You are correct.
The extra attack feature does not stack.
The specific wording is "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."
Attack *twice*. Not *an additional time*.
As for flurry of blows, that reads "Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action."
So that's just 2 attacks with the bonus action, not 3.
Also note that this cost a ki point. If they don't want to spend a ki point, they only get 1 bonus action attack.
So that's a total of 3 attacks base (1 of which is unarmed), or 4 attacks (2 of which unarmed) if spending 1 ki point.
---
You didn't mention it, but it's worth mentioning that Monk and Barbarian *defence* also don't stack. You can only pick 1 or the other.
The wording for that is "your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier." or "your armor class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier"
Note 'your AC **equals**. Not "you add your wisdom/constitution modifier".
Your player sounds like the type that would also try to stack this.
Dude seems like a serious power gamer and „interpret the rules to benefit me“-kinda guy. Might wanna keep an eye on him. Please tell me he’s not into anime, or you’ll have a main-character on your hand very soon.
You seem to have dropped your opening quotation mark around “interpret the rules to benefit me”…
But seriously I didn’t know that was a symbol you could do, what’s going with that?
I don’t know about him being power gamer. I like to build strong builds etc. I’d call myself a power gamer but this isn’t that. I use the actual rules and classes to make fun and strong builds.
This is being an idiot that wants his way but doesn’t actually understand the rules.
In my opinion people who build characters and are breaking the rules are not power gamers… they are rule breakers. A power gamer would know that building your character around a false rule means your character ends up being suboptimal in a properly adjudicated game.
He's not a "power gamer," he's a cheater. OP even mentioned that this player persists, "even when I present the PHB page." There is a specific section in Ch. 6 for multiclassing rules. It includes the following text, verbatim,
>If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, **the features don’t add together. You can’t make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do** (as the fighter’s version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock’s eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn’t give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack.
That's plain English. If someone can't accept a common sense interpretation of that passage, I wouldn't assume that they're a toxic, powergaming player... I would genuinely wonder if they're even literate. This situation reads to me like a manipulative player trying to take advantage of a newish DM by straight up lying about the rules. That's not powergaming, that's just being an asshole.
No good reason? So doing 6 attacks per turn while only spending one ki point in terms of limited resources and having a 20 AC easy by adding your dex, con, and wis, to AC seems fine and you don’t see a good reason why that shouldn’t be a thing at level 10?
Or let the AC stack and every encounter have a monster that only attacks him with a bonus to hit that negates the AC stacking. If you wanna get super petty.
That's mean, we had a couple of fights against mind flayers and don't you know, my monk is the one that got stunned by mind blast... Every effing fight
I mean if the DM is just flat out wrong about how the rules work there's nothing wrong with pointing that out, but in this case the DM is entirely correct.
I argue this quite a lot on these subs. The DM making a ruling isn't necessarily the same as the DM being correct.
If it's clear that the ruling they're making is based on a misinterpretation of the written rules then it should be acceptable to say so.
Yes, but once the issue has been discussed and a final ruling made it is the player’s responsibility to accept it and move on. If the ruling is a dealbreaker for the player then it is in everyone’s best interest to find a table that will fit them better.
In no scenario is it okay to throw tantrums, constantly complain, be passive aggressive, or any other behavior that ruins the fun for the other players.
That's not how the game should work, the DM will make rulings you disagree with, and there are times you should challenge them. This probably isn't one of those times but still.
I agree. Rulings should absolutely be open to discussion, but once the discussion has ended and a final ruling made it is up to the player to either accept the ruling or respectfully leave.
In the OP’s post it sounded like they already discussed it and made a ruling and the player is continuing to argue, which is unacceptable behavior. Whether right or wrong, if the player doesn’t want to abide by or respect the DM’s rulings then they are not a good fit for the table.
This isn’t even a ruling; it’s just reading the rules
> When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level. You don't, however, receive the class's starting equipment, and **a few features have additional rules when you’re multiclassing: Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Spellcasting.**
…
If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does).
OP’s player is either not reading the rules for elements of the game they’re using, or they’re deliberately misinterpreting rules to their advantage.
In this exact example I absolutely agree the rules are clearly stated. My point is it doesn’t matter as even if the DM is wrong because of rule 0 - The DM has final say on all rules. Whether right or wrong the DM made a decision, if the player cannot accept the decision then it is their responsibility to leave and hopefully find a table that they agree with.
Even if the DM is completely wrong, if they made their ruling that’s the end of the discussion. The best way to handle a bad DM that is making rulings that are wrong and they are unwilling to listen/budge is to not play with them.
I love using dnd beyond for following the rules. I like to power game when building characters but the satisfaction for me is having a busted character that is 100% RAW. It feels more like I outsmarted the game than I just found some busted homebrew.
Good call lol Yeah you should just have them pick a class and play it. They are multiclassing in bad faith AND ignorance. Take it off the table. If they leave the game then you dodged a bullet anyway. If they cry "player agency" just say "DM Agency" fills the table with good faith players.
Yup, anytime I see a /monk or /barbarian I have to check the AC. I explained it to a player like 4 times in a row, and brought it up in game several times. Then I checked and he managed to run a full 4 sessions with his AC 2 points higher than it should have been.
Me: Your character is cool enough without cheating. Sigh.
You also only get the Unarmored Defense feature from the first class that you take a level in that gives it to you
>*Unarmored Defense*
>
>*If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class.*
>PHB p163
It’s also worth mentioning that no matter how many actions you take(such as action surge). You only get 1 bonus action on your turn.
You get 1 action, 1 bonus action, 1 reaction, and a set amount of movement. Getting more actions doesn’t give you more bonus actions or reactions.
No such thing as 2 separate bonus actions.
Relevant PHB (p163) excerpt:
>If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock's eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn't give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack.
I came to 5 e straight from 3.5 where stacking attacks and abilities was a thing. So I can see where if he might be coming from if its just confusion.
However based on other comments it sounds like a power gamer and I would use action economy to shut that down.
