D&D 5E So...Multiattack

[Uchawi]

The comment does go against keeping 5E simple, and adds another sub-system to the game. And how do you make a distinction between a monster, or a monster as a playable race. What is the basis for establishing an exception so it is repeatable versus DM whim.

 

[Celtavian]

I read this differently -IMO that statement is there to state that if you have multiple attacks you only need to give up one of them to grapple not all of them.
ie it is is to point out you only need one attack for a grapple/shove not your whole action rather than limiting it to one use per round.

I can see your reading but don't subscribe to it & mine is hardly explicit about whether you can make multiple grapples etc.

I had carried this though into monster multi attacks & will continue to ignore the mearls comment where I feel it is appropriate.

I'll have to ask Crawford for further clarification. I think it reads pretty clear. It says "this attack replaces one of them." As in you still get multiple attacks, but only one can be replaced by grapple or shove. Otherwise, why add the unnecessary text?

Crawford is the rules guy. So only his ruling is what you might consider close to official with the usual "up to the DM" caveat.

 

[Pickles III]

I'll have to ask Crawford for further clarification. I think it reads pretty clear. It says "this attack replaces one of them." As in you still get multiple attacks, but only one can be replaced by grapple or shove. Otherwise, why add the unnecessary text?

Crawford is the rules guy. So only his ruling is what you might consider close to official with the usual "up to the DM" caveat.

Like I tried to say "replaces one of them" rather than "replaces all of them" is why it's there.

 

[Celtavian]

Like I tried to say "replaces one of them" rather than "replaces all of them" is why it's there.

That's all I was saying. Not sure what you are disagreeing with. If you get two attacks, one can be a grapple and the other a regular attack, but both can't be grapples. You seem to have snipped a piece and misinterpreted the conclusion of my earlier post.

 

[the Jester]

I'm curious if I was the only one using multiattack in that way? I'm also interested in hearing others opinions on whether they agree or disagree with Mearls and why.

It seems to me that most versions of Multiattack specify what the attacks they allow are, such as "attacks twice with its claws and once with its bite". No grappling allowed- that's neither a claw nor a bite!

However, some few monsters' multiattack just says "makes two melee attacks" or something. In that case, sure, grappling is on the table.

 

[Imaro]

It seems to me that most versions of Multiattack specify what the attacks they allow are, such as "attacks twice with its claws and once with its bite". No grappling allowed- that's neither a claw nor a bite!

However, some few monsters' multiattack just says "makes two melee attacks" or something. In that case, sure, grappling is on the table.

I'm not seeing the reasoning in you differentiation here... by general definition, claws and bites are melee attacks... or are you saying only weapon users are capable of choosing to do a grappling or shoving attack without sacrificing all of their attacks irregardless of intellect, size, speed, etc.? If so why?

 

[Sunseeker]

I won't comment on your home game; as long as your players have fun etc.

But "it doesn't explicitly say they don't have it" is plain wrong about the bonus action.

You NEVER get to use a bonus action. EXCEPT when you have a feature or ability that says you do.

In this case it's me the DM granting the feature "you may use a bonus action to make a check" to certain monsters.

But requiring that the rules specifically say you don't get a bonus action is completely backwards. Just so you know [emoji4]

I disagree, though my table has loosened up bonus action to work more like "minor action" of previous editions. I find the rules around bonus action to be fairly unclear at times with the text meandering back and forth between "you may use a bonus action" to "you gain a bonus action". Some of the abilities infer that you now have access to a bonus action in which you may do this select thing, others seem to imply that you may do this select thing as a bonus action if something else grants you one.

So we just simplify it to say, you always have a bonus action, but you can only do X or Y as a bonus action when it would otherwise not be if you have a feature that allows you to do so.

In a "rulings not rules" edition, if the rules don't explicitly state something, I take that as a place where the DM gets to decide. The rules don't explicitly state you DONT have a bonus action, so I make a call.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's all I was saying. Not sure what you are disagreeing with. If you get two attacks, one can be a grapple and the other a regular attack, but both can't be grapples. You seem to have snipped a piece and misinterpreted the conclusion of my earlier post.

He disagrees with the conclusion that only one attack can be replaced.

I certainly read the the text as saying you convert attacks to grapples on a 1:1 basis.

So you could do two attacks, one attack and one grapple, one grapple and one attack, or two grapples.

That is the disagreement

 

[CapnZapp]

Let me add that the "only convert one attack into grapple" interpretation would be quite neat, especially since I would then argue monsters need no special ruling.

Alas, I think the rules both say, and intend, fighters to grapple several times a round. And so I understand the Mearls ruling, to avoid dragons converting semi useless secondary attacks into first grade grapples.

Regards,

 

[cmad1977]

I would say multiattack represents either a trained combination of moves or an innate combination. Hobgoblins are well trained disciplined soldiers that would have practiced a variety of combinations. Panthers instinctively pounce upon and claw there prey.

Don't much care what everyone else does. Have fun.