Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9606470" data-attributes="member: 6877472">In previous editions, creatures had attack routines stated because that was how they usually attacked.&nbsp; With animals, they rely largely on instinct, so in ordinary situations, they will attack prey in a fairly predictable manner.&nbsp; Creatures like the Roper, or Dragons, who have different reaches with different attacks probably use them in a similar manner as well.&nbsp; When I see a Multiattack that says &quot;do this, then that&quot;, I see that more as advice to a DM to give them an idea of how the creature is intended to work, not a strict &quot;it must attack in this way&quot;.For example, few, if any, monsters tell us which attack they use to make opportunity attacks with.&nbsp; Normally they would use the attack with the most reach or damage, but there might be reasons to do otherwise.&nbsp; And if so, there's no reason to say &quot;nope nope, rules don't let you&quot;- I mean, players can generally make their attacks in any order they wish with the Attack action, after all.&nbsp; It's bonus and reaction attacks that usually have qualifiers, if at all.Now if there is a RAW here, and some creatures are in fact, always expected to attack in the same way every time, like automatons, and they aren't golems or zombies, I can't imagine any DM who wouldn't just ignore that if it didn't make sense to them, so I'm not entirely sure what the debate here is, unless this is just some mental exercise (at which point, carry on, don't mind me!).&nbsp; But I don't believe that there is any real RAW.After all, then you get questions of &quot;well, if the monster is somehow affected by Haste, which of it's attacks will it use?&quot; lol.Also!&nbsp; I've noticed some of the new monsters have become very simple with their attacks.&nbsp; The Ancient Green Dragon, at least in the preview I saw, doesn't even bother to have different attacks.&nbsp; It has instead of claws/bite/wing/tail just a generic &quot;Rend&quot; and it's Multiattack lets it Rend thrice, or replace one Rend with a special attack (a spell as I recall).&nbsp; So in some cases, it's kind of moot.-As an aside, I don't like this approach.&nbsp; I'm not usually a big stickler for verisimilitude, but &quot;Rend&quot; makes me think of a claw attack or something, not a bite or tail slap.&nbsp; Yet &quot;Rend&quot; has a 15' reach, where traditionally, dragons have variable reach based on their body configuration.&nbsp; Probably not relevant to this discussion, but it does strike me as kind of weird.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9606470, member: 6877472"] In previous editions, creatures had attack routines stated because that was how they usually attacked. With animals, they rely largely on instinct, so in ordinary situations, they will attack prey in a fairly predictable manner. Creatures like the Roper, or Dragons, who have different reaches with different attacks probably use them in a similar manner as well. When I see a Multiattack that says "do this, then that", I see that more as advice to a DM to give them an idea of how the creature is intended to work, not a strict "it must attack in this way". For example, few, if any, monsters tell us which attack they use to make opportunity attacks with. Normally they would use the attack with the most reach or damage, but there might be reasons to do otherwise. And if so, there's no reason to say "nope nope, rules don't let you"- I mean, players can generally make their attacks in any order they wish with the Attack action, after all. It's bonus and reaction attacks that usually have qualifiers, if at all. Now if there is a RAW here, and some creatures are in fact, always expected to attack in the same way every time, like automatons, and they aren't golems or zombies, I can't imagine any DM who wouldn't just ignore that if it didn't make sense to them, so I'm not entirely sure what the debate here is, unless this is just some mental exercise (at which point, carry on, don't mind me!). But I don't believe that there is any real RAW. After all, then you get questions of "well, if the monster is somehow affected by Haste, which of it's attacks will it use?" lol. Also! I've noticed some of the new monsters have become very simple with their attacks. The Ancient Green Dragon, at least in the preview I saw, doesn't even bother to have different attacks. It has instead of claws/bite/wing/tail just a generic "Rend" and it's Multiattack lets it Rend thrice, or replace one Rend with a special attack (a spell as I recall). So in some cases, it's kind of moot. -As an aside, I don't like this approach. I'm not usually a big stickler for verisimilitude, but "Rend" makes me think of a claw attack or something, not a bite or tail slap. Yet "Rend" has a 15' reach, where traditionally, dragons have variable reach based on their body configuration. Probably not relevant to this discussion, but it does strike me as kind of weird. [/QUOTE]

Verification