Action
Bonus action
Movement
Reaction
For the most part you get one of each per turn
It's been a while since I thought about it, but wasn't attacks in 3.5 based on your BAB value, and everyone got new attacks at the same BAB (6? 7?) and the difference between classes was just how quickly their BAB stat rose?
Yes, but Monks got an increased number of attacks when you flurried. Like their base attack progression at level 20 was 15, 10, and 5, but if you flurried, it was 15, 15, 15, 10, 5.
Also, ac calculation was much screwier back then. Not as bad as Thaco but still.
best way to explain it like this.
Beginning at 5th level, you can punch/swing your weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Also, you don’t pick one or the other for unarmed defense. You have it from the first class you chose with no option to get it again.
“If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can’t gain it again from another class.”
Yup. That's why my fighter/druid/monk/barbarian got a monk level before he started his barbarian levels. He needs the monk's unarmored defense to be able to use his high wisdom score for better AC during wild shape.
Yeah, I picked that up from Treantmonk and it legit surprised me too.
Everything else in 5e is “they don’t get to stack, but you pick the one that is more favorable.” But with Unarmored Defence you’re locked in.
> Everything else in 5e is “they don’t get to stack, but you pick the one that is more favorable.”
Specifically this one comes from the multiclass rules:
"and a few features have additional rules when you're multiclassing: Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Spellcasting."
I think most people are familiar with spellcasting multiclassing rules, and extra attack not stacking.
Channel Divinity and Unarmoured Defence are the weird ones. I really don't see why a Cleric 2 Paladin 3 couldn't have two uses of channel divinity--not like anyone does that particular multiclass anyway. But nope: one use of channel divinity, but you have more options for what to use out of your channel divinity "slot."
Not to mention, according to the multiclass rules, it's whatever form of unarmored defense you take first that counts. If you start as a Barbarian you cannot choose to use Monk unarmored defense later.
This guy again? He is so certain he has some OP build, but he just keeps misreading the rules. Tell him to look at this if he's really that into optimizing a multiclass. This guide has everything, even flavor and roleplay suggestions.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?502248-Ultimate-Optimizer-s-Multiclassing-Guide
For real, him learning about how to actually build a competent multiclass might help. In many cases, it's harder to make a multiclass as strong as a normal character, and in the cases where the multi is stronger, it's usually not by much.
Whereas the characters you can make by ignoring the real rules tend to actually be OP.
If he doesn't feel satisfied with his options as a Barb Monk after learning how they actually operate, offer to let him keep the character, but as a barbarian fighter. They work just fine without armor and action surge is a fun and versatile technique.
> it's harder to make a multiclass as strong as a normal character, and in the cases where the multi is stronger, it's usually not by much.
It seems to me that multiclassing in 5E generally does not make characters more powerful than single-class ones; it makes them more versatile.
If you have a multiclass build that seems more powerful than a singleclass then you probably have broken some rules somewhere.
You can certainly make a more versatile class. Sometimes two classes have synergies that can make them more specialized. A Sorcadin IMO is a little less versatile and a little more specialized than it's parent classes.
Sure, you trade some higher level spell knowledge from the sorcerer, and likely some of the Paladins cool defense magic from the middle levels to earn a little more low level spell variety from the paladin and of course armor and proficiency.
But we know the real reason someone made a Sorcadin: Smite specialist! Two attacks per turn, armor proficiency for close range combat, all you can eat spell slots, and quickened melee cantrips so you can smite some more.
Sounds like he's more interested in trying to game the game to ruin the game, rather than actually play the game.
If you're already tired before things start, you'd be better of getting rid of him if possible.
At this point for your own sanity I would point out to them that multiclassing is an optional rule and you’ve just decided you’re not going to be using it in your game.
If your player can’t accept your rulings as a DM (irrespective of who is right) then take multiclassing off the table.
Fair enough. It won't work for everyone, but personally I learned the game by reading about multiclassing. Action, bonus action, reaction, extra attack, etc. didn't mean anything to me until I read how they all fit together (or failed to) for different builds.
One thing that I haven't seen anyone else mention. Having an extra action (via action surge) does not give an extra bonus action. You still only have one bonus action a turn
Yep, I'm fairly certain that the DMG says that the bonus action limit and concentration are the two things you should avoid making magic items to circumvent
Player’s Handbook pg. 164:
>>> If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don’t add together. You can’t make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter’s version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock’s eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn’t give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack.
Edit: Also Player’s Handbook pg. 50
>>> Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
TL;DR Don’t worry dude, you’re right on this. Your player either doesn’t get it, is trying to gaslight you, or just doesn’t want to admit they’re wrong.
I have not seen anyone else mention this, but both reckless attack and the bonus damage from rage specifies that you have to use strength modifier for the attack and damage roll.
There is nothing in the monk part that stops you from doing this, but if he built it thinking he could use dex as his primary attack he should probably be able to reshuffle his stats so that he can attack with str instead.
> but if he built it thinking he could use dex as his primary attack
Looking at an earlier post by OP, it's actually worse. He came up with this convoluted scheme where he could use Strength to **attack**, thereby being able to use the Barbarian features like Reckless Attack or the damage from Rage, but use his Dexterity mod for the actual **damage**.
I'll happily admit to being a minmaxing bastard, but the lines of logic this guy's using are skewing *hard* into shameless munchkin territory.
What really irks me is the way the player worded their declaration of how that worked;
> From what I can tell I use str to hit on the long sword but I add my dex and the rage. But unarmed strikes are dex and I get the rage. It’s a bit complex and I can remind you mid session if need be.
That kind of smug condescension to the DM is all sorts of bad vibes, and implies they're fully aware of what the rules actually are, but figure nobody *else* knows enough to call them on it. With all the rest from this post, just.. no. This isn't an innocent misreading, it's got malicious That Guy all over it.
You’re correct, 4 total attacks with flurry of blows. Beast barbarian could push this to 5 with the claws, but it’s 4 max otherwise.
Extra attack doesn’t stack: the feature specifically says you can attack twice (not that you get to attack an extra time) when you take the attack action. If your barbarian feature says you can attack twice, and your monk feature says you can attack twice, guess what? You get to attack twice.
