D&D 5E So...Multiattack

[Celtavian]

Technically, monsters don't use the Attack action, they use the Multiattack action, so his ruling wouldn't apply in those cases.

But I don't need a Crawford ruling on this issue, so for me the fact that he didn't rule for that case doesn't matter to me. I say dragons can grapple with each claw while biting with their mouth, so they can.

I prefer an official ruling, though I'm not bound by it. This is why I don't like things being named differently. Now until he answers specifically for the Multiattack action, someone will point this out.

Regardless, I can infer from his ruling that Multiattack operates in a similar fashion.

 

[mattcolville]

So I originally believed multiattack in the Monster Manual could be used in the same way as extra attacks in the PHB... in other words you could give one up to grapple, shove, etc.

This seems a strange interpretation to me, though obviously you're not the only one. Doesn't Multiattack always explicitly list the attacks? Why would it do that, if you could substitute any attacks you wanted?

When you get extra attacks as a player, does it usually say "with this specific weapon, but you can use it to shove or grapple?" I thought extra attacks were explicitly "of whatever you want."

 

[Celtavian]

This seems a strange interpretation to me, though obviously you're not the only one. Doesn't Multiattack always explicitly list the attacks? Why would it do that, if you could substitute any attacks you wanted?

When you get extra attacks as a player, does it usually say "with this specific weapon, but you can use it to shove or grapple?" I thought extra attacks were explicitly "of whatever you want."

The problem is that monsters come in so many shapes and sizes that some might be able to grapple with one of their attacks like a troll's claw and others may not like a cat's claws. It's hard to write a hard and fast rule for them all. I think Mike Mearl's ruling works for a lot of creatures because it might take their entire body to grapple or shove. It might not apply to a creature like a troll because his claw is like a hand or a hobgoblin warlord because they fight exactly like a fighter or other melee class. I think as a DM you have to determine if an individual creature is capable of grappling or shoving with a single "hand" by discerning if the means they are granted multiple attacks would allow the monster to do so. It's nearly impossible for the designers to write that possibility for every creatures with Multiattack, so the DM has to make some decisions on the matter according to his understanding of the creature's anatomy according to its description and/or picture.

 

[Imaro]

Hiya!

Two things I'll bring up...

(1) PHB != MM, and MM != PHB. In non-programmer speak, they are two different books, and have some significantly different purposes and "rules". Look at, say, the "Evil Mage" for an example; the Evil Mage simply does not follow the same rules as the PHB lays out for wizards. Why would anyone in their right mind assume that everything else found in the MM wouldn't likewise follow those same "...it's a monster and doesn't have to play by the same rules as the PC's"?

And yet if you want to know how a monster's skills work... you reference the PHB. How it's spells work... reference the PHB. How to make an attack roll for a monster...reference the PHB. Thus I'm not sure your assertion holds up. I would say they are two interdependent books...

(2) "Multiattack" is not quite the same as "Multi-Attack", nor is it the same as "Multiple Attacks". At least not any more than "Great Weapon Fighter" is the same as "Greatweapon Fighter".

Under "Multiattack" description in the beginning of the MM, it says it is "multiple attacks", and this does seem to indicate that it's the 'same' as in the PHB. Looking at the monsters description of "Multiattack", however, it specifically states what constitutes the monsters "choice" of choosing Multiattack...just like a PC fighter can choose Push as one of his Attacks...but only one. Why can the PC do it and not a monster? Because "push" is an option for a PC to be uses as any ONE of his attacks. If a monster was to use a "Push" attack option, that's what he's doing as his action; in other words, he isn't using his Multiattack option.

So, how I'd read it, is much like Mr.Mearls has; monsters "multiattack" is not the same as a PC with multiple attacks. That said, I'd have no problem what so ever completely ignoring his way of running his game....as I run my game the way I want. Meaning that my rulings supersede him every time.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Well first the monster can in fact use general actions like grappling, shove, dash, etc that are available to all creatures... This is stated in the Monster Manual under Actions. The main point of contention is whether it can sacrifice one of it's attacks in multiattack to do so. IMO, there's no point to allowing all creatures to take certain actions if they are always a suboptimal choice... in other words if I have multiple attacks and have to sacrifice all of them in order to grapple or shove... I'll probably never use any of those maneuvers with a monster... the cost is just way too high.

