Can the additional attack from a Samurai fighter's Rapid Strike feature be made at advantage?Is there “flavor text” in D&D 5e spells?Can fighter use Commander's strike when he only has one attack?Can you Horde Breaker to gain attack (against an ally) and give up attack for commander's strike so ally gains attack?Do You Need to Have Advantage Against a Surprised Opponent to Use Sneak Attack?If I have both advantage and disadvantage, and my target is Elusive, do I have disadvantage on the attack?Adding Precision Strike to an attack with advantageCan swashbucklers sneak attack with disadvantage?Can unarmed strike work with a rogue's sneak attack?How does forgoing advantage interact with Elven Accuracy?Does the Horde Breaker feature work on the attack granted by Haste?Does the Eldritch Knight's Eldritch Strike feature impose disadvantage on a saving throw against a spell cast before the attack?
Base Current vs Emitter Base voltage
Why have both: BJT and FET transistors on IC output?
Can machine learning learn a function like finding maximum from a list?
Cross out words with TikZ: line opacity
How is Sword Coast North governed?
Why don't short runways use ramps for takeoff?
How to escape forward slashes?
"Will flex for food". What does this phrase mean?
Not taking Bereavement Leave
Why did the United States not resort to nuclear weapons in Vietnam?
If I buy and download a game through second Nintendo account do I own it on my main account too?
Why are prop blades not shaped like household fan blades?
How to prevent macOS from putting icons on some areas of the desktop?
How does one get a visa to go to Saudi Arabia?
Conflict between senior and junior members
Went to a big 4 but got fired for underperformance in a year recently - Now every one thinks I'm pro - How to balance expectations?
Gold Battle KoTH
A conjectural trigonometric identity
How to compare files with diffrent extensions and delete extra files?
How to structure presentation to avoid getting questions that will be answered later in the presentation?
Why is “deal 6 damage” a legit phrase?
PI 4 screen rotation from the terminal
Is it really a problem to declare that a visitor to the UK is my "girlfriend", in terms of her successfully getting a Standard Visitor visa?
What is the significance of $(logname)?
Can the additional attack from a Samurai fighter's Rapid Strike feature be made at advantage?
Is there “flavor text” in D&D 5e spells?Can fighter use Commander's strike when he only has one attack?Can you Horde Breaker to gain attack (against an ally) and give up attack for commander's strike so ally gains attack?Do You Need to Have Advantage Against a Surprised Opponent to Use Sneak Attack?If I have both advantage and disadvantage, and my target is Elusive, do I have disadvantage on the attack?Adding Precision Strike to an attack with advantageCan swashbucklers sneak attack with disadvantage?Can unarmed strike work with a rogue's sneak attack?How does forgoing advantage interact with Elven Accuracy?Does the Horde Breaker feature work on the attack granted by Haste?Does the Eldritch Knight's Eldritch Strike feature impose disadvantage on a saving throw against a spell cast before the attack?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
The Samurai fighter archetype (from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, p. 31) gains the Rapid Strike class feature at level 15, which says:
If you [...] have advantage on an attack roll against one of the targets, you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target ...
So, let's say I am invisible as per the greater invisibility spell, or the enemy I'm attacking is blinded, or something else; either way, constant advantage on all my attacks.
At this level, I can make 3 attacks via Extra Attack, so let's say I hit an enemy twice, with advantage, but then for my 3rd attack, I decide to forgo my advantage for an additional weapon attack, as per the Rapid Strike class feature.
Clearly this 3rd attack will not be made at advantage because I deliberately chose to forgo advantage as per Rapid Strike. But would the additional (4th) attack I make still be made at advantage? Or is it implicit that this additional attack is also forgoing advantage?
dnd-5e class-feature attack fighter advantage-and-disadvantage
edited 15 mins ago
V2Blast♦
33.1k5 gold badges118 silver badges205 bronze badges
asked 19 hours ago
NathanSNathanS
31.5k12 gold badges163 silver badges322 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Samurai fighter archetype (from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, p. 31) gains the Rapid Strike class feature at level 15, which says:
If you [...] have advantage on an attack roll against one of the targets, you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target ...
