Warmaster Horus
Explorer
Multiattack in the MM are usually pretty well spelled out as to what they allow. But it's your game...
D&D 5E So...Multiattack
- Thread starter Imaro
- Start date
pming
Legend
Hiya.
I get that, I just don't think it's the same thing. I see "Multiattack" as the same as "Grapple" or "Spell". Multiattack isn't just "Attacks: 3 per round"...it is a very specific way of attacking 3 times in a round. Each "attack" isn't something it normally gets. It can't "attack 3 times a round"...so a monster couldn't sub out Claw/Claw/Bite for Dodge/ShootCrossbow/BreathWeapon. Why? Because it doesn't have "3 attacks per round". It has ONE, like everyone else in the game who isn't a high level class with Extra Attacks.
It's the same as someone with the Crossbow Expert Feat. That would be listed as "multiattack" on their 'monster sheet';
"Multiattack: The Deft Thug can attack once with it's short sword, and shoot once with it's hand crossbow."
...a DM wouldn't/shouldn't let the Deft Thug 'swap out' his extra shot with the crossbow for a Grapple. Why? Because it's the combo of those 'abilities' that lets him multiattack. He doesn't actually have 2 attacks per turn. This is a very specific 'way of attacking'. Just like a monsters Claw/Claw/Bite Multiattack.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I get that, I just don't think it's the same thing. I see "Multiattack" as the same as "Grapple" or "Spell". Multiattack isn't just "Attacks: 3 per round"...it is a very specific way of attacking 3 times in a round. Each "attack" isn't something it normally gets. It can't "attack 3 times a round"...so a monster couldn't sub out Claw/Claw/Bite for Dodge/ShootCrossbow/BreathWeapon. Why? Because it doesn't have "3 attacks per round". It has ONE, like everyone else in the game who isn't a high level class with Extra Attacks.
It's the same as someone with the Crossbow Expert Feat. That would be listed as "multiattack" on their 'monster sheet';
"Multiattack: The Deft Thug can attack once with it's short sword, and shoot once with it's hand crossbow."
...a DM wouldn't/shouldn't let the Deft Thug 'swap out' his extra shot with the crossbow for a Grapple. Why? Because it's the combo of those 'abilities' that lets him multiattack. He doesn't actually have 2 attacks per turn. This is a very specific 'way of attacking'. Just like a monsters Claw/Claw/Bite Multiattack.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
This interpretation is, to my mind, irrefutable.
Imaro
Legend
Except, as I said before there are a few NPC's who have just a blanket 2 melee attacks, which aren't spelled out. Are you saying these 4 or 5 monster/npc's are able to switch out attacks but none of the others in the book are... if so what do you think the rationale for that is?
Shadowdweller00
Hero
I find Mearls' interpretation to be completely absurd. It will never see even the faintest hint of day at my table. Why? Because the multiattack "option" is used in monster listings regardless of whether the monster is an NPC fighter who logically would have more or less the same training as the PCs or whether it is some bizarre Cthulhu-esque monstrosity whose only attacks are phantom eye-rays that could never conceivably grapple. Extra attack abilities as per the player options do not appear in a single listing.
I'll make the determination as to whether it is appropriate to make grapple or shove attempts in place of attacks myself (as DM), thank you very much.
I'll make the determination as to whether it is appropriate to make grapple or shove attempts in place of attacks myself (as DM), thank you very much.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I don't disagree with that. I just like the variety provided by reading it differently. I think the rules are very clear on what Multiattack is and what is isn't.
But that's one reason I like custom-building monsters. If you want it to simply multiattack, it multiattacks. If you want it to do any combination of X types of attacks, it does so. As long as the attacks themselves are within the mathematics of the system, it shouldn't be an issue.
