So Multiattack (Volley or Whirlwind) appears to work as a single attack with multiple targets.
How does that interact with spells that affect the next target you hit? I'm talking Ensnaring Strike, Lightning Arrow and (if making an unusual multiclass) Paladin Smite spells.
Would you have to nominate one as being hit first? Would those trigger on all of the targets? If so, would that even "break" anything balance-wise?
1eejit wrote:
Roll the attacks 1 at a time in the order you choose.
i.e. Volly on a troll, orc, kobold in that order.
Then, the first one you hit get's smiten. 
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
1eejit wrote:
1eejit wrote:
According to Jeremy Crawford
Whirlwind Attack is a single attack with multiple attack rolls.
mellored wrote:
I read both of those spells to effect each target hit until the spell ends (1 minute). So, if Multiattack is a single attack with multiple attack rolls, and the ranger had enough ammunition (for volley), he or she could cause a hell of a lot of damage, especially with Lightning Arrow (which can't miss as even a 'miss' does half damage) arcing around, not only affecting targets but also others within 10 ft. That means targets will be zapped multiple times if they are in a bunch.
It does seem very powerful but for an 11th level character maybe not so bad. I'd want to see it in action to know for sure, though.
The fact that Volley requires an ammunition for each target is clear indication to me that its multiple attack. Afterall, the feature is called MULTIATTACK. So i am of the opinion that Volley and Whirlwind Attack are multiple attacks with seperate attack and damage rolls that can each hit, crit or miss individually.
Lightning Arrow Volley seems like it could indeed get ridiculous if there were enough targets closely packed. Ensnaring Strike as an AoE really wouldn't be broken at all for level 11 IMO. The other options with Paladin Smites would by necessity come online even later due to multiclassing.
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Tne rules clearly state that if there is any ambiguity in what constitutes an attack (singular) it is defined as making an attack roll. If you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack.
if the interaction, since there are many variables in the first question, requires multiple attack rolls, then these are separate attacks and would be adjudicated as separate attacks. If the interaction requires only one attack roll, then it is one attack. the proof is in the definition of attack from the PHB and any conjecture is uneccesary past this.
Multiattack isn't the Attack action, it's the Multiattack action. Specific beats general. No ambiguity.
Also this confirms even more that Volley and Whirlwind Attack are multiple attacks since you make a seperate attack roll for each target..
PHB194 Making An Attack: If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.
1eejit wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
I think perhaps you are overreaching by attempting to mix whirlwind attack and multi attack. They are very different. You could not for example substitute a grapple with an attack granted by whirlwind attack as opposed to multi attack that allows this. Even if this DEVS ruling was a final official ruling (I am not convinced of tthat) it does not allow a spell to do additional damage with multi attack which is governed by the rules of multi attack. In both the case of a spell such as guiding strike or an ability such as divine smite, the trigger is HITTING, so the point is irrelevant. You hit and then trigger the damage. .If I whirlwind attack and divine smite, I must expend a smite on hit. If the spell says on the first attack, it is expired on the specific hit. I do not have the wording of the spells In question before me, but they would govern as to their triggers.
Also for clarity sake could you post both the question and the answer from the DEV so we can see what was specifically asked. Perhaps this will add some context as I may be only misunderstanding what your position is. This is important to get right and I feel that your question has real value and merit.
Mischiefincdm wrote:
I happen to often disagree with the devs interpretation of the rules as written.
How would you explain a Volley made with a crossbow against 7 creatures as a single attack? I hardly see how you would load 7 crossbow bolts to shoot them all at once 
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
LOL Except in D&D the property of such weapon says 1 ammunition per attack.
Specific beats general! :P
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
No
1eejit wrote:
Lightning Arrow says "the next time you make a ranged weapon attack during the spell's duration...", so whether the volley is a single attack with multiple targets or many attacks in a single round doesn't matter - the spell affects ranged attacks for the 1 minute duration., which is a really effective attack when doing a minimum of 2d8 per target plus the arcing of the electical current to other targets within 10ft.