So, let's say I am invisible as per the greater invisibility spell, or the enemy I'm attacking is blinded, or something else; either way, constant advantage on all my attacks.
At this level, I can make 3 attacks via Extra Attack, so let's say I hit an enemy twice, with advantage, but then for my 3rd attack, I decide to forgo my advantage for an additional weapon attack, as per the Rapid Strike class feature.
Clearly this 3rd attack will not be made at advantage because I deliberately chose to forgo advantage as per Rapid Strike. But would the additional (4th) attack I make still be made at advantage? Or is it implicit that this additional attack is also forgoing advantage?
dnd-5e class-feature attack fighter advantage-and-disadvantage
edited 15 mins ago
V2Blast♦
33.1k5 gold badges118 silver badges205 bronze badges
asked 19 hours ago
NathanSNathanS
31.5k12 gold badges163 silver badges322 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Samurai fighter archetype (from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, p. 31) gains the Rapid Strike class feature at level 15, which says:
If you [...] have advantage on an attack roll against one of the targets, you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target ...
So, let's say I am invisible as per the greater invisibility spell, or the enemy I'm attacking is blinded, or something else; either way, constant advantage on all my attacks.
At this level, I can make 3 attacks via Extra Attack, so let's say I hit an enemy twice, with advantage, but then for my 3rd attack, I decide to forgo my advantage for an additional weapon attack, as per the Rapid Strike class feature.
Clearly this 3rd attack will not be made at advantage because I deliberately chose to forgo advantage as per Rapid Strike. But would the additional (4th) attack I make still be made at advantage? Or is it implicit that this additional attack is also forgoing advantage?
dnd-5e class-feature attack fighter advantage-and-disadvantage
edited 15 mins ago
V2Blast♦
33.1k5 gold badges118 silver badges205 bronze badges
asked 19 hours ago
NathanSNathanS
31.5k12 gold badges163 silver badges322 bronze badges
$endgroup$
The Samurai fighter archetype (from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, p. 31) gains the Rapid Strike class feature at level 15, which says:
If you [...] have advantage on an attack roll against one of the targets, you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target ...
So, let's say I am invisible as per the greater invisibility spell, or the enemy I'm attacking is blinded, or something else; either way, constant advantage on all my attacks.
At this level, I can make 3 attacks via Extra Attack, so let's say I hit an enemy twice, with advantage, but then for my 3rd attack, I decide to forgo my advantage for an additional weapon attack, as per the Rapid Strike class feature.
Clearly this 3rd attack will not be made at advantage because I deliberately chose to forgo advantage as per Rapid Strike. But would the additional (4th) attack I make still be made at advantage? Or is it implicit that this additional attack is also forgoing advantage?
dnd-5e class-feature attack fighter advantage-and-disadvantage
dnd-5e class-feature attack fighter advantage-and-disadvantage
edited 15 mins ago
V2Blast♦
33.1k5 gold badges118 silver badges205 bronze badges
asked 19 hours ago
NathanSNathanS
31.5k12 gold badges163 silver badges322 bronze badges
edited 15 mins ago
V2Blast♦
33.1k5 gold badges118 silver badges205 bronze badges
asked 19 hours ago
NathanSNathanS
31.5k12 gold badges163 silver badges322 bronze badges
edited 15 mins ago
V2Blast♦
33.1k5 gold badges118 silver badges205 bronze badges
edited 15 mins ago
V2Blast♦
33.1k5 gold badges118 silver badges205 bronze badges
edited 15 mins ago
V2Blast♦
33.1k5 gold badges118 silver badges205 bronze badges
33.1k5 gold badges118 silver badges205 bronze badges
asked 19 hours ago
NathanSNathanS
31.5k12 gold badges163 silver badges322 bronze badges
asked 19 hours ago
NathanSNathanS
31.5k12 gold badges163 silver badges322 bronze badges
asked 19 hours ago
NathanSNathanS
31.5k12 gold badges163 silver badges322 bronze badges
31.5k12 gold badges163 silver badges322 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
RAW, you only forgo advantage on that roll
You've quoted the only relevant rule, which seems pretty clear:
[...] you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target [...] (emphasis mine)
You only need to forgo the advantage on that specific roll to gain the benefit (an extra attack). You can roll the additional attack with advantage.