Shadowdweller00
Hero
A clarification on why I think Mearls' interpretation is TERRIBLE: It creates disgusting and arbitrary disparities between PC and enemy abilities. For example, the PC Extra attack ability carries the restriction that it must be used on the PC's turn...meaning that you cannot as a PC Ready multiple attacks (or at least not without polymorph/wild shape). However, the NPC/Monster ability multiattack carries no such restriction. I don't particularly care to place myself in a situation where I am explaining to my players that the enemy knight is allowed to ready all their attacks but the PC can do no such thing....for arbitrary rule-based reasons.
redrick
First Post
When it comes to monster abilities, there really is no RAW. As long as a DM is consistent in what a given creature's abilities are (unless their creature is a Dungeon Hustler), there's no foul in adding or adapting a creature's abilities in a way that the DM feels to make sense. The only things to keep in mind are a) does it make sense in the context of the rest of the world for the creature to have any given ability and b) does it significantly change the power of an opponent, thereby affecting encounter balance (for DM's who track that stuff) or xp rewards (for DM's who track that stuff.)
So, in answering question a), I would look at the creature in question and say, "is this multi-attack part of a simultaneous coordinated attack, or is it more just an expression of how the creature can use multiple independent 'weapons'? And does it make sense for a creature of this intelligence and physical build to push, shove or grapple with a single one of said 'weapons'?" So I would rule that most bipedal creatures would be able to grapple or shove as part of their multiattack, though they'd need a free hand for the grapple. A troll makes one bite attack and 2 claw attacks. I find it totally reasonable for one of those claw attacks to be an attempt to knock down or push a character, or to grab a character.
As for question b), I'd probably say that a monster has to give up its high damage attack if it wants to follow that shove or grapple check with another attack. So, looking at the troll, the bite does half the damage of the claw attack. Letting the troll headbutt a PC to the ground and then make its two claw attacks with advantage feels a little unbalancing — the troll has sacrificed a low-damage attack roll to make a high-damage attack roll at advantage.
Most monsters are not proficient in athletics, so, unless you decide to grant them some other proficiency, their grapple or trip attempt is going to be made with a lower bonus than their regular attack. Many melee PCs, on the other hand, will have athletics proficiency, meaning that their opposed roll to shoving and grappling will begin to outstrip their AC as they get above 5th level. Once that multi-attacker has closed with the wizard in melee, that dude is probably in a bad space no matter what.
So, in answering question a), I would look at the creature in question and say, "is this multi-attack part of a simultaneous coordinated attack, or is it more just an expression of how the creature can use multiple independent 'weapons'? And does it make sense for a creature of this intelligence and physical build to push, shove or grapple with a single one of said 'weapons'?" So I would rule that most bipedal creatures would be able to grapple or shove as part of their multiattack, though they'd need a free hand for the grapple. A troll makes one bite attack and 2 claw attacks. I find it totally reasonable for one of those claw attacks to be an attempt to knock down or push a character, or to grab a character.
As for question b), I'd probably say that a monster has to give up its high damage attack if it wants to follow that shove or grapple check with another attack. So, looking at the troll, the bite does half the damage of the claw attack. Letting the troll headbutt a PC to the ground and then make its two claw attacks with advantage feels a little unbalancing — the troll has sacrificed a low-damage attack roll to make a high-damage attack roll at advantage.
Most monsters are not proficient in athletics, so, unless you decide to grant them some other proficiency, their grapple or trip attempt is going to be made with a lower bonus than their regular attack. Many melee PCs, on the other hand, will have athletics proficiency, meaning that their opposed roll to shoving and grappling will begin to outstrip their AC as they get above 5th level. Once that multi-attacker has closed with the wizard in melee, that dude is probably in a bad space no matter what.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
Which NPC's are you talking about? (I haven't gone through all the monsters in the MM...I kind of just "peruse and use" as the situations crop up during game).
But anyway... if it's spelled out that they have "2 Attacks" as a thing, yeah, they can do what "Attack" can do as per the rules, including switching one out for Grapple or whatever. All the other monster/NPC's that don't have that "blanket # Attacks" can't just switch out a Claw attack for a different one.
