What would the 5e phrasing be for combining multiple attacks into a single attack?
$begingroup$
A (homebrew) magic greatsword has this feature:
Heavy Blow. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you may choose to forfeit your attacks for one very powerful attack. The powerful attack uses the lowest modifier in the attacks you forfeit. If you hit with this very powerful attack, you deal damage as if you had hit every attack you forfeit, and [...]
The intended behavior is that an 11th level fighter with a +8 to hit would be able to use his action to make a single attack with a +8 to hit, dealing 6d6+12 damage on a hit (2d6*3+STR*3).
If this fighter has great weapon master, then the attack would be a +3 to hit to deal 6d6+32 damage on a hit (2d6*3+STR*3+10*3).
How would an effect like this be implemented to most accurately follow the design conventions of 5e?
dnd-5e magic-items homebrew attack
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
A (homebrew) magic greatsword has this feature:
Heavy Blow. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you may choose to forfeit your attacks for one very powerful attack. The powerful attack uses the lowest modifier in the attacks you forfeit. If you hit with this very powerful attack, you deal damage as if you had hit every attack you forfeit, and [...]
The intended behavior is that an 11th level fighter with a +8 to hit would be able to use his action to make a single attack with a +8 to hit, dealing 6d6+12 damage on a hit (2d6*3+STR*3).
If this fighter has great weapon master, then the attack would be a +3 to hit to deal 6d6+32 damage on a hit (2d6*3+STR*3+10*3).
How would an effect like this be implemented to most accurately follow the design conventions of 5e?
dnd-5e magic-items homebrew attack
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Are you expecting this to include bonus action attacks? Would this be considered an attack action for the benefit of mechanics like Two-Weapon Fighting?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is a greatsword to avoid this problem
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I mean, is this a special action or would this be considered an attack action?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is not the Attack Action
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel: ...But the description explicitly says you're taking the Attack action (even though you're using it to do something that doesn't obey the normal rules of the Attack action). If you don't want it to be considered the Attack action, you shouldn't state that this applies when you take it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
A (homebrew) magic greatsword has this feature:
Heavy Blow. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you may choose to forfeit your attacks for one very powerful attack. The powerful attack uses the lowest modifier in the attacks you forfeit. If you hit with this very powerful attack, you deal damage as if you had hit every attack you forfeit, and [...]
The intended behavior is that an 11th level fighter with a +8 to hit would be able to use his action to make a single attack with a +8 to hit, dealing 6d6+12 damage on a hit (2d6*3+STR*3).
If this fighter has great weapon master, then the attack would be a +3 to hit to deal 6d6+32 damage on a hit (2d6*3+STR*3+10*3).
How would an effect like this be implemented to most accurately follow the design conventions of 5e?
dnd-5e magic-items homebrew attack
$endgroup$
A (homebrew) magic greatsword has this feature:
Heavy Blow. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you may choose to forfeit your attacks for one very powerful attack. The powerful attack uses the lowest modifier in the attacks you forfeit. If you hit with this very powerful attack, you deal damage as if you had hit every attack you forfeit, and [...]
The intended behavior is that an 11th level fighter with a +8 to hit would be able to use his action to make a single attack with a +8 to hit, dealing 6d6+12 damage on a hit (2d6*3+STR*3).
If this fighter has great weapon master, then the attack would be a +3 to hit to deal 6d6+32 damage on a hit (2d6*3+STR*3+10*3).
How would an effect like this be implemented to most accurately follow the design conventions of 5e?
dnd-5e magic-items homebrew attack
dnd-5e magic-items homebrew attack
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
22.7k371142
22.7k371142
asked 2 hours ago
Blake SteelBlake Steel
1,824324
1,824324
$begingroup$
Are you expecting this to include bonus action attacks? Would this be considered an attack action for the benefit of mechanics like Two-Weapon Fighting?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is a greatsword to avoid this problem
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I mean, is this a special action or would this be considered an attack action?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is not the Attack Action
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel: ...But the description explicitly says you're taking the Attack action (even though you're using it to do something that doesn't obey the normal rules of the Attack action). If you don't want it to be considered the Attack action, you shouldn't state that this applies when you take it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Are you expecting this to include bonus action attacks? Would this be considered an attack action for the benefit of mechanics like Two-Weapon Fighting?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is a greatsword to avoid this problem
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I mean, is this a special action or would this be considered an attack action?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is not the Attack Action
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel: ...But the description explicitly says you're taking the Attack action (even though you're using it to do something that doesn't obey the normal rules of the Attack action). If you don't want it to be considered the Attack action, you shouldn't state that this applies when you take it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are you expecting this to include bonus action attacks? Would this be considered an attack action for the benefit of mechanics like Two-Weapon Fighting?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are you expecting this to include bonus action attacks? Would this be considered an attack action for the benefit of mechanics like Two-Weapon Fighting?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is a greatsword to avoid this problem
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is a greatsword to avoid this problem
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I mean, is this a special action or would this be considered an attack action?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I mean, is this a special action or would this be considered an attack action?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is not the Attack Action
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is not the Attack Action
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel: ...But the description explicitly says you're taking the Attack action (even though you're using it to do something that doesn't obey the normal rules of the Attack action). If you don't want it to be considered the Attack action, you shouldn't state that this applies when you take it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel: ...But the description explicitly says you're taking the Attack action (even though you're using it to do something that doesn't obey the normal rules of the Attack action). If you don't want it to be considered the Attack action, you shouldn't state that this applies when you take it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The key phrase is "extra attack", and you need a couple other changes
It's "Extra Attack" that you're talking about:
Extra Attack
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.