However, arguing RAI, I'd apply it to both rolls
The text of the ruling, (specifically the use of the word 'forgo' and the statement that 'you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes'), implies an exchange is being made by the player. They are swapping the benefit of rolling one attack with advantage to instead roll two attacks. This is always a beneficial trade for the player to make, as it could allow them to hit twice, rather than once, however, an exchange has been made.
Following RAW, and assuming an ongoing source of advantage (which is pretty common - especially with the Samurai's Fighting Spirit class feature), nothing would be forgone by the player. They would be swapping one attack with advantage for one attack without advantage and one attack with advantage. That's not a swap - it's just a net gain.
For this reason, I would rule that RAI both attacks should be made without advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
TiggerousTiggerous
14.4k4 gold badges65 silver badges113 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
This is a solid argument for RAI saying that it wouldn't apply (even though RAW it seem to), and was roughly what I was thinking of that gave me pause for thought, hence me then asking the question. It also somewhat matches up with the feature's name, "Rapid Strike", the "flavour text" (I know there's technically no flavour text in 5e, strictly speaking) of which even says: "you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes".
$endgroup$
– NathanS
19 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
In many cases it would indeed be a trade-off: not all sources of advantage apply to all attacks on a given round.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
19 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@kviiri That's a good counter-point; in my question I've described a very advantageous situation, and perhaps not the "typical use case" for this feature... Then again, on the other hand, Samurai also have a 3rd level class feature "Fighting Spirit", which can ensure you have constant advantage for that turn: "As a bonus action on your turn, you can give yourself advantage on all weapon attack rolls until the end of the current turn." So maybe this is something that was taken into consideration when the designers came up with the wording for Rapid Strike?
$endgroup$
– NathanS
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
Relevant meta: Please avoid using the RAI acronym, or use it carefully & be clear in context. You should write out the acronym at least once so it's clear what you mean by it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
14 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You'll gain the advantage on the gained attack as usual
The wording says "you can forgo the advantage for that roll" (emphasis mine), making it clear that only a single roll is affected by you forgoing the advantage. Therefore in your example, you would make the third attack roll without advantage, but the extra attack roll you gain would be again with advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
kviirikviiri
40.9k13 gold badges156 silver badges228 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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%2f152848%2fcan-the-additional-attack-from-a-samurai-fighters-rapid-strike-feature-be-made%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
RAW, you only forgo advantage on that roll
You've quoted the only relevant rule, which seems pretty clear:
[...] you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target [...] (emphasis mine)
You only need to forgo the advantage on that specific roll to gain the benefit (an extra attack). You can roll the additional attack with advantage.
However, arguing RAI, I'd apply it to both rolls
The text of the ruling, (specifically the use of the word 'forgo' and the statement that 'you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes'), implies an exchange is being made by the player. They are swapping the benefit of rolling one attack with advantage to instead roll two attacks. This is always a beneficial trade for the player to make, as it could allow them to hit twice, rather than once, however, an exchange has been made.
Following RAW, and assuming an ongoing source of advantage (which is pretty common - especially with the Samurai's Fighting Spirit class feature), nothing would be forgone by the player. They would be swapping one attack with advantage for one attack without advantage and one attack with advantage. That's not a swap - it's just a net gain.
For this reason, I would rule that RAI both attacks should be made without advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
TiggerousTiggerous
14.4k4 gold badges65 silver badges113 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
This is a solid argument for RAI saying that it wouldn't apply (even though RAW it seem to), and was roughly what I was thinking of that gave me pause for thought, hence me then asking the question. It also somewhat matches up with the feature's name, "Rapid Strike", the "flavour text" (I know there's technically no flavour text in 5e, strictly speaking) of which even says: "you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes".
