Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6630739" data-attributes="member: 5834">I think it is the equivalent for some monsters, but not for others. I think the DM should be able to swap out a shove or grapple for an appropriate creature. For example, a troll grabbing you with one claw as a grapple, then biting you isn't at all outside of a possible attack sequence for a troll. It seems very natural they would be able to do this.Another example is the premade PC race enemies in the back like a Gladiator that gets multiple attacks. Why wouldn't this be exactly similar to a fighter given his training is basically the same? Or a Knight? Or a bandit thug? Considering they no longer use classes in monster design, why wouldn't it be very easy for the DM to extrapolate that certain creatures do have capabilities similar to martials in the PHB? A hobgoblin warlord has only trained with the Longsword in your opinion? He's a hobgoblin warlord. Basically, a high level fighter-type who has trained to fight in a highly disciplined, militaristic fashion. Why wouldn't he be able to alter his attack sequence with grapples and shoves similar to a fighter?A fighter can't swap an attack for a dodge. That isn't a concern.I see this as the usual problem with players that attempt to quote RAW. It makes designing books like the Monster Manual impossible and unnecessarily difficult. They somehow argue that a naturalistic series of attacks from a monster isn't "RAW" and will only abide by it if the designers remember to put a "This monster can do this with one of its melee attacks" sentence in every monster entry where it may be appropriate? Sort of defeats the ability of the DM to do things on the fly.Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but in my opinion monster design seems very open-ended. I believe it is RAW to allow something like a troll to substitute a claw attack for a grapple while still taking its other attacks. I don't think the designers should have to spell this out for everyone because of the variance of monsters. The monster manual is very loosely designed. I believe that is by intent. Operating as though "by the book" or by "RAW" monster entries limit monsters that should naturally be able to do certain types of attacks like grapples and shoves similar to a fighter is a fallacy. I could only see this coming up at a table where a player is attempting to shackle a DM with rules rather than invest in the idea they are fighting a living, breathing creature that can alter its attack sequence same as a fighter can according to the capabilities of its anatomy. I don't consider RAW to exist in 5E. Anyone that attempted to hold a DM to a rule that made it seem inappropriate for a creature that can grapple and shove to not be able to do so without losing all its other attacks as damaging the game. I hope if Crawford responds, he takes a different tack than Mearls. I believe if RAW becomes an issue, they should start to incorporate a line into any ability that clearly says, "If a creature's anatomy allows, a DM may substitute a grapple or shove for a melee attack." It's unfortunate they need to add these types of lines to prevent table arguments over these types of rules.  I see the 3E propensity to rule lawyer up on people is going to take a while to filter out of these discussions.I would rather see discussions of whether a particular monster is limited due to its anatomy and/or intelligence rather than a "RAW" ruling. That leads to far more interesting discussions. I hope 5E encourages this type of thinking over RAW rules discussions. When I was young, this was the more common discussion around the table. 3E changed the discussion from "What can or should a monster be able to do?" to "How does this rule work?" I much prefer the former over the latter.</blockquote>

Verification