And you wouldn't "forfeit" extra attack in your Attack action. You would use an Action to activate the Heavy Blow feature of your magic item (great sword), and say something like:
Heavy Blow
You can use an action to make one melee attack which, on a hit, does damage equal to the total damage you would make if you hit with this weapon using all attacks in your Extra Attack feature (if you have that feature).
The reasons I think this follows the writing style convention better is (1) magic items in 5e commonly say that "You can use an action to..." do something whereas (2) there is not really a model that I know of in 5e for a magic item having you "forfeit" your extra attacks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel Good point. Updated answer. Hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical phrasing (based on my observation) is not "with an action", but rather "You can use an action to [...]" / "You can [...] as an action" / "As an action, you can [...]".
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast good tweak thx
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This appears to be an item designed for 3rd edition of D&D where the attack bonus and number of secondary attacks depended on your primary attack's base attack bonus. Under that system, you would have the choice to give up your best attack for a chance to do double damage on your second best attack, or give up your two best attacks for a chance to do triple damage on your third best attack and so on.
Multiple attacks in 5th edition don't work that way at all so there is no easy or direct port.
The best way to port these is to capture the essence of the item and look at things that do that sort of thing. Like the second point of Great Weapon Master:
Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
You could use this directly once you decide how it interacts with somebody who actually has this feat.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not, and needs to specify that this is not an attack action. Try this phrasing;
"While wielding this greatsword, you may use your action to deliver a heavy blow with the greatsword. Make a greatsword melee attack. If it hits, calculate damage as if you used your action to attack with a greatsword the maximum times you are able as an attack action.
You may apply modifiers from class features, racial features, spell effects, and character feats to the initial attack roll and subsequent damage calculations as if making a melee weapon attack, but only if they could reasonably apply to all attacks on your turn. Limited use features like divine smite, single-opportunity advantage, or true strike cannot be applied to a heavy blow action."
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer than the original post?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MilesBedinger: You should edit that explanation into the answer. (Also, the "Attack" in "Attack action" should be capitalized.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is a precedent of forgoing attacks in 5e, Commander's Strike comes to mind.
$endgroup$
– AntiDrondert
1 min ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141164%2fwhat-would-the-5e-phrasing-be-for-combining-multiple-attacks-into-a-single-attac%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The key phrase is "extra attack", and you need a couple other changes
It's "Extra Attack" that you're talking about:
Extra Attack
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.
And you wouldn't "forfeit" extra attack in your Attack action. You would use an Action to activate the Heavy Blow feature of your magic item (great sword), and say something like:
Heavy Blow
You can use an action to make one melee attack which, on a hit, does damage equal to the total damage you would make if you hit with this weapon using all attacks in your Extra Attack feature (if you have that feature).
The reasons I think this follows the writing style convention better is (1) magic items in 5e commonly say that "You can use an action to..." do something whereas (2) there is not really a model that I know of in 5e for a magic item having you "forfeit" your extra attacks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel Good point. Updated answer. Hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical phrasing (based on my observation) is not "with an action", but rather "You can use an action to [...]" / "You can [...] as an action" / "As an action, you can [...]".
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast good tweak thx
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The key phrase is "extra attack", and you need a couple other changes
It's "Extra Attack" that you're talking about:
Extra Attack
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.
And you wouldn't "forfeit" extra attack in your Attack action. You would use an Action to activate the Heavy Blow feature of your magic item (great sword), and say something like:
Heavy Blow
You can use an action to make one melee attack which, on a hit, does damage equal to the total damage you would make if you hit with this weapon using all attacks in your Extra Attack feature (if you have that feature).
The reasons I think this follows the writing style convention better is (1) magic items in 5e commonly say that "You can use an action to..." do something whereas (2) there is not really a model that I know of in 5e for a magic item having you "forfeit" your extra attacks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel Good point. Updated answer. Hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical phrasing (based on my observation) is not "with an action", but rather "You can use an action to [...]" / "You can [...] as an action" / "As an action, you can [...]".