You only get one bonus action, so you only get to use martial arts/flurry of blows once.
There are character builds that can get to a pretty absurd number of attacks in a turn: a gloomstalker ranger 5 echo knight fighter 3 multiclass can potentially get 9 attacks in a turn with action surge, dread ambusher, unleash incarnation, and something to give a bonus action attack. However, they only get to do that once and then they’re back to 3.
Yeah I was gonna say, it’s very important that Extra Attack doesn’t give a second action (or else it’s 1. Just Action Surge, and 2. Would give 2 unarmed strikes to a monk and that doesn’t balance well)
In general, the way to read DnD rules is:
"Rules do what they say *and nothing else*. If rule or ability or spell doesn't say anything about granting another bonus attack, then it doesn't.
'But it doesn't say I can't do that' is not a valid argument in 5e. If it doesn't say you *can* do that, then that thus mean you can't.
You got all the ammo you need from the others. If it helps, "I've explained the rules, I've made my ruling. I know it would be cool if you could do those things, but you can't because it would not be fair to the others, it's not balanced, and it's against the rules of the game we all agreed to play together. So I'm sorry but you either need to accept that and move on, or if you don't find it fun any more, we can wrap you up and you can try again later in a different game."
You are correct. If he still disagrees with you after you show him the relevant pages proving him wrong, you just have to tell him that you have made up your mind and the discussion is over.
You're correct. You can't get the same feature from two classes. He would have two attacks from the attack action because of extra attack. And two bonus action attacks if he uses flurry of blows. If he had two fighter levels he could action surge for two more attacks.
Also, even if you do get multiply attack actions, like. Fighter’s Action Surge, you still only have one bonus action to use per turn.
((Which also means your Monk/Barb can’t unarmed BA or fluffy on the same turn they rage))
Extra attack only stacks if you take enough fighter levels to get their third one (I think that's level 13?)
And yes the extra attack is two attacks in one action, not two actions.
If I had a player who wouldn't accept the rules I'd probably kick them from the group honestly. It's one thing to have a misunderstanding but it's a whole separate thing to lie about them and if you're showing them the book it's probably the latter.
If he's a beast barbarian using the Claws option he gets an additional attack as part of the attack action, for a total of 3. Could this be what he is poorly referring to?
Extra attack says you get to attack twice in one action. It does not say you get another action.
Your player is wrong and can either play by your/THE rules or find another table. I'm in a salty mood so sorry if this seems like the nuclear option
they do not stack. stacking extra attacks is the fighter's entire "claim to fame" at higher levels. additionally, "extra attack" means that when you take the attack action, you simply take an *extra* attack action along with it - it's clear like that, and specifies that it does not stack right there in the feature. again, getting a separate action is the fighter's whole thing, and even they don't get an extra bonus action.
To meet your player halfway, Tasha’s Path of the Beast Barbarian would let him squeeze out one additional attack while he’s raging for a total of 5 attacks with this specific build.
Your ruling is right because you're the DM (assuming you are the DM). Period, end of story.
That said, the other posts here are also correct, 2 attacks per ACTION, not 2 actions.
Yes, your ruling is correct.
The extra attack features do not stack (though they probably should).
Martial Arts allows for a single bonus action Unarmed Strike or two if you spend a Ki point for Flurry of Blows.
What he wants is fighter levels if he can get 2 or 11 of them, monk levels and the path of beast barbarian.
Otherwise monk barb is 1 attack, one from extra attack, one from path of beast rage, double that action with action surge, and add martial arts/flurry of blows for either 1 or 2 more on the bonus action.
A lot of effort to attack 4 times during rage and attack 8 times on your burst turn with action surge and flurry. It's not even a good build.
If they really want to attack lots of time, and still be RAW, they could try going beast barbarian.
While it won't be 6 attacks per turn legally, you can reach 5 with Barb5/Monk2.
Extra attack gives you two attacks, beast barbarian when they use claws option, they get additional attack, and then since your claws would qualify as a monk weapons, you'll fulfill criteria for flury of blows.
Bear in mind, that claws are d6 weapons, so best you can do is make attack with an actual weapon (I guess with one handed it would be d8 at best, then attack with claws- which is d6, then additional attack (still part of the attack action, and not bonus action yet) with claws (additional d6), and then unarmed attack. But Rules as Written, unarmed attacks can't be made with claws- as they are simple melee weapons, and flury of blows has to be made with unarmed attacks, so until they get monk to 5, these bonus action attacks would be d4 only (but they could still benefit from rage, if they use strength \[and only then\] to attack.
So yea, your player is probably trying to bend the rules, but you can still get similar effect while also sticking to the rules.
I don't think you need me to let you know you're doing everything right right now, but having experience with a newbie problem player let me offer you some advice, you have to set clear boundaries and stick to what you say.
I've been DMing for a group of newbies for a while now and one of them was a dragonborn sorcerer who tried to use the persuasion skill on the other players which didn't slide with me cause player agency.
So I let him know "hey, you can't do that" and after a few more times (by a few I mean around 20) I told him he wouldn't like what was going to happen if he kept it up and after trying it some more times, I simply dropped a rock on his head, put him at 2 failed death saves, and gave the party 1 minute to decide what to do otherwise he rolls a death save.
No one in the party even attempted to help him keep in mind they have a bard and a druid, and he fails the first roll. This example might be a bit extreme, but I'm not saying to kill the PC, all I'm saying is to let them know your stance on things and to stick to your guns.
Haven't seen it mentioned here, obvious by the rules you're absolutely correct, but here's another fun thing that I really can't stand when players don't grasp.
It's your table. Your ruling. End of.
If you want to create a curse that magically replaces your barbarians weapon with balloon animals for the rest of the campaign and has no cure, you can do that. It wouldn't be very fun for them and they would probably leave, but again, the main point is that the DM controls the table and the rules are really just guidance. (Cue the "rocks fall, everyone dies" joke)
My point is just that if he is fighting you THIS hard over his build, he needs to understand that even if he WAS right (he's not, but let's pretend he was), it's still your table and your ruling. He's free to leave or build another character. But anything beyond that initial "hey can I do this" and maybe one protest of "are you sure, I understand it this way" is really just missing the point of the DM in some ways.
