No one is saying it means anything else. Just cause you read the magical 3 three words "On its turn" Does not mean it is limited to its turn, use some context mate.
Except that it literally does. See the rest of the thread.
It literally does not. Literal means that it's actually written in the text.
It does not say it is limited to their turn does it? No. It says a creature that can multiple attacks on their turn, HAS the multiattack ability. The Multiattack ability is an action. Therefore it can be readied. Simple as that mate.
except no, it doesnt, it states on its turn, which means its only on its turn
Using that logic you cant use spells as a ready action because there action casting. Ready takes your action, puts it on pause, and you activate it using your reacton, meaning since multiattack is an action you can ready it, then use it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
No one is saying it means anything else. Just cause you read the magical 3 three words "On its turn" Does not mean it is limited to its turn, use some context mate.
Except that it literally does. See the rest of the thread.
It literally does not. Literal means that it's actually written in the text.
The fact that the Meriam-Webster dictionary expanded the definition of literally to also include ":in effect: virtually" makes me literally not want to live on this planet anymore.
Also, to add something constructive I am afraid I have to agree with Pantagruel666 and others regarding what the explicit text for the Multiattack feature means. I do not believe it was the author's intent, especially as Plaguescarred linked us one of the authors explicitly telling us what the intended outcome was. However what the rule tells us is that if "A creature . . . can make multiple attacks on its turn" then it "has the Multiattack ability." To use this fact to conclude that if a creature has Multiattack then it can only make multiple attacks on its turn is a logical fallacy.
I generally don't like to just say that a rule is poorly written but I am afraid this is demonstrably the case here. The writers rely on the reader using fallacious logic to arrive at the intended conclusion. Also I am not sure if the next sentence is an errata addition or not but if it were clear that Multiattack can only be used on the creatures turn there would be no need to clarify that it cannot be used as an Opportunity Attack.
no he isnt lol, it cannot be used as a reaction because it states on its turn, it doesnt need the clarification of only, because its using a specific to bypass the general of only using one of its actions, for that one limited scenario
It does not state, that multiattack requires it to be on your turn. Actually look at the dang quote mate. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability."
It says and I quote for your sake. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn HAS the Multiattack ability
So if you spend 2 seconds to look at it, it simply is telling you why it has the ability, the quote is not for ruling, not for balancing, it is simply a pseudo lore drop of why the have the ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
The sentence in question is not only not a restriction, but it is also just flat out wrong. My 5th level fighter can make more than one attack on his turn, and he's a creature. But he certainly doesn't have multiattack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It does not state, that multiattack requires it to be on your turn. Actually look at the dang quote mate. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability."
It says and I quote for your sake. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn HAS the Multiattack ability
So if you spend 2 seconds to look at it, it simply is telling you why it has the ability, the quote is not for ruling, not for balancing, it is simply a pseudo lore drop of why the have the ability.
i literally have the book open in front of my buddy
your reading it wrong, yes it has the ability, but its only on its turn
A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the multiattack ability
therefore it can ONLY use the ability on its turn, your wrong, hardcore
It does not state, that multiattack requires it to be on your turn. Actually look at the dang quote mate. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability."
It says and I quote for your sake. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn HAS the Multiattack ability
So if you spend 2 seconds to look at it, it simply is telling you why it has the ability, the quote is not for ruling, not for balancing, it is simply a pseudo lore drop of why the have the ability.
i literally have the book open in front of my buddy
your reading it wrong, yes it has the ability, but its only on its turn
A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the multiattack ability
therefore it can ONLY use the ability on its turn, your wrong, hardcore
I don't see where it says if a creature can make multiple attacks on its turn it can't use a ready action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It does not state, that multiattack requires it to be on your turn. Actually look at the dang quote mate. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability."
It says and I quote for your sake. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn HAS the Multiattack ability
So if you spend 2 seconds to look at it, it simply is telling you why it has the ability, the quote is not for ruling, not for balancing, it is simply a pseudo lore drop of why the have the ability.
i literally have the book open in front of my buddy
your reading it wrong, yes it has the ability, but its only on its turn
A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the multiattack ability
therefore it can ONLY use the ability on its turn, your wrong, hardcore
I don't see where it says if a creature can make multiple attacks on its turn it can't use a ready action.
it can, it just cant use an ability like multiattack off its turn
"A creature THAT can" Now if it said "A creature can make multiple attacks on its turn" I'd lie down my life to you. But it doesn't so maybe get out a magnifier and look closer.