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast good tweak thx
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The key phrase is "extra attack", and you need a couple other changes
It's "Extra Attack" that you're talking about:
Extra Attack
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.
And you wouldn't "forfeit" extra attack in your Attack action. You would use an Action to activate the Heavy Blow feature of your magic item (great sword), and say something like:
Heavy Blow
You can use an action to make one melee attack which, on a hit, does damage equal to the total damage you would make if you hit with this weapon using all attacks in your Extra Attack feature (if you have that feature).
The reasons I think this follows the writing style convention better is (1) magic items in 5e commonly say that "You can use an action to..." do something whereas (2) there is not really a model that I know of in 5e for a magic item having you "forfeit" your extra attacks.
$endgroup$
The key phrase is "extra attack", and you need a couple other changes
It's "Extra Attack" that you're talking about:
Extra Attack
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.
And you wouldn't "forfeit" extra attack in your Attack action. You would use an Action to activate the Heavy Blow feature of your magic item (great sword), and say something like:
Heavy Blow
You can use an action to make one melee attack which, on a hit, does damage equal to the total damage you would make if you hit with this weapon using all attacks in your Extra Attack feature (if you have that feature).
The reasons I think this follows the writing style convention better is (1) magic items in 5e commonly say that "You can use an action to..." do something whereas (2) there is not really a model that I know of in 5e for a magic item having you "forfeit" your extra attacks.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Valley LadValley Lad
2,9701134
2,9701134
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel Good point. Updated answer. Hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical phrasing (based on my observation) is not "with an action", but rather "You can use an action to [...]" / "You can [...] as an action" / "As an action, you can [...]".
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast good tweak thx
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel Good point. Updated answer. Hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical phrasing (based on my observation) is not "with an action", but rather "You can use an action to [...]" / "You can [...] as an action" / "As an action, you can [...]".
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast good tweak thx
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel Good point. Updated answer. Hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel Good point. Updated answer. Hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical phrasing (based on my observation) is not "with an action", but rather "You can use an action to [...]" / "You can [...] as an action" / "As an action, you can [...]".
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical phrasing (based on my observation) is not "with an action", but rather "You can use an action to [...]" / "You can [...] as an action" / "As an action, you can [...]".
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast good tweak thx
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@V2Blast good tweak thx
$endgroup$
– Valley Lad
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This appears to be an item designed for 3rd edition of D&D where the attack bonus and number of secondary attacks depended on your primary attack's base attack bonus. Under that system, you would have the choice to give up your best attack for a chance to do double damage on your second best attack, or give up your two best attacks for a chance to do triple damage on your third best attack and so on.
Multiple attacks in 5th edition don't work that way at all so there is no easy or direct port.
The best way to port these is to capture the essence of the item and look at things that do that sort of thing. Like the second point of Great Weapon Master:
Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
You could use this directly once you decide how it interacts with somebody who actually has this feat.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This appears to be an item designed for 3rd edition of D&D where the attack bonus and number of secondary attacks depended on your primary attack's base attack bonus. Under that system, you would have the choice to give up your best attack for a chance to do double damage on your second best attack, or give up your two best attacks for a chance to do triple damage on your third best attack and so on.
Multiple attacks in 5th edition don't work that way at all so there is no easy or direct port.
The best way to port these is to capture the essence of the item and look at things that do that sort of thing. Like the second point of Great Weapon Master:
Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
You could use this directly once you decide how it interacts with somebody who actually has this feat.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This appears to be an item designed for 3rd edition of D&D where the attack bonus and number of secondary attacks depended on your primary attack's base attack bonus. Under that system, you would have the choice to give up your best attack for a chance to do double damage on your second best attack, or give up your two best attacks for a chance to do triple damage on your third best attack and so on.
Multiple attacks in 5th edition don't work that way at all so there is no easy or direct port.
The best way to port these is to capture the essence of the item and look at things that do that sort of thing. Like the second point of Great Weapon Master:
Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
You could use this directly once you decide how it interacts with somebody who actually has this feat.
$endgroup$
This appears to be an item designed for 3rd edition of D&D where the attack bonus and number of secondary attacks depended on your primary attack's base attack bonus. Under that system, you would have the choice to give up your best attack for a chance to do double damage on your second best attack, or give up your two best attacks for a chance to do triple damage on your third best attack and so on.
Multiple attacks in 5th edition don't work that way at all so there is no easy or direct port.
The best way to port these is to capture the essence of the item and look at things that do that sort of thing. Like the second point of Great Weapon Master:
Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
You could use this directly once you decide how it interacts with somebody who actually has this feat.
answered 2 hours ago
Dale MDale M
106k21274472
106k21274472
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not, and needs to specify that this is not an attack action. Try this phrasing;
"While wielding this greatsword, you may use your action to deliver a heavy blow with the greatsword. Make a greatsword melee attack. If it hits, calculate damage as if you used your action to attack with a greatsword the maximum times you are able as an attack action.