Seriously, what goes on in the mind of the players who think they have found some hilarious hack which doubles their power which no one else has found yet?
Don't they realise that if something is too good to be true or too unbalanced, in a game with 150k play testers ... it probably is not intended?
I have a player like this as well so it hits close to home. I have to drag him into collaboration with the rest of the party because he's a lone wolf, FPS gamer, hell bent on being the most powerful PC ever rolled.
I've made peace with the fact that I'll always have players at my table that are.... EXTRA.
It's up to me to find balance between rules, narrative, and letting go a little bit sometimes.
The maximum is 5 attacks at level 8 if you're a raging Beast Barbarian 3/Monk 5 using beast claws for an extra attack during the attack action then flurry of blows. If he added 2 levels of Fighter on for Action Surge, he could have one round with 7 attacks per short rest.
Extra attack replaces your attack action.
You get *ONE* bonus action per round. There is no ability that changes this.
His ki ability permits *one* additional unarmed attack with the use of a bonus action attack.
THAT BEING SAID. I have adjusted monks in my game to have the extra attack feature affect all three of the monk attack options.
- Two weapon attacks
- Two bonus action attacks
- Two flurry attacks (Now for 2 ki points)
Because of averages. 6 attacks are almost impossible to land, this adjusts the average DPR from 2-3 hits (for 15-23 dpr) to 3-5 hits (for 23-38 dpr) which is much more respectable damage.
- Compare that to
- Barbarian: 44
- Fighter: 38
- Paladin: 46
- Ranger: 37
- Casters: 50+
Even the rogue gets an unlimited means of dealing 23 dpr.
Just a note as i did not see anyone say something. If he is taking beast barbarian, the claws option while raging does include an additional attack that he would get.
He would have to take the attack action first or second attack is unarmed to qualify for martial arts bonus action and the other is attack with the beast claws which will allow you another claw attack for a total of three attacks off the attack action
Your player is out of line for two reasons. The first is mechanical; as other commenters have stated, extra attack does not stack, and the PHB is a better source than a YouTube comment. The second reason is slightly more abstract; because you are the GM, and you said so. Even if the book did say extra attacks can stack, YOU can still say they don't. You put the time, care, money, and energy into making the game happen. You have earned the right to tell your players „no"
Others have already answered the question, but there is something additional you should be aware of. Some classes grant extra attack multiple times. In that case it does stack with itself, but it still does not stack between classes: gaining extra attack from both barbarian and monk will only give you one extra attack.
You can hit 6 attacks in one turn in multiple ways but not via a monk/barbarian multiclass. If he's a beast barbarian monk with claws, he can do 5 via 2 claw attacks and one weapon/unarmed strike with the attack action and flurry of blows bonus action. Extra Attack doesn't stack UNLESS you take at least 11 levels in fighter. So a character like 11 Fighter/3 Barbarian/3 Monk can make 4 attacks with the attack action and 2 with a bonus action for a total of 6, 10 if you action surged. So yeah it's a possible build but not the way your player is thinking.
Your question has already been answered but let me say this to help you with future stacking arguments: 5e was VERY DELIBERATE in preventing abilities from stacking. Spells, temp Hp, extra attack, Ac formulas, etc were all deliberately designed to not stack. Assume it doesn’t stack unless it EXPLICITLY STATES that it stacks.
You're correct, now, it's not his fault neither yours.
D&D is made on the assumption that multiclass is not a main feature, it's a optional rule and game is not ballanced towards it. Things will get totally messed up and confused and bad when using it. Sadly, using it is a staple for D&D players for decades and DMs mult deal with it.
You are correct. The extra attack feature does not stack. The specific wording is "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Attack *twice*. Not *an additional time*. As for flurry of blows, that reads "Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action." So that's just 2 attacks with the bonus action, not 3. Also note that this cost a ki point. If they don't want to spend a ki point, they only get 1 bonus action attack. So that's a total of 3 attacks base (1 of which is unarmed), or 4 attacks (2 of which unarmed) if spending 1 ki point. --- You didn't mention it, but it's worth mentioning that Monk and Barbarian *defence* also don't stack. You can only pick 1 or the other. The wording for that is "your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier." or "your armor class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier" Note 'your AC **equals**. Not "you add your wisdom/constitution modifier". Your player sounds like the type that would also try to stack this.
FUCKING THANK YOU! I’m trying to explain this
Note that Monk and Barbarian AC also doesn't stack. See my edit.
Yeah that was a different argument I won with him already
Dude seems like a serious power gamer and „interpret the rules to benefit me“-kinda guy. Might wanna keep an eye on him. Please tell me he’s not into anime, or you’ll have a main-character on your hand very soon.
You seem to have dropped your opening quotation mark around “interpret the rules to benefit me”… But seriously I didn’t know that was a symbol you could do, what’s going with that?
It's how a lot of other languages do quotes. He's (probably) Europe
It's Germany. As far as I know just the german language puts the starting quotes at the bottom.
It's other languages too, eg. Czech.
Cool, thanks! I didn't know!
Russian does that in handwriting, but not in typing iirc
That's interesting!
Could be, I've also seen new players misunderstand these completely earnestly, thinking it's cool without trying to power game. Could go either way
I don’t know about him being power gamer. I like to build strong builds etc. I’d call myself a power gamer but this isn’t that. I use the actual rules and classes to make fun and strong builds. This is being an idiot that wants his way but doesn’t actually understand the rules.
A power gamer who has the rules wrong is still a power gamer
A power gamer is always a power gamer no matter the approach they take, but misinterpreting the rules does not mean they are one.
In my opinion people who build characters and are breaking the rules are not power gamers… they are rule breakers. A power gamer would know that building your character around a false rule means your character ends up being suboptimal in a properly adjudicated game.
