the words "I attack" so the devs probably thought that would be a perfect name.

Let's call it Swing action. You swing your sword all the time so it's not a bad name, and it's different enough to not be confuddled by the rest of attacks in 5e.

Generally every attack has a name to it, weather it's a spell, class feature, racial feature , or feat. For the most basic of all attacks, it's name is Attack. It's name could be Swing/Slap/Kick/Punch/ or Orbital Ion Canon. You know when the game is talking about it because it's treated like it has a name, with capitalized first letter.

when we talk about "melee weapon attack" we are talking about a type of any attack.


Do you see the difference? I know it's confusing at first, but does this help any? I hate the fact that 5e drives off people because nobody could foresee such an inevitable misscommunciation, and thus name things better.

I appreciate your help - am not really arguing with you (as I've said I do like the game and have found a few spots where the RAW is not clear to me and others like me). I wish the writers of the phb had just been - look, they were clear in a lot of it - it's not like the phb is "bad". But it's very much unclear on a few spots - and in other cases, to cast a "wider net of understanding" (to reach those who are possibly more right-brained and learn, say, by example and/or emulation), they should have given far more examples. And the fringe aspects - you do realize I'm asking for help with the gray zone or fringe aspects - I get the core - anyway, the fringe parts they really should have paid more attention to and been clear.

The problem with a rulebook using a capitalized word ... don't even get me started. If you happen to be on the same wavelength with the people who wrote 5e and "get it", that's wonderful - and if you get an see this in the phb, more power to you. In general, however, it's a weak construct (and there are far better ways to explain complex rules). Not trying to be argumentative or difficult or anything - it's just that ... there is a great and very complex game in these rules. Where the rules are clear and consistent and give good examples - bravo - nice. It's just that in the editing they must not have realized there was a problem with a few spots (also w/ some of the scag stuff) - and I'm not really "complaining" here - just stating why this is a problemo (for me and people who think like me - long ago some of us were dos-heads - some were mac-heads - we could not see eye to eye on that - our brains were different - I'm guessing dos-heads were more left-brained and mac-heads were more right-brained, if that's even a real thing any more (figuratively it still is, anyway)). I do like the game so don't want to come off "highly judgmental" or anything like that. It's just that the gray zone or fringe areas of rule-interpretation in this game really are not clear - I get how to do the mechanics for them now (so again thanks to all).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not going to suddenly "see the light" and say "omg now I see how these troubling nuances of the phb work - it's there - it's there!" It's not there for me; it never will be. I'm like a dyslexic person struggling to find out what the words mean. This dyslexic person doesn't need to be told "look, this is an R, this is a T - see how it makes sense?" The dyslexic person just needs to know what the instruction manual actually says - how to run the thing they just bought - not how to read. That can't come on a forum. In this case, I'm not going to suddenly "get" the "mystic" process behind the phb writers' minds - I'm not on that wavelength - my brain is wrong for that. So helping me get the rules as intended or officially interpreted is what I need. And again thanks for the help with this. I'll get the rules, yes. Just not their code.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Ok well, as long as I helped you out with something. I kind of agree with you, but at the same time I'm one of those guys that just get it without trying.

If I could I'd run a game for you for that hands on learning but I'm also working right now, so yeah sorry.

And yeah was never arguing with you either, but I'm sorry if I was hammering you with the same answers bro.

[Chugger]

No prob - you were trying to help. It's more a personal thing for me, this whole topic of trying to understand how truly different we can be from each other (at least in some ways). I've worked with autistic and special ed kids, so I've begun to learn how someone with a different brain can really see the world differently from me - and how I've created conflict in the past not seeing this (even though I really should have) - but I'm getting better. I'm very glad you see that you "get it" - and it will help you when you run into others who are in at least some ways very different from you. In education there is a tyranny (of sorts), a one-size-fits-all approach, but it's a kind of "lottery" where kids either are born able to grasp this way or not. So many kids feel "stupid" or "bad" or other bad emotions because they "fail to learn" - it's heartbreaking to see and hear them put themselves down (they go so far as to call themselves "ret#rded", a word I really don't like - and a condition they absolutely didn't have, but they assumed they did) - and I try to pump up these kids and get them (and their parents) to see that the kid has not failed. The the system has failed to teach the kid - the school district has failed to find a way to teach this kid in the way he/she learns. Even when they have an IEP the district fails over and over (but thankfully not always). Anyway, the takeaway from that is me repeating myself from my earlier statement - so I'll try not to do that. That's the background that motivates me to blab on this topic in this way - and I sincerely hope to inspire others (yes, even on a dnd forum - hah!) to give people who are "differently abled" or in special ed or autistic (or dyslexic, adhd, and so on) a fresh look and a chance. And if you're already on top of this, that's great - and thanks again for the patience with me and the help.