You may apply modifiers from class features, racial features, spell effects, and character feats to the initial attack roll and subsequent damage calculations as if making a melee weapon attack, but only if they could reasonably apply to all attacks on your turn. Limited use features like divine smite, single-opportunity advantage, or true strike cannot be applied to a heavy blow action."
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer than the original post?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MilesBedinger: You should edit that explanation into the answer. (Also, the "Attack" in "Attack action" should be capitalized.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is a precedent of forgoing attacks in 5e, Commander's Strike comes to mind.
$endgroup$
– AntiDrondert
1 min ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not, and needs to specify that this is not an attack action. Try this phrasing;
"While wielding this greatsword, you may use your action to deliver a heavy blow with the greatsword. Make a greatsword melee attack. If it hits, calculate damage as if you used your action to attack with a greatsword the maximum times you are able as an attack action.
You may apply modifiers from class features, racial features, spell effects, and character feats to the initial attack roll and subsequent damage calculations as if making a melee weapon attack, but only if they could reasonably apply to all attacks on your turn. Limited use features like divine smite, single-opportunity advantage, or true strike cannot be applied to a heavy blow action."
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer than the original post?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MilesBedinger: You should edit that explanation into the answer. (Also, the "Attack" in "Attack action" should be capitalized.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is a precedent of forgoing attacks in 5e, Commander's Strike comes to mind.
$endgroup$
– AntiDrondert
1 min ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not, and needs to specify that this is not an attack action. Try this phrasing;
"While wielding this greatsword, you may use your action to deliver a heavy blow with the greatsword. Make a greatsword melee attack. If it hits, calculate damage as if you used your action to attack with a greatsword the maximum times you are able as an attack action.
You may apply modifiers from class features, racial features, spell effects, and character feats to the initial attack roll and subsequent damage calculations as if making a melee weapon attack, but only if they could reasonably apply to all attacks on your turn. Limited use features like divine smite, single-opportunity advantage, or true strike cannot be applied to a heavy blow action."
$endgroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not, and needs to specify that this is not an attack action. Try this phrasing;
"While wielding this greatsword, you may use your action to deliver a heavy blow with the greatsword. Make a greatsword melee attack. If it hits, calculate damage as if you used your action to attack with a greatsword the maximum times you are able as an attack action.
You may apply modifiers from class features, racial features, spell effects, and character feats to the initial attack roll and subsequent damage calculations as if making a melee weapon attack, but only if they could reasonably apply to all attacks on your turn. Limited use features like divine smite, single-opportunity advantage, or true strike cannot be applied to a heavy blow action."
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
2,573329
2,573329
1
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer than the original post?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MilesBedinger: You should edit that explanation into the answer. (Also, the "Attack" in "Attack action" should be capitalized.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is a precedent of forgoing attacks in 5e, Commander's Strike comes to mind.
$endgroup$
– AntiDrondert
1 min ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer than the original post?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MilesBedinger: You should edit that explanation into the answer. (Also, the "Attack" in "Attack action" should be capitalized.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is a precedent of forgoing attacks in 5e, Commander's Strike comes to mind.
$endgroup$
– AntiDrondert
1 min ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer than the original post?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can you add a little on why you think your solution follows the design convention for 5e closer than the original post?
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You do not "forfeit attacks" in 5e. Your original phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for overpowered combinations, and needs to specify what benefits can apply as if it's a melee attack and what benefits do not.
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MilesBedinger: You should edit that explanation into the answer. (Also, the "Attack" in "Attack action" should be capitalized.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MilesBedinger: You should edit that explanation into the answer. (Also, the "Attack" in "Attack action" should be capitalized.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is a precedent of forgoing attacks in 5e, Commander's Strike comes to mind.
$endgroup$
– AntiDrondert
1 min ago
$begingroup$
There is a precedent of forgoing attacks in 5e, Commander's Strike comes to mind.
$endgroup$
– AntiDrondert
1 min ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141164%2fwhat-would-the-5e-phrasing-be-for-combining-multiple-attacks-into-a-single-attac%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Are you expecting this to include bonus action attacks? Would this be considered an attack action for the benefit of mechanics like Two-Weapon Fighting?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is a greatsword to avoid this problem
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I mean, is this a special action or would this be considered an attack action?
$endgroup$
– Miles Bedinger
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is not the Attack Action
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BlakeSteel: ...But the description explicitly says you're taking the Attack action (even though you're using it to do something that doesn't obey the normal rules of the Attack action). If you don't want it to be considered the Attack action, you shouldn't state that this applies when you take it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
2 hours ago