My rational is simply this: The person creating the monster figured "Yeah, I'll give them 2 Attacks in stead of a specific Multiattack....it will make them more varried and unpredictable".
Or something like that. The monsters/NPC's, as stated many a time before on many a thread, do not follow the same rules as PC's. If you don't like that, you'll have to change them to 'fit' the PC rules...and I suspect you will be doing a LOT of fixin'!
The DM can do anything he/she wants in his/her game. He/she can take an Ogre, give it Flaming Skin (6(1d10) Fire Damage to those within 10'), and have it duel-wield two-handed swords, attacking with them each once in a round. This is completely and totally fine. The DM doesn't need "rules" to do this. The DM doesn't have to "follow some PC restrictions", or any restrictions...he can just do it. So, if the DM can do that...what is the point of trying to lay out specific yes/no aspects about monsters and NPC's? The one and ONLY reason is: So the DM has something he can use over and over for campaign consistency ...and then change it if he wants.
Personally, like some other posters on this thread, I can see 'swapping out' some monsters specific multiattack for something else if it feels reasonable and/or if it would add to the fun of the game without totally screwing up my campaign. Most of the time, however, I'd probably just stick to what is there. That way, when I *do* suddenly say "The alpha-Troll bites at you, narrowly missing, then claws at you from the left and misses! It's right claw, however, Grabs your shield and holds fast!"...then, if the PC's don't remedy that situation, the troll can Claw and Bite without the PC having the benefit of his shield...I'd probably also give the troll a +1 to hit. This makes for a *much* more exciting combat and also reaffirms to the players that they should never take anything for granted.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Which NPC's are you talking about? (I haven't gone through all the monsters in the MM...I kind of just "peruse and use" as the situations crop up during game).
But anyway... if it's spelled out that they have "2 Attacks" as a thing, yeah, they can do what "Attack" can do as per the rules, including switching one out for Grapple or whatever. All the other monster/NPC's that don't have that "blanket # Attacks" can't just switch out a Claw attack for a different one.
My rational is simply this: The person creating the monster figured "Yeah, I'll give them 2 Attacks in stead of a specific Multiattack....it will make them more varried and unpredictable".
Or something like that. The monsters/NPC's, as stated many a time before on many a thread, do not follow the same rules as PC's. If you don't like that, you'll have to change them to 'fit' the PC rules...and I suspect you will be doing a LOT of fixin'!The DM can do anything he/she wants in his/her game. He/she can take an Ogre, give it Flaming Skin (6(1d10) Fire Damage to those within 10'), and have it duel-wield two-handed swords, attacking with them each once in a round. This is completely and totally fine. The DM doesn't need "rules" to do this. The DM doesn't have to "follow some PC restrictions", or any restrictions...he can just do it. So, if the DM can do that...what is the point of trying to lay out specific yes/no aspects about monsters and NPC's? The one and ONLY reason is: So the DM has something he can use over and over for campaign consistency ...and then change it if he wants.
Personally, like some other posters on this thread, I can see 'swapping out' some monsters specific multiattack for something else if it feels reasonable and/or if it would add to the fun of the game without totally screwing up my campaign. Most of the time, however, I'd probably just stick to what is there. That way, when I *do* suddenly say "The alpha-Troll bites at you, narrowly missing, then claws at you from the left and misses! It's right claw, however, Grabs your shield and holds fast!"...then, if the PC's don't remedy that situation, the troll can Claw and Bite without the PC having the benefit of his shield...I'd probably also give the troll a +1 to hit. This makes for a *much* more exciting combat and also reaffirms to the players that they should never take anything for granted.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Mephistopheles
First Post
According to the MM (p. 11) "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability." I'd take the mention of "on its turn" to indicate that Multiattack cannot be readied.
Similar Threads
