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 you move before using the bonus attack from the Great Weapon Master feat?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?Adding Precision Strike to an attack with advantageCan 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 a Monk's bonus-action unarmed strike qualify for the Kensei's Agile Parry feature?Does the Eldritch Knight's Eldritch Strike feature impose disadvantage on a saving throw against a spell cast before the attack?When is the Battle Master fighter's Commander's Strike maneuver worth it?
How does the Athlete Feat affect the Ravnica Centaur playable race?
What is the farthest a camera can see?
How to prevent criminal gangs from making/buying guns?
Is there a way to proportionalize fixed costs in a MILP?
Global BGP Routing only by only importing supernet prefixes
What is the prop for Thor's hammer made of?
If a person claims to know anything could it be disproven by saying 'prove that we are not in a simulation'?
Scam? Phone call from "Department of Social Security" asking me to call back
Do beef farmed pastures net remove carbon emissions?
Should I leave building the database for the end?
How far did Gandalf and the Balrog drop from the bridge in Moria?
Are there any cons in using rounded corners for bar graphs?
Why did IBM make the PC BIOS source code public?
Units of measurement, especially length, when body parts vary in size among races
Did DOS zero out the BSS area when it loaded a program?
Does fossil fuels use since 1990 account for half of all the fossil fuels used in history?
How do I ask for 2-3 days per week remote work in a job interview?
Why won't the Republicans use a superdelegate system like the DNC in their nomination process?
Boss wants me to ignore a software API license
How to gracefully leave a company you helped start?
Are there really no countries that protect Freedom of Speech as the United States does?
How can I shoot a bow using strength instead of dexterity?
K-Type Thermocouple, Instrumentation Op-Amp and Arduino
What is the most difficult concept to grasp in Calculus 1?
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 you move before using the bonus attack from the Great Weapon Master feat?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?Adding Precision Strike to an attack with advantageCan 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 a Monk's bonus-action unarmed strike qualify for the Kensei's Agile Parry feature?Does the Eldritch Knight's Eldritch Strike feature impose disadvantage on a saving throw against a spell cast before the attack?When is the Battle Master fighter's Commander's Strike maneuver worth it?
.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 Aug 3 at 5:02
V2Blast♦
33.4k5 gold badges122 silver badges209 bronze badges
asked Aug 2 at 9:20
NathanSNathanS
32.2k13 gold badges169 silver badges329 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 Aug 3 at 5:02
V2Blast♦
33.4k5 gold badges122 silver badges209 bronze badges
asked Aug 2 at 9:20
NathanSNathanS
32.2k13 gold badges169 silver badges329 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 Aug 3 at 5:02
V2Blast♦
33.4k5 gold badges122 silver badges209 bronze badges
asked Aug 2 at 9:20
NathanSNathanS
32.2k13 gold badges169 silver badges329 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 Aug 3 at 5:02
V2Blast♦
33.4k5 gold badges122 silver badges209 bronze badges
asked Aug 2 at 9:20
NathanSNathanS
32.2k13 gold badges169 silver badges329 bronze badges
edited Aug 3 at 5:02
V2Blast♦
33.4k5 gold badges122 silver badges209 bronze badges
asked Aug 2 at 9:20
NathanSNathanS
32.2k13 gold badges169 silver badges329 bronze badges
edited Aug 3 at 5:02
V2Blast♦
33.4k5 gold badges122 silver badges209 bronze badges
edited Aug 3 at 5:02
V2Blast♦
33.4k5 gold badges122 silver badges209 bronze badges
edited Aug 3 at 5:02
V2Blast♦
33.4k5 gold badges122 silver badges209 bronze badges
33.4k5 gold badges122 silver badges209 bronze badges
asked Aug 2 at 9:20
NathanSNathanS
32.2k13 gold badges169 silver badges329 bronze badges
asked Aug 2 at 9:20
NathanSNathanS
32.2k13 gold badges169 silver badges329 bronze badges
asked Aug 2 at 9:20
NathanSNathanS
32.2k13 gold badges169 silver badges329 bronze badges
32.2k13 gold badges169 silver badges329 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 rules as intended (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 Aug 2 at 9:36
TiggerousTiggerous
14.8k4 gold badges67 silver badges119 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
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
Aug 2 at 9:43
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
Aug 2 at 10:06
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
Aug 2 at 10:20
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 Aug 2 at 9:34
kviirikviiri
41.6k13 gold badges158 silver badges230 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 rules as intended (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 Aug 2 at 9:36
TiggerousTiggerous
14.8k4 gold badges67 silver badges119 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
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
Aug 2 at 9:43
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
Aug 2 at 10:06
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
Aug 2 at 10:20
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 rules as intended (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 Aug 2 at 9:36
TiggerousTiggerous
14.8k4 gold badges67 silver badges119 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
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
Aug 2 at 9:43
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
Aug 2 at 10:06
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
Aug 2 at 10:20
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 rules as intended (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 Aug 2 at 9:36
TiggerousTiggerous
14.8k4 gold badges67 silver badges119 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 rules as intended (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 Aug 2 at 9:36
TiggerousTiggerous
14.8k4 gold badges67 silver badges119 bronze badges
edited Aug 3 at 5:56
answered Aug 2 at 9:36
TiggerousTiggerous
14.8k4 gold badges67 silver badges119 bronze badges
answered Aug 2 at 9:36
TiggerousTiggerous
14.8k4 gold badges67 silver badges119 bronze badges
answered Aug 2 at 9:36
TiggerousTiggerous
14.8k4 gold badges67 silver badges119 bronze badges
14.8k4 gold badges67 silver badges119 bronze badges
3
$begingroup$
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
Aug 2 at 9:43
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
Aug 2 at 10:06
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
Aug 2 at 10:20
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
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
Aug 2 at 9:43
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
Aug 2 at 10:06
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
Aug 2 at 10:20
3
3
$begingroup$
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
Aug 2 at 9:43
$begingroup$
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
Aug 2 at 9:43
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
Aug 2 at 10:06
$begingroup$
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
Aug 2 at 10:06
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
Aug 2 at 10:20
$begingroup$
@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
Aug 2 at 10:20
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 Aug 2 at 9:34
kviirikviiri
41.6k13 gold badges158 silver badges230 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 Aug 2 at 9:34
kviirikviiri
41.6k13 gold badges158 silver badges230 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 Aug 2 at 9:34
kviirikviiri
41.6k13 gold badges158 silver badges230 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 Aug 2 at 9:34
kviirikviiri
41.6k13 gold badges158 silver badges230 bronze badges
answered Aug 2 at 9:34
kviirikviiri
41.6k13 gold badges158 silver badges230 bronze badges
answered Aug 2 at 9:34
kviirikviiri
41.6k13 gold badges158 silver badges230 bronze badges
answered Aug 2 at 9:34
kviirikviiri
41.6k13 gold badges158 silver badges230 bronze badges
41.6k13 gold badges158 silver badges230 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