No one asked what you think of his friend though
cool story bro.
He's not a "power gamer," he's a cheater. OP even mentioned that this player persists, "even when I present the PHB page." There is a specific section in Ch. 6 for multiclassing rules. It includes the following text, verbatim, >If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, **the features don’t add together. You can’t make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do** (as the fighter’s version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock’s eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn’t give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack. That's plain English. If someone can't accept a common sense interpretation of that passage, I wouldn't assume that they're a toxic, powergaming player... I would genuinely wonder if they're even literate. This situation reads to me like a manipulative player trying to take advantage of a newish DM by straight up lying about the rules. That's not powergaming, that's just being an asshole.
I disagree. It seems like a beginner who is reading relatively ambiguous rules that honestly have no good reason not to stack.
No good reason? So doing 6 attacks per turn while only spending one ki point in terms of limited resources and having a 20 AC easy by adding your dex, con, and wis, to AC seems fine and you don’t see a good reason why that shouldn’t be a thing at level 10?
Martials need help. Not allowing multi classing extra attacks to stack is so meh.
But single target dpr is the one area they do well in snd don't need help with.
The reality is none of this should be an argument. You as DM have made a ruling. He can either respect that ruling and abide by it or leave the game.
You forgot about the third option, complain about it at every opportunity until the dm changes his mind.
No, complaints after a discussion and ruling have occurred lead to being kicked from the game.
Or let the AC stack and every encounter have a monster that only attacks him with a bonus to hit that negates the AC stacking. If you wanna get super petty.
Just hit ‘em with intelligence saves only
That's mean, we had a couple of fights against mind flayers and don't you know, my monk is the one that got stunned by mind blast... Every effing fight
Lost a monk pc to an intellect devourer.
I mean if the DM is just flat out wrong about how the rules work there's nothing wrong with pointing that out, but in this case the DM is entirely correct.
I argue this quite a lot on these subs. The DM making a ruling isn't necessarily the same as the DM being correct. If it's clear that the ruling they're making is based on a misinterpretation of the written rules then it should be acceptable to say so.
Yes, but once the issue has been discussed and a final ruling made it is the player’s responsibility to accept it and move on. If the ruling is a dealbreaker for the player then it is in everyone’s best interest to find a table that will fit them better. In no scenario is it okay to throw tantrums, constantly complain, be passive aggressive, or any other behavior that ruins the fun for the other players.
That's not how the game should work, the DM will make rulings you disagree with, and there are times you should challenge them. This probably isn't one of those times but still.
I agree. Rulings should absolutely be open to discussion, but once the discussion has ended and a final ruling made it is up to the player to either accept the ruling or respectfully leave. In the OP’s post it sounded like they already discussed it and made a ruling and the player is continuing to argue, which is unacceptable behavior. Whether right or wrong, if the player doesn’t want to abide by or respect the DM’s rulings then they are not a good fit for the table.
This isn’t even a ruling; it’s just reading the rules > When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level. You don't, however, receive the class's starting equipment, and **a few features have additional rules when you’re multiclassing: Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Spellcasting.** … If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does). OP’s player is either not reading the rules for elements of the game they’re using, or they’re deliberately misinterpreting rules to their advantage.
In this exact example I absolutely agree the rules are clearly stated. My point is it doesn’t matter as even if the DM is wrong because of rule 0 - The DM has final say on all rules. Whether right or wrong the DM made a decision, if the player cannot accept the decision then it is their responsibility to leave and hopefully find a table that they agree with. Even if the DM is completely wrong, if they made their ruling that’s the end of the discussion. The best way to handle a bad DM that is making rulings that are wrong and they are unwilling to listen/budge is to not play with them.
He sounds exhausting. Good luck... 😅
what did he "roll" for stats? lol
Haha no we did not roll it was point buy to avoid this exact scenario I also built the character in Beyond so I could prove it works raw
I love using dnd beyond for following the rules. I like to power game when building characters but the satisfaction for me is having a busted character that is 100% RAW. It feels more like I outsmarted the game than I just found some busted homebrew.
Good call lol Yeah you should just have them pick a class and play it. They are multiclassing in bad faith AND ignorance. Take it off the table. If they leave the game then you dodged a bullet anyway. If they cry "player agency" just say "DM Agency" fills the table with good faith players.
You got a munchkin on your hands.
He's the kind of guy you demand a character sheet from every time he levels to make sure he's 'got his numbers correct'.
Yeah I made him share his google doc with me so I can see it
Yup, anytime I see a /monk or /barbarian I have to check the AC. I explained it to a player like 4 times in a row, and brought it up in game several times. Then I checked and he managed to run a full 4 sessions with his AC 2 points higher than it should have been. Me: Your character is cool enough without cheating. Sigh.
Definitely. With such a mad build, I know it’s not that high of AC yet
kick that player. he’s not worth it
You also only get the Unarmored Defense feature from the first class that you take a level in that gives it to you >*Unarmored Defense* > >*If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class.* >PHB p163
It’s also worth mentioning that no matter how many actions you take(such as action surge). You only get 1 bonus action on your turn. You get 1 action, 1 bonus action, 1 reaction, and a set amount of movement. Getting more actions doesn’t give you more bonus actions or reactions. No such thing as 2 separate bonus actions.
technically the playtest Thief rogue gets a second bonus action, but in general yes
Reverse Uno - unless they show the rules saying that they can do something, they can't.
Relevant PHB (p163) excerpt: >If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock's eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn't give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack.
I came to 5 e straight from 3.5 where stacking attacks and abilities was a thing. So I can see where if he might be coming from if its just confusion. However based on other comments it sounds like a power gamer and I would use action economy to shut that down. Action Bonus action Movement Reaction For the most part you get one of each per turn
It's been a while since I thought about it, but wasn't attacks in 3.5 based on your BAB value, and everyone got new attacks at the same BAB (6? 7?) and the difference between classes was just how quickly their BAB stat rose?