$endgroup$
– NathanS
19 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
In many cases it would indeed be a trade-off: not all sources of advantage apply to all attacks on a given round.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
19 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@kviiri That's a good counter-point; in my question I've described a very advantageous situation, and perhaps not the "typical use case" for this feature... Then again, on the other hand, Samurai also have a 3rd level class feature "Fighting Spirit", which can ensure you have constant advantage for that turn: "As a bonus action on your turn, you can give yourself advantage on all weapon attack rolls until the end of the current turn." So maybe this is something that was taken into consideration when the designers came up with the wording for Rapid Strike?
$endgroup$
– NathanS
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
Relevant meta: Please avoid using the RAI acronym, or use it carefully & be clear in context. You should write out the acronym at least once so it's clear what you mean by it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
14 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
RAW, you only forgo advantage on that roll
You've quoted the only relevant rule, which seems pretty clear:
[...] you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target [...] (emphasis mine)
You only need to forgo the advantage on that specific roll to gain the benefit (an extra attack). You can roll the additional attack with advantage.
However, arguing RAI, I'd apply it to both rolls
The text of the ruling, (specifically the use of the word 'forgo' and the statement that 'you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes'), implies an exchange is being made by the player. They are swapping the benefit of rolling one attack with advantage to instead roll two attacks. This is always a beneficial trade for the player to make, as it could allow them to hit twice, rather than once, however, an exchange has been made.
Following RAW, and assuming an ongoing source of advantage (which is pretty common - especially with the Samurai's Fighting Spirit class feature), nothing would be forgone by the player. They would be swapping one attack with advantage for one attack without advantage and one attack with advantage. That's not a swap - it's just a net gain.
For this reason, I would rule that RAI both attacks should be made without advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
TiggerousTiggerous
14.4k4 gold badges65 silver badges113 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
This is a solid argument for RAI saying that it wouldn't apply (even though RAW it seem to), and was roughly what I was thinking of that gave me pause for thought, hence me then asking the question. It also somewhat matches up with the feature's name, "Rapid Strike", the "flavour text" (I know there's technically no flavour text in 5e, strictly speaking) of which even says: "you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes".
$endgroup$
– NathanS
19 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
In many cases it would indeed be a trade-off: not all sources of advantage apply to all attacks on a given round.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
19 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@kviiri That's a good counter-point; in my question I've described a very advantageous situation, and perhaps not the "typical use case" for this feature... Then again, on the other hand, Samurai also have a 3rd level class feature "Fighting Spirit", which can ensure you have constant advantage for that turn: "As a bonus action on your turn, you can give yourself advantage on all weapon attack rolls until the end of the current turn." So maybe this is something that was taken into consideration when the designers came up with the wording for Rapid Strike?
$endgroup$
– NathanS
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
Relevant meta: Please avoid using the RAI acronym, or use it carefully & be clear in context. You should write out the acronym at least once so it's clear what you mean by it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
14 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
RAW, you only forgo advantage on that roll
You've quoted the only relevant rule, which seems pretty clear:
[...] you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target [...] (emphasis mine)
You only need to forgo the advantage on that specific roll to gain the benefit (an extra attack). You can roll the additional attack with advantage.
However, arguing RAI, I'd apply it to both rolls
The text of the ruling, (specifically the use of the word 'forgo' and the statement that 'you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes'), implies an exchange is being made by the player. They are swapping the benefit of rolling one attack with advantage to instead roll two attacks. This is always a beneficial trade for the player to make, as it could allow them to hit twice, rather than once, however, an exchange has been made.
Following RAW, and assuming an ongoing source of advantage (which is pretty common - especially with the Samurai's Fighting Spirit class feature), nothing would be forgone by the player. They would be swapping one attack with advantage for one attack without advantage and one attack with advantage. That's not a swap - it's just a net gain.