...i dont need to as your entirely wrong and now just arguing a circular argument with yourself even though multiple people have shown you exactly why your wrong
It does not state, that multiattack requires it to be on your turn. Actually look at the dang quote mate. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability."
It says and I quote for your sake. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn HAS the Multiattack ability
So if you spend 2 seconds to look at it, it simply is telling you why it has the ability, the quote is not for ruling, not for balancing, it is simply a pseudo lore drop of why the have the ability.
i literally have the book open in front of my buddy
your reading it wrong, yes it has the ability, but its only on its turn
A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the multiattack ability
therefore it can ONLY use the ability on its turn, your wrong, hardcore
I don't see where it says if a creature can make multiple attacks on its turn it can't use a ready action.
it can, it just cant use an ability like multiattack off its turn
Some restriction like that will need a rules quote saying as much. Otherwise it is free to ready any action it has available to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It literally does not. Literal means that it's actually written in the text.
except no, it doesnt, it states on its turn, which means its only on its turn
Can multiattack be used as a reaction?
If yes, then it should be able to be readied.
If no, then per the READY rules in the PHB it cannot be readied because it requires the creature use their reaction.
Reference: PHB page 193, READY
"To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn so that you can act later in the round using your reaction."
At least, that's my take on it.
Using that logic you cant use spells as a ready action because there action casting. Ready takes your action, puts it on pause, and you activate it using your reacton, meaning since multiattack is an action you can ready it, then use it.
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
My Homebrew Please click it, they have my family.
Except it can only use it “on its turn.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Except it doesn't say that. It says it can use it on its turn, but it never says only.
This guy is correct, thank you
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
My Homebrew Please click it, they have my family.
It doesn’t have to, the fact that it says “on its turn” at all implies that it is only possible “on its turn.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The fact that the Meriam-Webster dictionary expanded the definition of literally to also include ":in effect: virtually" makes me literally not want to live on this planet anymore.
Also, to add something constructive I am afraid I have to agree with Pantagruel666 and others regarding what the explicit text for the Multiattack feature means. I do not believe it was the author's intent, especially as Plaguescarred linked us one of the authors explicitly telling us what the intended outcome was. However what the rule tells us is that if "A creature . . . can make multiple attacks on its turn" then it "has the Multiattack ability." To use this fact to conclude that if a creature has Multiattack then it can only make multiple attacks on its turn is a logical fallacy.
I generally don't like to just say that a rule is poorly written but I am afraid this is demonstrably the case here. The writers rely on the reader using fallacious logic to arrive at the intended conclusion. Also I am not sure if the next sentence is an errata addition or not but if it were clear that Multiattack can only be used on the creatures turn there would be no need to clarify that it cannot be used as an Opportunity Attack.
no he isnt lol, it cannot be used as a reaction because it states on its turn, it doesnt need the clarification of only, because its using a specific to bypass the general of only using one of its actions, for that one limited scenario
It does not state, that multiattack requires it to be on your turn. Actually look at the dang quote mate. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability."
It says and I quote for your sake. "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn HAS the Multiattack ability
So if you spend 2 seconds to look at it, it simply is telling you why it has the ability, the quote is not for ruling, not for balancing, it is simply a pseudo lore drop of why the have the ability.
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
My Homebrew Please click it, they have my family.
The sentence in question is not only not a restriction, but it is also just flat out wrong. My 5th level fighter can make more than one attack on his turn, and he's a creature. But he certainly doesn't have multiattack.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
i literally have the book open in front of my buddy
your reading it wrong, yes it has the ability, but its only on its turn
A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the multiattack ability
therefore it can ONLY use the ability on its turn, your wrong, hardcore
Yes but this quote comes from the monster manual, ment for monsters that a DM throws at people.
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
My Homebrew Please click it, they have my family.
I don't see where it says if a creature can make multiple attacks on its turn it can't use a ready action.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
it can, it just cant use an ability like multiattack off its turn
"A creature THAT can" Now if it said "A creature can make multiple attacks on its turn" I'd lie down my life to you. [REDACTED]
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
My Homebrew Please click it, they have my family.
...i dont need to as your entirely wrong and now just arguing a circular argument with yourself even though multiple people have shown you exactly why your wrong
Some restriction like that will need a rules quote saying as much. Otherwise it is free to ready any action it has available to it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Glad to know I'm not insane.
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
My Homebrew Please click it, they have my family.