D&D 5E Attacks VS. Attack Actions - The Burger Analogy

[Storyteller Hero]

An attack can be made as part of the Attack action.

An attack can be made as part of the Casting a Spell action, IF the spell's effect includes making an attack.

An attack is not the same as an Attack action, therefore while the Extra Attack feature does grant an extra attack, it does not grant an extra Attack action. The multiple attacks are made as part of the same Attack action.

You can not cast a [casting time: 1 action] spell to attack as part of Extra Attack because the feature grants extra attacks on an Attack action, and Casting a Spell is a separate action type.

It's like a burger dish.

Attack = burger patty

Attack action = burger sandwich

Casting a Spell = burger salad

 

[Shiroiken]

You are correct, but I've yet to see this as an issue anywhere. Of course, IIRC, "attacks" should be codified down to melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, and ranged spell attack. This can also help reduce confusion, since it avoids using the word "attack" by itself. This is similar to the use of the word "level" (class level, character level, spell level, dungeon level, etc.).

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

You are correct, but I've yet to see this as an issue anywhere. Of course, IIRC, "attacks" should be codified down to melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, and ranged spell attack. This can also help reduce confusion, since it avoids using the word "attack" by itself. This is similar to the use of the word "level" (class level, character level, spell level, dungeon level, etc.).

What do you mean by IIRC?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

You are correct, but I've yet to see this as an issue anywhere. Of course, IIRC, "attacks" should be codified down to melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, and ranged spell attack.

No, it shouldn't. Here's why I think that: When 5e was getting designed and tweaked, the writers had a very specific, if overbroad (can something be both specific *and* broad?...anyway...), document guideline. In the video game industry this is called a "GDD" (Game Design Document). It lists a lot of stuff that everyone working on the game uses as a bible, basically. I'm pretty sure that the WotC 5e designers had the same thing.

Anyhoo...I'd also bet that the GDD for 5e had some pretty specific, but broadly defined, key points. One: Bounded Accuracy is a thing. A very big thing. Two: DM Empowerment. Three: a "fast and loose" game that required the involved imaginations and thoughts of the DM *and* the players...together. It's the third one that I think is relevant and why I disagree with the 'need to codify'.

A game that is codified? 3.5e, Pathfinder, and 4e. THOSE games are codified! If something says "+2 Dodge bonus to AC", and something else says "+2 Armor bonus to AC" and another says "+2 Magic bonus to AC"...then all of those things stack. If a special ability says it uses a "Bonus Action", that's different from a "Quick Action" which is different from a "Swift Action" which is different from an "Attack Action", etc., etc., etc. (yes, I'm looking at you, Pathfinder RPG!). This is most definitely NOT the way 5e is designed, nor should it be turned into. I think 5e already has too many 'codified' actions. IMHO, it should have "Action" and "Bonus Action". That's it. Leave any and all other potential actions in the hands of the DM and players to decide as the need arises. If 5e starts to go down the path of...er...Pathfinder..., it will ruin the game. Yes, bold words, but I'll stick by them.

IMHO, if a player or DM needs something written in a book to tell him if his fighter can do a series of actions that make sense in the given situation, then I don't know what to say other than "5e is about imagination and DM adjudication; don't sweat the small stuff, roll with it and make up".

That said...I can understand the desire for some more guidelines and suggestions on how to handle certain situations, but adding all new, broad-reaching "macro changes" (like codifying Attacks into specific types of them) is a horrible, horrible idea for 5e. It would kill (or at least stifle) a DM's ability to "roll with it"; the rules lawyers would have a field day tearing apart the DM's descriptions, and gleefully explain just why the DM is wrong ("See, says right here...and here...and here...and here...and here...those can't be done together"). But a series of articles that give insight and suggestions on how to deal with situations that will likely come up in a campaign, using the rules we already have, would be just fine. For example, an article on Climbing. It could have situational effects, typical DC's, special equipment that can be purchased, descriptions of most common type of stone and stonework, etc, all with the eye towards the Athletics skill and using it for climbing.

This can also help reduce confusion, since it avoids using the word "attack" by itself. This is similar to the use of the word "level" (class level, character level, spell level, dungeon level, etc.).