Okay so here's a question... if a monster/npc can only ever use it's stated weapons for multiattack... how do the rules for armor and weapon swaps for NPC's interact with this? If you give them different weapons can they say use multiattack with those weapons even if it states specific weapons for it's use in the stat block ... or can they use the new weapons you've given them with their ability even if it's not implicitly stated?

 

[pming]

And yet if you want to know how a monster's skills work... you reference the PHB. How it's spells work... reference the PHB. How to make an attack roll for a monster...reference the PHB. Thus I'm not sure your assertion holds up. I would say they are two interdependent books...

Unpon reflection, yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with you here. Good point.

Well first the monster can in fact use general actions like grappling, shove, dash, etc that are available to all creatures... This is stated in the Monster Manual under Actions. The main point of contention is whether it can sacrifice one of it's attacks in multiattack to do so.

No, for the simple reason that "Multiattack" is a single Action choice. It is not "a bunch of actions slapped together under this word for no particular reason". I mean, looking at, say, a dragon...would you accept that it could us "Multiattack" to use Claw, Claw and the Breath Weapon? I mean, all it's doing is 'substituting' Breath Weapon attack for it's Bite attack under the "Multiattack", right? Why can't it do that if you let it get away with Claw, Claw, Dash? Breath Weapon is an Action choice of its....just as Dash would be.

That is why 'subbing' some other Action with a Multiattack attack makes no sense.

IMO, there's no point to allowing all creatures to take certain actions if they are always a suboptimal choice... in other words if I have multiple attacks and have to sacrifice all of them in order to grapple or shove... I'll probably never use any of those maneuvers with a monster... the cost is just way too high.

Gawds I hate that term..."subotpimal choice". Its the same thing as saying "Anyone who chooses to have a white care is an idiot because white cars are the most common color of cars that get into injury causing accidents"; some people really like white...their "choice" isn't "suboptimal" except in that one, single VERY narrow view of car safety. It's a choice. Choosing to Grapple with the spellcaster may be the best choice in many situations...just because it doesn't actually inflict DPS does not mean it is "suboptimal".

Okay so here's a question... if a monster/npc can only ever use it's stated weapons for multiattack... how do the rules for armor and weapon swaps for NPC's interact with this? If you give them different weapons can they say use multiattack with those weapons even if it states specific weapons for it's use in the stat block ... or can they use the new weapons you've given them with their ability even if it's not implicitly stated?

Sure they can...

MM, p6, Modifying Creatures: "... Feel free to tweak an existing creature to make it into something more useful for you, ...".

Regardless of that little side-bar in the MM, it goes without saying, really, that a DM can/should modify whatever he feels is best for his campaign. So, as I said at the end of my last post, a DM should do what he feels is cool; if swapping out other attack-choices with Multiattack is cool for you, do it. If it's too open ended, pick a few select combat actions (Grapple, Push, Dash, Dodge) and only those can be swapped. Or, just say no and make it Multiattack as is, -or- a different Combat Action.

At the end of the day, its your game. But, by my reading of the rules and what makes sense from my perspective....no, a monster can't swap-out one of it's claw attacks to perform a Dash any more than it could swap out a Claw attack and perform a Breath Weapon attack.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[redrick]

I'm going to let Crawford decide this one. I can see it either way. You give up damage and one hand when you grapple and restrain yourself. It is a nice maneuver to set up the party. When used by someone with Expertise, it can be ridiculous.

I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here, but, as I understand it, grappling in of itself doesn't do much to set up the party, as the grappled condition isn't the same as the restrained condition. A grappled creature has a speed of zero, but it is otherwise able to act freely on its turn, and neither suffers disadvantage nor grants advantage.

In my game, I've allowed a successful grapple to set up additional checks to do things like disarm or otherwise disadvantage the opponent.

I imagine that grappling a creature who is already prone would also be quite useful. I could see a shove and then grapple attack combo being a nice setup if you have a number of other melee allies fighting one powerful opponent.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here, but, as I understand it, grappling in of itself doesn't do much to set up the party, as the grappled condition isn't the same as the restrained condition. A grappled creature has a speed of zero, but it is otherwise able to act freely on its turn, and neither suffers disadvantage nor grants advantage.

In my game, I've allowed a successful grapple to set up additional checks to do things like disarm or otherwise disadvantage the opponent.

I imagine that grappling a creature who is already prone would also be quite useful. I could see a shove and then grapple attack combo being a nice setup if you have a number of other melee allies fighting one powerful opponent.