For this reason, I would rule that RAI both attacks should be made without advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
TiggerousTiggerous
14.4k4 gold badges65 silver badges113 bronze badges
$endgroup$
RAW, you only forgo advantage on that roll
You've quoted the only relevant rule, which seems pretty clear:
[...] you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target [...] (emphasis mine)
You only need to forgo the advantage on that specific roll to gain the benefit (an extra attack). You can roll the additional attack with advantage.
However, arguing RAI, I'd apply it to both rolls
The text of the ruling, (specifically the use of the word 'forgo' and the statement that 'you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes'), implies an exchange is being made by the player. They are swapping the benefit of rolling one attack with advantage to instead roll two attacks. This is always a beneficial trade for the player to make, as it could allow them to hit twice, rather than once, however, an exchange has been made.
Following RAW, and assuming an ongoing source of advantage (which is pretty common - especially with the Samurai's Fighting Spirit class feature), nothing would be forgone by the player. They would be swapping one attack with advantage for one attack without advantage and one attack with advantage. That's not a swap - it's just a net gain.
For this reason, I would rule that RAI both attacks should be made without advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
TiggerousTiggerous
14.4k4 gold badges65 silver badges113 bronze badges
edited 18 hours ago
answered 19 hours ago
TiggerousTiggerous
14.4k4 gold badges65 silver badges113 bronze badges
answered 19 hours ago
TiggerousTiggerous
14.4k4 gold badges65 silver badges113 bronze badges
answered 19 hours ago
TiggerousTiggerous
14.4k4 gold badges65 silver badges113 bronze badges
14.4k4 gold badges65 silver badges113 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
This is a solid argument for RAI saying that it wouldn't apply (even though RAW it seem to), and was roughly what I was thinking of that gave me pause for thought, hence me then asking the question. It also somewhat matches up with the feature's name, "Rapid Strike", the "flavour text" (I know there's technically no flavour text in 5e, strictly speaking) of which even says: "you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes".
$endgroup$
– NathanS
19 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
In many cases it would indeed be a trade-off: not all sources of advantage apply to all attacks on a given round.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
19 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@kviiri That's a good counter-point; in my question I've described a very advantageous situation, and perhaps not the "typical use case" for this feature... Then again, on the other hand, Samurai also have a 3rd level class feature "Fighting Spirit", which can ensure you have constant advantage for that turn: "As a bonus action on your turn, you can give yourself advantage on all weapon attack rolls until the end of the current turn." So maybe this is something that was taken into consideration when the designers came up with the wording for Rapid Strike?
$endgroup$
– NathanS
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
Relevant meta: Please avoid using the RAI acronym, or use it carefully & be clear in context. You should write out the acronym at least once so it's clear what you mean by it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
14 mins ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
This is a solid argument for RAI saying that it wouldn't apply (even though RAW it seem to), and was roughly what I was thinking of that gave me pause for thought, hence me then asking the question. It also somewhat matches up with the feature's name, "Rapid Strike", the "flavour text" (I know there's technically no flavour text in 5e, strictly speaking) of which even says: "you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes".
$endgroup$
– NathanS
19 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
In many cases it would indeed be a trade-off: not all sources of advantage apply to all attacks on a given round.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
19 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@kviiri That's a good counter-point; in my question I've described a very advantageous situation, and perhaps not the "typical use case" for this feature... Then again, on the other hand, Samurai also have a 3rd level class feature "Fighting Spirit", which can ensure you have constant advantage for that turn: "As a bonus action on your turn, you can give yourself advantage on all weapon attack rolls until the end of the current turn." So maybe this is something that was taken into consideration when the designers came up with the wording for Rapid Strike?
$endgroup$
– NathanS
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
Relevant meta: Please avoid using the RAI acronym, or use it carefully & be clear in context. You should write out the acronym at least once so it's clear what you mean by it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
14 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
This is a solid argument for RAI saying that it wouldn't apply (even though RAW it seem to), and was roughly what I was thinking of that gave me pause for thought, hence me then asking the question. It also somewhat matches up with the feature's name, "Rapid Strike", the "flavour text" (I know there's technically no flavour text in 5e, strictly speaking) of which even says: "you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes".