But, in my experience, this doesn't reduce confusion at all. All it does is change the questions from "Ok, so, I can swing my sword at him, but I can't try and feint and dodge to buy time for the wizard, and then roll out of the way?", into "Ok, so if I swing my sword it uses a Melee Attack Action, but I can't then use Bonus Action to feint? Or is that part of the Melee Attack Action, and I use a Defensive Action to dodge? Isn't feinting in this instance, well, defensive? Do I end up using all three? Or is the rolling part a Movement Action, even though it's defensive, and comes after using feint?". In short...the confusion just changes shape, but it's still there and still sucks up time, and still kills the moment during the game. And because all of these things are "codified" in the rules, the players and DM's feel obligated to look them up...every single one of them...and then try and figure out how it all fits, or doesn't fit, into this particular situation. How to fix that? Don't codify all that crap in the first place...then a DM can just say "Hmmm...ok, make an attack roll. If you succeed, you feint in stead and he turns sideways and you can just move out of the way by rolling. If you fail, you have to use your Bonus Action". Done. Quick, simple, and fair; a benefit for success, a minor penalty for failure, but it doesn't prevent the PC from helping and looking cool doing it. Much better than "Phew..well, there goes 10 minutes of play time. Ok...no. You can't, you already used your Whatever Action".

Naaa...no more codification, no more (or VERY little) added mechanics, etc. Just use the stuff we have in the game already. It will cover virtually every situation by simple fact that the DM has a brain and is encouraged to use it to apply various rules to situations those rules may not have actually been designed to do. Who cares as long as it works and everyone is having fun?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Shiroiken]

What do you mean by IIRC?

If I recall correctly. I didn't have my books at the time, nor the Errata pdf.
[MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] you massively misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that the attacks needed to be mechanically codified as pathfinder and 3E were, but that the first printing was a little vague in its use of the work "attack." All of that was clarified in later printings and noted in the Errata pdf. If you make an attack, it fits into one of several categories that only matter if another rule references it (such as being at disadvantage for a Ranged Attack while within 5' of an enemy). I fully endorse free-form actions in play.

 

[Herobizkit]

Random thought.

I've often described D&D attack actions, at their core, to be simply "Stab, Shoot, or Spell."

Stab: STR. Thrown weapons are Stab.
Shoot: DEX.
Spell: Casting Stat.

Finesse wrecks this model a bit and more often than not, ends up with prioritization of DEX over STR.

I don't see the game's "need" to differentiate with all their words.

'Unarmed strike' is a melee attack and considered a weapon attack but isn't a weapon itself.

It's a STAB. Done. Anyone who wants to go through the bother of enchanting HANDS (or even CLAWS) to be magic? Go nuts.

But what about two-weapon fighting? Doesn't everyone get that if they use two daggers? Sure, but because daggers are Light weapons. Aren't fists Light weapons? No, they're not weapons at all. So I can't punch and punch but I can stab and stab? Yes.

It's insane, yet 'necessary' to 'preserve game integrity' somehow.

 

[CapnZapp]

What is this thread about?

What is gained by this burger analogy?

I don't even understand if it criticizes anything.

 

[77IM]

If Extra Attack gave you an extra Attack action every time you took the Attack action that could lead to infinite oregano!

 

[BookBarbarian]

What is this thread about?

What is gained by this burger analogy?

I don't even understand if it criticizes anything.

I've seen new DMs and Players get confused by attack and attack action. The burger analogy could help clarify things for them.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Random thought.

I've often described D&D attack actions, at their core, to be simply "Stab, Shoot, or Spell."

Stab: STR. Thrown weapons are Stab.
Shoot: DEX.
Spell: Casting Stat.

Finesse wrecks this model a bit and more often than not, ends up with prioritization of DEX over STR.

I don't see the game's "need" to differentiate with all their words.

'Unarmed strike' is a melee attack and considered a weapon attack but isn't a weapon itself.

It's a STAB. Done. Anyone who wants to go through the bother of enchanting HANDS (or even CLAWS) to be magic? Go nuts.

But what about two-weapon fighting? Doesn't everyone get that if they use two daggers? Sure, but because daggers are Light weapons. Aren't fists Light weapons? No, they're not weapons at all. So I can't punch and punch but I can stab and stab? Yes.

It's insane, yet 'necessary' to 'preserve game integrity' somehow.

It makes more sense when you remember that an unarmed strike is delivered with the body rather than just 'fist'. You don't have to use a fist, but you do have to use your body.
And you might have two fists, but only one body. If you're striking with more than one body, the improvised weapons rules are probably in use.