You're right. I'm thinking of Grappling Master feat.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here, but, as I understand it, grappling in of itself doesn't do much to set up the party, as the grappled condition isn't the same as the restrained condition. A grappled creature has a speed of zero, but it is otherwise able to act freely on its turn, and neither suffers disadvantage nor grants advantage.

In my game, I've allowed a successful grapple to set up additional checks to do things like disarm or otherwise disadvantage the opponent.

I imagine that grappling a creature who is already prone would also be quite useful. I could see a shove and then grapple attack combo being a nice setup if you have a number of other melee allies fighting one powerful opponent.

Grappling does prevent enemies from Dodging, so it can negate disadvantage. It's also great for divide-and-conquer tactics like swooping down to snatch PCs and carrying them off to be devoured. And by "great" I mean "builds tension/ups the stakes", not necessarily "is probabilistically better than just attacking normally."

It might be probabilistically better, depending on current HP totals of everyone in the combat, etc., but I haven't run the math and don't intend to. I just have flying enemies like Nycaloths switch to grapple strategies when they get damaged enough feel less confident about taking the whole party simultaneously.

 

[Imaro]

Unpon reflection, yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with you here. Good point.




No, for the simple reason that "Multiattack" is a single Action choice. It is not "a bunch of actions slapped together under this word for no particular reason". I mean, looking at, say, a dragon...would you accept that it could us "Multiattack" to use Claw, Claw and the Breath Weapon? I mean, all it's doing is 'substituting' Breath Weapon attack for it's Bite attack under the "Multiattack", right? Why can't it do that if you let it get away with Claw, Claw, Dash? Breath Weapon is an Action choice of its....just as Dash would be.

That is why 'subbing' some other Action with a Multiattack attack makes no sense.



Gawds I hate that term..."subotpimal choice". Its the same thing as saying "Anyone who chooses to have a white care is an idiot because white cars are the most common color of cars that get into injury causing accidents"; some people really like white...their "choice" isn't "suboptimal" except in that one, single VERY narrow view of car safety. It's a choice. Choosing to Grapple with the spellcaster may be the best choice in many situations...just because it doesn't actually inflict DPS does not mean it is "suboptimal".



Sure they can...

MM, p6, Modifying Creatures: "... Feel free to tweak an existing creature to make it into something more useful for you, ...".

Regardless of that little side-bar in the MM, it goes without saying, really, that a DM can/should modify whatever he feels is best for his campaign. So, as I said at the end of my last post, a DM should do what he feels is cool; if swapping out other attack-choices with Multiattack is cool for you, do it. If it's too open ended, pick a few select combat actions (Grapple, Push, Dash, Dodge) and only those can be swapped. Or, just say no and make it Multiattack as is, -or- a different Combat Action.

At the end of the day, its your game. But, by my reading of the rules and what makes sense from my perspective....no, a monster can't swap-out one of it's claw attacks to perform a Dash any more than it could swap out a Claw attack and perform a Breath Weapon attack.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I think there's some confusion going on here... I'm not arguing that multiattack should be able to sub any attack for those included within it... only grapple, shove, etc. which are specifcially called out in the PHB as special melee attacks one can substitute for an attack. So no you can't sub a breath weapon for a claw attack... unless the breath weapon says you can... but grapple, shove, etc. specifically do.

 

[Pickles III]

MM, p6, Modifying Creatures: "... Feel free to tweak an existing creature to make it into something more useful for you, ...".

Regardless of that little side-bar in the MM, it goes without saying, really, that a DM can/should modify whatever he feels is best for his campaign. So, as I said at the end of my last post, a DM should do what he feels is cool; if swapping out other attack-choices with Multiattack is cool for you, do it. If it's too open ended, pick a few select combat actions (Grapple, Push, Dash, Dodge) and only those can be swapped. Or, just say no and make it Multiattack as is, -or- a different Combat Action.

At the end of the day, its your game. But, by my reading of the rules and what makes sense from my perspective....no, a monster can't swap-out one of it's claw attacks to perform a Dash any more than it could swap out a Claw attack and perform a Breath Weapon attack.

I feel people are talking across each other a bit here as those who read the rules (RAW) as not allowing free substitution, like me, are happy to ignore it or use the MM rule mentioned above.

The Azure dragon it's identical to the blue dragon except it is explicitly allowed to swap grabs & shoves for it's claw or bite attacks when it takes the multi attack action.