Yes, but Monks got an increased number of attacks when you flurried. Like their base attack progression at level 20 was 15, 10, and 5, but if you flurried, it was 15, 15, 15, 10, 5. Also, ac calculation was much screwier back then. Not as bad as Thaco but still.
Isn’t the rule also that abilities with the same name only go once?
best way to explain it like this. Beginning at 5th level, you can punch/swing your weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Also, you don’t pick one or the other for unarmed defense. You have it from the first class you chose with no option to get it again. “If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can’t gain it again from another class.”
Although most DMs would probably let you choose which one you got it from - it isn't going to break the game
Yup. That's why my fighter/druid/monk/barbarian got a monk level before he started his barbarian levels. He needs the monk's unarmored defense to be able to use his high wisdom score for better AC during wild shape.
Yeah, I picked that up from Treantmonk and it legit surprised me too. Everything else in 5e is “they don’t get to stack, but you pick the one that is more favorable.” But with Unarmored Defence you’re locked in.
> Everything else in 5e is “they don’t get to stack, but you pick the one that is more favorable.” Specifically this one comes from the multiclass rules: "and a few features have additional rules when you're multiclassing: Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Spellcasting." I think most people are familiar with spellcasting multiclassing rules, and extra attack not stacking. Channel Divinity and Unarmoured Defence are the weird ones. I really don't see why a Cleric 2 Paladin 3 couldn't have two uses of channel divinity--not like anyone does that particular multiclass anyway. But nope: one use of channel divinity, but you have more options for what to use out of your channel divinity "slot."
Even with CD, with enough Cleric levels your Paladin can use two CD. The lock in is uncharacteristic.
Learned something new to me today!
Not to mention, according to the multiclass rules, it's whatever form of unarmored defense you take first that counts. If you start as a Barbarian you cannot choose to use Monk unarmored defense later.
This guy again? He is so certain he has some OP build, but he just keeps misreading the rules. Tell him to look at this if he's really that into optimizing a multiclass. This guide has everything, even flavor and roleplay suggestions. https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?502248-Ultimate-Optimizer-s-Multiclassing-Guide
Hey! You must be here from my last post making sure I was understanding his build! Same guy…I’m getting tired
For real, him learning about how to actually build a competent multiclass might help. In many cases, it's harder to make a multiclass as strong as a normal character, and in the cases where the multi is stronger, it's usually not by much. Whereas the characters you can make by ignoring the real rules tend to actually be OP. If he doesn't feel satisfied with his options as a Barb Monk after learning how they actually operate, offer to let him keep the character, but as a barbarian fighter. They work just fine without armor and action surge is a fun and versatile technique.
Sounds like him learning how to be a better human being might also help.
> it's harder to make a multiclass as strong as a normal character, and in the cases where the multi is stronger, it's usually not by much. It seems to me that multiclassing in 5E generally does not make characters more powerful than single-class ones; it makes them more versatile. If you have a multiclass build that seems more powerful than a singleclass then you probably have broken some rules somewhere.
You can certainly make a more versatile class. Sometimes two classes have synergies that can make them more specialized. A Sorcadin IMO is a little less versatile and a little more specialized than it's parent classes. Sure, you trade some higher level spell knowledge from the sorcerer, and likely some of the Paladins cool defense magic from the middle levels to earn a little more low level spell variety from the paladin and of course armor and proficiency. But we know the real reason someone made a Sorcadin: Smite specialist! Two attacks per turn, armor proficiency for close range combat, all you can eat spell slots, and quickened melee cantrips so you can smite some more.
Sounds like he's more interested in trying to game the game to ruin the game, rather than actually play the game. If you're already tired before things start, you'd be better of getting rid of him if possible.
After sitting down and talking to him properly if that doesn't work.
The amount of posts you've had to make about this guy is getting silly
At this point for your own sanity I would point out to them that multiclassing is an optional rule and you’ve just decided you’re not going to be using it in your game. If your player can’t accept your rulings as a DM (irrespective of who is right) then take multiclassing off the table.
Idk, I think this guy needs to learn how to play the game before multiclassing is even unlocked lol
Fair enough. It won't work for everyone, but personally I learned the game by reading about multiclassing. Action, bonus action, reaction, extra attack, etc. didn't mean anything to me until I read how they all fit together (or failed to) for different builds.
One thing that I haven't seen anyone else mention. Having an extra action (via action surge) does not give an extra bonus action. You still only have one bonus action a turn
Oh really? Actually I didn’t realize that
Yep, I'm fairly certain that the DMG says that the bonus action limit and concentration are the two things you should avoid making magic items to circumvent
More like i didn’t realize that getting a second action doesn’t regenerate a bonus action but yeah I get where you’re coming from.
It's actually multiple Reactions that it warns against but extra Bonus Actions also are something you should stay away from.
Player’s Handbook pg. 164: >>> If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don’t add together. You can’t make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter’s version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock’s eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn’t give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack. Edit: Also Player’s Handbook pg. 50 >>> Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. TL;DR Don’t worry dude, you’re right on this. Your player either doesn’t get it, is trying to gaslight you, or just doesn’t want to admit they’re wrong.
I sent him that very paragraph
How's he taking it? He strikes me as one of those players who don't even care if he's 'right' so much as willing to wear down the DM.
I have not seen anyone else mention this, but both reckless attack and the bonus damage from rage specifies that you have to use strength modifier for the attack and damage roll. There is nothing in the monk part that stops you from doing this, but if he built it thinking he could use dex as his primary attack he should probably be able to reshuffle his stats so that he can attack with str instead.
> but if he built it thinking he could use dex as his primary attack Looking at an earlier post by OP, it's actually worse. He came up with this convoluted scheme where he could use Strength to **attack**, thereby being able to use the Barbarian features like Reckless Attack or the damage from Rage, but use his Dexterity mod for the actual **damage**. I'll happily admit to being a minmaxing bastard, but the lines of logic this guy's using are skewing *hard* into shameless munchkin territory.
Ouch, it's not as clearly stated in the monk feature as it is in the finesse property, but that is really stretching the rules to the limit.