(Also thx for your concern. I get 5e enough now to run a game, at least a home game - and to play Adv League - though I'm still learning of course (and they help me, too, but I see them about once a week if that). At this point it's a whole basket full of fringe things that bug the heck out of me, like xbow mastery or expert feat - I forget the exact name. Does it let you use two hand xbows at once? It doesn't exclude that because it doesn't say if you have a onehanded melee weapon in your main hand you can use an xbow in your offhand - it says if you have a "one handed weapon". It's really not clear. And can you add dex bonus to off hand damage? And if a fighter has 3 attacks a turn can he, with two hand xbows, really get off 4 hand xbow shots with the feat? A hvy xbow irl takes sometimes over a minute to crank and reload. But even if a hand xbow is just snap back and fire - how can you reload in 6 seconds and fire while slashing 3 times accurately ... and the game is not a reality emulator. But it's another place where at least for me the phb is very much not clear. :smallsmile: But it's still overall an excellent game (5e).)

[Mortis_Elrod]

No prob - you were trying to help. It's more a personal thing for me, this whole topic of trying to understand how truly different we can be from each other (at least in some ways). I've worked with autistic and special ed kids, so I've begun to learn how someone with a different brain can really see the world differently from me - and how I've created conflict in the past not seeing this (even though I really should have) - but I'm getting better. I'm very glad you see that you "get it" - and it will help you when you run into others who are in at least some ways very different from you. In education there is a tyranny (of sorts), a one-size-fits-all approach, but it's a kind of "lottery" where kids either are born able to grasp this way or not. So many kids feel "stupid" or "bad" or other bad emotions because they "fail to learn" - it's heartbreaking to see and hear them put themselves down (they go so far as to call themselves "ret#rded", a word I really don't like - and a condition they absolutely didn't have, but they assumed they did) - and I try to pump up these kids and get them (and their parents) to see that the kid has not failed. The the system has failed to teach the kid - the school district has failed to find a way to teach this kid in the way he/she learns. Even when they have an IEP the district fails over and over (but thankfully not always). Anyway, the takeaway from that is me repeating myself from my earlier statement - so I'll try not to do that. That's the background that motivates me to blab on this topic in this way - and I sincerely hope to inspire others (yes, even on a dnd forum - hah!) to give people who are "differently abled" or in special ed or autistic (or dyslexic, adhd, and so on) a fresh look and a chance. And if you're already on top of this, that's great - and thanks again for the patience with me and the help.

(Also thx for your concern. I get 5e enough now to run a game, at least a home game - and to play Adv League - though I'm still learning of course (and they help me, too, but I see them about once a week if that). At this point it's a whole basket full of fringe things that bug the heck out of me, like xbow mastery or expert feat - I forget the exact name. Does it let you use two hand xbows at once? It doesn't exclude that because it doesn't say if you have a onehanded melee weapon in your main hand you can use an xbow in your offhand - it says if you have a "one handed weapon". It's really not clear. And can you add dex bonus to off hand damage? And if a fighter has 3 attacks a turn can he, with two hand xbows, really get off 4 hand xbow shots with the feat? A hvy xbow irl takes sometimes over a minute to crank and reload. But even if a hand xbow is just snap back and fire - how can you reload in 6 seconds and fire while slashing 3 times accurately ... and the game is not a reality emulator. But it's another place where at least for me the phb is very much not clear. :smallsmile: But it's still overall an excellent game (5e).)

Well the xbow feat is one where it wasn't immediately clear to me but i can still answer.
If you have say two hand cossbows loaded, yes you can fire one that triggers Crossbow Expert, and use the second hand crossbow you have. You do indeed add your dex modifier to both damage rolls. A 11th level fighter with crossbow expert can have a loaded hand crossbow ready, say strapped to his belt or holstered, and attack three times with Attack action and Extra attack(2) triggering Crossbow expert, then pick up that loaded handcrossbow in his holster and fire that one off. You could also do all of this just by holding only one hand crossbow, and nothing else since you need a free hand to load. And yes i agree its not very clear, pretty sure it took a very lengthy thread or two for people to understand the options and limitations.

[Chugger]

Well the xbow feat is one where it wasn't immediately clear to me but i can still answer.
If you have say two hand cossbows loaded, yes you can fire one that triggers Crossbow Expert, and use the second hand crossbow you have. You do indeed add your dex modifier to both damage rolls. A 11th level fighter with crossbow expert can have a loaded hand crossbow ready, say strapped to his belt or holstered, and attack three times with Attack action and Extra attack(2) triggering Crossbow expert, then pick up that loaded handcrossbow in his holster and fire that one off. You could also do all of this just by holding only one hand crossbow, and nothing else since you need a free hand to load. And yes i agree its not very clear, pretty sure it took a very lengthy thread or two for people to understand the options and limitations.

Yeah. If I'm DMing I'd have trouble allowing xbow expert feat - heavy crossbows can't be fired two, three or four times (or twice that in a surge) in six seconds. It's simply not possible. Even for light xbows it's silly and not really possible. A truly expert fighter w/ 4 attacks taking a surge could barely get off 8 shots in 6 seconds in reality - and not 8 "aimed" shots - 8 intuitive shots. The weird thing is that I think the feat expressly allows the character to ignore the reloading restriction on xbows - so you don't need to worry about preloaded xbows - you can sort of magically fire them regardless because dnd is not a reality emulator (I guess) ( and is having to allow range attacks to keep up with the dpr of some melee attacks or something - even if it's so unreal it's funny).