$endgroup$
– NathanS
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is a solid argument for RAI saying that it wouldn't apply (even though RAW it seem to), and was roughly what I was thinking of that gave me pause for thought, hence me then asking the question. It also somewhat matches up with the feature's name, "Rapid Strike", the "flavour text" (I know there's technically no flavour text in 5e, strictly speaking) of which even says: "you learn to trade accuracy for swift strikes".
$endgroup$
– NathanS
19 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
In many cases it would indeed be a trade-off: not all sources of advantage apply to all attacks on a given round.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
In many cases it would indeed be a trade-off: not all sources of advantage apply to all attacks on a given round.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
19 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@kviiri That's a good counter-point; in my question I've described a very advantageous situation, and perhaps not the "typical use case" for this feature... Then again, on the other hand, Samurai also have a 3rd level class feature "Fighting Spirit", which can ensure you have constant advantage for that turn: "As a bonus action on your turn, you can give yourself advantage on all weapon attack rolls until the end of the current turn." So maybe this is something that was taken into consideration when the designers came up with the wording for Rapid Strike?
$endgroup$
– NathanS
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@kviiri That's a good counter-point; in my question I've described a very advantageous situation, and perhaps not the "typical use case" for this feature... Then again, on the other hand, Samurai also have a 3rd level class feature "Fighting Spirit", which can ensure you have constant advantage for that turn: "As a bonus action on your turn, you can give yourself advantage on all weapon attack rolls until the end of the current turn." So maybe this is something that was taken into consideration when the designers came up with the wording for Rapid Strike?
$endgroup$
– NathanS
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
Relevant meta: Please avoid using the RAI acronym, or use it carefully & be clear in context. You should write out the acronym at least once so it's clear what you mean by it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
14 mins ago
$begingroup$
Relevant meta: Please avoid using the RAI acronym, or use it carefully & be clear in context. You should write out the acronym at least once so it's clear what you mean by it.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
14 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You'll gain the advantage on the gained attack as usual
The wording says "you can forgo the advantage for that roll" (emphasis mine), making it clear that only a single roll is affected by you forgoing the advantage. Therefore in your example, you would make the third attack roll without advantage, but the extra attack roll you gain would be again with advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
kviirikviiri
40.9k13 gold badges156 silver badges228 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You'll gain the advantage on the gained attack as usual
The wording says "you can forgo the advantage for that roll" (emphasis mine), making it clear that only a single roll is affected by you forgoing the advantage. Therefore in your example, you would make the third attack roll without advantage, but the extra attack roll you gain would be again with advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
kviirikviiri
40.9k13 gold badges156 silver badges228 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You'll gain the advantage on the gained attack as usual
The wording says "you can forgo the advantage for that roll" (emphasis mine), making it clear that only a single roll is affected by you forgoing the advantage. Therefore in your example, you would make the third attack roll without advantage, but the extra attack roll you gain would be again with advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
kviirikviiri
40.9k13 gold badges156 silver badges228 bronze badges
$endgroup$
You'll gain the advantage on the gained attack as usual
The wording says "you can forgo the advantage for that roll" (emphasis mine), making it clear that only a single roll is affected by you forgoing the advantage. Therefore in your example, you would make the third attack roll without advantage, but the extra attack roll you gain would be again with advantage.
answered 19 hours ago
kviirikviiri
40.9k13 gold badges156 silver badges228 bronze badges
answered 19 hours ago
kviirikviiri
40.9k13 gold badges156 silver badges228 bronze badges
answered 19 hours ago
kviirikviiri
40.9k13 gold badges156 silver badges228 bronze badges
answered 19 hours ago
kviirikviiri
40.9k13 gold badges156 silver badges228 bronze badges
40.9k13 gold badges156 silver badges228 bronze badges
add a comment |
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%2f152848%2fcan-the-additional-attack-from-a-samurai-fighters-rapid-strike-feature-be-made%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