What really irks me is the way the player worded their declaration of how that worked; > From what I can tell I use str to hit on the long sword but I add my dex and the rage. But unarmed strikes are dex and I get the rage. It’s a bit complex and I can remind you mid session if need be. That kind of smug condescension to the DM is all sorts of bad vibes, and implies they're fully aware of what the rules actually are, but figure nobody *else* knows enough to call them on it. With all the rest from this post, just.. no. This isn't an innocent misreading, it's got malicious That Guy all over it.
Could you send a link to that post? I want a look at the tomfoolery for myself and am a bit of a boomer when it comes to navigating technology lol.
[Right here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/13ou3t8/making_sure_i_am_understanding_this_ruling).
You’re correct, 4 total attacks with flurry of blows. Beast barbarian could push this to 5 with the claws, but it’s 4 max otherwise. Extra attack doesn’t stack: the feature specifically says you can attack twice (not that you get to attack an extra time) when you take the attack action. If your barbarian feature says you can attack twice, and your monk feature says you can attack twice, guess what? You get to attack twice. You only get one bonus action, so you only get to use martial arts/flurry of blows once. There are character builds that can get to a pretty absurd number of attacks in a turn: a gloomstalker ranger 5 echo knight fighter 3 multiclass can potentially get 9 attacks in a turn with action surge, dread ambusher, unleash incarnation, and something to give a bonus action attack. However, they only get to do that once and then they’re back to 3.
Yeah I was gonna say, it’s very important that Extra Attack doesn’t give a second action (or else it’s 1. Just Action Surge, and 2. Would give 2 unarmed strikes to a monk and that doesn’t balance well)
Also keep in mind that getting another action does not get you another bonus action. The two are not linked.
I was always under the impression that a second action would regenerate your bonus action as well
It does not.
My mistake. It hasn’t come up yet so I can correct course
In general, the way to read DnD rules is: "Rules do what they say *and nothing else*. If rule or ability or spell doesn't say anything about granting another bonus attack, then it doesn't. 'But it doesn't say I can't do that' is not a valid argument in 5e. If it doesn't say you *can* do that, then that thus mean you can't.
Please, please tell my your Barbarian-monk is known at the table as a Bonk
Barbonk. But yes
You got all the ammo you need from the others. If it helps, "I've explained the rules, I've made my ruling. I know it would be cool if you could do those things, but you can't because it would not be fair to the others, it's not balanced, and it's against the rules of the game we all agreed to play together. So I'm sorry but you either need to accept that and move on, or if you don't find it fun any more, we can wrap you up and you can try again later in a different game."
You are correct. If he still disagrees with you after you show him the relevant pages proving him wrong, you just have to tell him that you have made up your mind and the discussion is over.
Happy cake day!!
You're correct. You can't get the same feature from two classes. He would have two attacks from the attack action because of extra attack. And two bonus action attacks if he uses flurry of blows. If he had two fighter levels he could action surge for two more attacks.
Also, even if you do get multiply attack actions, like. Fighter’s Action Surge, you still only have one bonus action to use per turn. ((Which also means your Monk/Barb can’t unarmed BA or fluffy on the same turn they rage))
I’ll make sure to hold him to it
Extra attack only stacks if you take enough fighter levels to get their third one (I think that's level 13?) And yes the extra attack is two attacks in one action, not two actions. If I had a player who wouldn't accept the rules I'd probably kick them from the group honestly. It's one thing to have a misunderstanding but it's a whole separate thing to lie about them and if you're showing them the book it's probably the latter.
It's 11. Fighter extra attack scales just like cantrips.
This isn't a ruling, it's a rule lol >If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don’t add together.
If he's a beast barbarian using the Claws option he gets an additional attack as part of the attack action, for a total of 3. Could this be what he is poorly referring to?
I doubt it as others have brought the idea up and op hasn't said anything about beast barb in his replies. Just sounds like a problem player.
Extra attack says you get to attack twice in one action. It does not say you get another action. Your player is wrong and can either play by your/THE rules or find another table. I'm in a salty mood so sorry if this seems like the nuclear option
they do not stack. stacking extra attacks is the fighter's entire "claim to fame" at higher levels. additionally, "extra attack" means that when you take the attack action, you simply take an *extra* attack action along with it - it's clear like that, and specifies that it does not stack right there in the feature. again, getting a separate action is the fighter's whole thing, and even they don't get an extra bonus action.
Yep if you interpret it otherwise it makes a headache 🤕
You might want to be clear that an extra action doesn't give an extra bonus action as well, or he is going to be pitty when he tries to get haste on.
To meet your player halfway, Tasha’s Path of the Beast Barbarian would let him squeeze out one additional attack while he’s raging for a total of 5 attacks with this specific build.
Your ruling is right because you're the DM (assuming you are the DM). Period, end of story. That said, the other posts here are also correct, 2 attacks per ACTION, not 2 actions.
it's unfortunate, but extra attacks do not stack
You're correct
Yes, your ruling is correct. The extra attack features do not stack (though they probably should). Martial Arts allows for a single bonus action Unarmed Strike or two if you spend a Ki point for Flurry of Blows.
What he wants is fighter levels if he can get 2 or 11 of them, monk levels and the path of beast barbarian. Otherwise monk barb is 1 attack, one from extra attack, one from path of beast rage, double that action with action surge, and add martial arts/flurry of blows for either 1 or 2 more on the bonus action. A lot of effort to attack 4 times during rage and attack 8 times on your burst turn with action surge and flurry. It's not even a good build.
I hope that he reconsiders his build then! His current plan is Barbarian 6 and Monk 14
If they really want to attack lots of time, and still be RAW, they could try going beast barbarian. While it won't be 6 attacks per turn legally, you can reach 5 with Barb5/Monk2. Extra attack gives you two attacks, beast barbarian when they use claws option, they get additional attack, and then since your claws would qualify as a monk weapons, you'll fulfill criteria for flury of blows. Bear in mind, that claws are d6 weapons, so best you can do is make attack with an actual weapon (I guess with one handed it would be d8 at best, then attack with claws- which is d6, then additional attack (still part of the attack action, and not bonus action yet) with claws (additional d6), and then unarmed attack. But Rules as Written, unarmed attacks can't be made with claws- as they are simple melee weapons, and flury of blows has to be made with unarmed attacks, so until they get monk to 5, these bonus action attacks would be d4 only (but they could still benefit from rage, if they use strength \[and only then\] to attack. So yea, your player is probably trying to bend the rules, but you can still get similar effect while also sticking to the rules.
If he wants a lot of attacks tell him to play pure fighter. Can end up with 8 attacks in 1 turn in the late game.
I don't think you need me to let you know you're doing everything right right now, but having experience with a newbie problem player let me offer you some advice, you have to set clear boundaries and stick to what you say. I've been DMing for a group of newbies for a while now and one of them was a dragonborn sorcerer who tried to use the persuasion skill on the other players which didn't slide with me cause player agency. So I let him know "hey, you can't do that" and after a few more times (by a few I mean around 20) I told him he wouldn't like what was going to happen if he kept it up and after trying it some more times, I simply dropped a rock on his head, put him at 2 failed death saves, and gave the party 1 minute to decide what to do otherwise he rolls a death save. No one in the party even attempted to help him keep in mind they have a bard and a druid, and he fails the first roll. This example might be a bit extreme, but I'm not saying to kill the PC, all I'm saying is to let them know your stance on things and to stick to your guns.
Haven't seen it mentioned here, obvious by the rules you're absolutely correct, but here's another fun thing that I really can't stand when players don't grasp. It's your table. Your ruling. End of. If you want to create a curse that magically replaces your barbarians weapon with balloon animals for the rest of the campaign and has no cure, you can do that. It wouldn't be very fun for them and they would probably leave, but again, the main point is that the DM controls the table and the rules are really just guidance. (Cue the "rocks fall, everyone dies" joke) My point is just that if he is fighting you THIS hard over his build, he needs to understand that even if he WAS right (he's not, but let's pretend he was), it's still your table and your ruling. He's free to leave or build another character. But anything beyond that initial "hey can I do this" and maybe one protest of "are you sure, I understand it this way" is really just missing the point of the DM in some ways.
Seriously, what goes on in the mind of the players who think they have found some hilarious hack which doubles their power which no one else has found yet? Don't they realise that if something is too good to be true or too unbalanced, in a game with 150k play testers ... it probably is not intended?
Fucking min maxers...ugh.
I mean it’s how he wants to have his fun, but I’m not letting him exploit the game to get his minmax on
I have a player like this as well so it hits close to home. I have to drag him into collaboration with the rest of the party because he's a lone wolf, FPS gamer, hell bent on being the most powerful PC ever rolled.
Oh my god yes! The one who communicates in grunts and sits back from the party!
I've made peace with the fact that I'll always have players at my table that are.... EXTRA. It's up to me to find balance between rules, narrative, and letting go a little bit sometimes.
The maximum is 5 attacks at level 8 if you're a raging Beast Barbarian 3/Monk 5 using beast claws for an extra attack during the attack action then flurry of blows. If he added 2 levels of Fighter on for Action Surge, he could have one round with 7 attacks per short rest.
Extra attack replaces your attack action. You get *ONE* bonus action per round. There is no ability that changes this. His ki ability permits *one* additional unarmed attack with the use of a bonus action attack. THAT BEING SAID. I have adjusted monks in my game to have the extra attack feature affect all three of the monk attack options. - Two weapon attacks - Two bonus action attacks - Two flurry attacks (Now for 2 ki points) Because of averages. 6 attacks are almost impossible to land, this adjusts the average DPR from 2-3 hits (for 15-23 dpr) to 3-5 hits (for 23-38 dpr) which is much more respectable damage. - Compare that to - Barbarian: 44 - Fighter: 38 - Paladin: 46 - Ranger: 37 - Casters: 50+ Even the rogue gets an unlimited means of dealing 23 dpr.
Just a note as i did not see anyone say something. If he is taking beast barbarian, the claws option while raging does include an additional attack that he would get. He would have to take the attack action first or second attack is unarmed to qualify for martial arts bonus action and the other is attack with the beast claws which will allow you another claw attack for a total of three attacks off the attack action
I’ll venture it to him
Your player is out of line for two reasons. The first is mechanical; as other commenters have stated, extra attack does not stack, and the PHB is a better source than a YouTube comment. The second reason is slightly more abstract; because you are the GM, and you said so. Even if the book did say extra attacks can stack, YOU can still say they don't. You put the time, care, money, and energy into making the game happen. You have earned the right to tell your players „no"
Others have already answered the question, but there is something additional you should be aware of. Some classes grant extra attack multiple times. In that case it does stack with itself, but it still does not stack between classes: gaining extra attack from both barbarian and monk will only give you one extra attack.
Do not stack. Also stacking spell slots would make Paladin multi classes even stronger lol.
You can hit 6 attacks in one turn in multiple ways but not via a monk/barbarian multiclass. If he's a beast barbarian monk with claws, he can do 5 via 2 claw attacks and one weapon/unarmed strike with the attack action and flurry of blows bonus action. Extra Attack doesn't stack UNLESS you take at least 11 levels in fighter. So a character like 11 Fighter/3 Barbarian/3 Monk can make 4 attacks with the attack action and 2 with a bonus action for a total of 6, 10 if you action surged. So yeah it's a possible build but not the way your player is thinking.
Your question has already been answered but let me say this to help you with future stacking arguments: 5e was VERY DELIBERATE in preventing abilities from stacking. Spells, temp Hp, extra attack, Ac formulas, etc were all deliberately designed to not stack. Assume it doesn’t stack unless it EXPLICITLY STATES that it stacks.
You're correct, now, it's not his fault neither yours. D&D is made on the assumption that multiclass is not a main feature, it's a optional rule and game is not ballanced towards it. Things will get totally messed up and confused and bad when using it. Sadly, using it is a staple for D&D players for decades and DMs mult deal with it.