I'm late to the thread, but the debate here absolutely seems to be whether Multiattack is something you can Ready... and all the issues that arise if you decide that it is
It's clear to me that Multiattack is an action you can Ready and use on your turn just like Extra Attack.
Extra Attack is not an action and cannot be readied.
I didn't say Extra Attack was readied, i said it could be used on your turn when you use a Readied action (Attack)
You said it was 'just like' extra attack. For that to be true, either extra attack would have to be an action or multiattack would have to not be an action.
I'm late to the thread, but the debate here absolutely seems to be whether Multiattack is something you can Ready... and all the issues that arise if you decide that it is
It's clear to me that Multiattack is an action you can Ready and use on your turn just like Extra Attack.
Extra Attack is not an action and cannot be readied.
I didn't say Extra Attack was readied, i said it could be used on your turn when you use a Readied action (Attack)
You said it was 'just like' extra attack. For that to be true, either extra attack would have to be an action or multiattack would have to not be an action.
It's ''use on your turn'' that just like Extra Attack. So basically you can Ready the Multiattack action and attack multiple time as a rection on your turn.
Likewise you can Ready the Attack action and attack multiple time as a rection on your turn if you have Extra Attack.
I mean, if you are arguing that you can ready attack and use extra attack… well, then, no wonder your argument on other readied actions don’t make sense.
My argument made sense since the begining but some people misinterpretated my correlation to Extra Attack. which is another ability that let you attack multiple times on your turn when you ready.
So back to topic, can Multiattack be readied and used on your turn ?
If so then what's up for debate should be if it can also be used on other's turn or not.
So back to topic, can Multiattack be readied and used on your turn ?
If so then what's up for debate should be if it can also be used on other's turn or not.
I can't see any justification for it behaving differently; either multiattack cannot be readied at all, or if it's readied it works the same regardless of what turn it's used on.
So you need to pick the spell you use if there is a cast spell option for it and that spell slot it wasted no mater what. Specific over general rules right there.
That's not an example of specific beats general, sorry. "Here's how you cast a Readied spell" is actually part of the general Ready rule. If anything, the idea that Multiattack can be Readied -- allowing you to make whatever choices that come along with it when the action is triggered -- is the specific case that would overrule the general
If your Multiattack only involves different melee attack options (let's use dragon turtle as an example):
Multiattack. The dragon turtle makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws. It can make one tail attack in place of its two claw attacks.
you wouldn't have to declare in advance which of those you're using. It's not "The dragon turtle Readies Multiattack, which will consist of one bite and one tail", any more than it's "The dragon turtle Readies movement, which will consist of swimming 25 feet due west, then 15 feet south-west"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn.
First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include "If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll pull the lever that opens it," and "If the goblin steps next to me, I move away."
You need to specify what you plan on doing. Specify the action, ||or|| move up to your speed. They're different clauses. If you're readying an action you must spell it out, what you're planning to do, in some detail.
Disagree? Where is the "pull the level that opens a trapdoor" action printed? Because if they had intended you to merely declare the action type alone, that example would have said "If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll Use an Object".
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.
You need to specify what you plan on doing. Specify the action, ||or|| move up to your speed. They're different clauses. If you're readying an action you must spell it out, what you're planning to do, in some detail.
This may well be the intent, but it's not actually how the rule is worded. One of the lessons the writers seem to have learned from 3e and 4e is "we should avoid having clearly written rules", I guess on the theory that it overly restricts DM creativity to have rules actually say what they mean?
You need to specify what you plan on doing. Specify the action, ||or|| move up to your speed. They're different clauses. If you're readying an action you must spell it out, what you're planning to do, in some detail.
This may well be the intent, but it's not actually how the rule is worded. One of the lessons the writers seem to have learned from 3e and 4e is "we should avoid having clearly written rules", I guess on the theory that it overly restricts DM creativity to have rules actually say what they mean?
If the printed example in the body of the text of the rule has a clear intent: the rule is clear.
It asks you to choose "the action you will take". It doesn't ask you to choose the "action type" you will take. You have to specify what you actually plan to do.
Moreover, if you did fail to specify precisely what you planned to do, when you took your reaction to complete it your incompletely specified reaction would fail because it lacks specifics. If you just said, "if an enemy comes into view I take the attack action". You'd better be banking that your DM inferred that you're attacking with your held longbow and the target is the enemy in the trigger. Because if he doesn't infer that, you'd attack nothing with nothing. Kind of a pointless exercise.
When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.
You either take your pre-prepared reaction or you don't. You don't get to edit it later. If it is missing details you messed up.
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 will offer up that rules that convey their intent in their writing have RAW that match RAI; there are no technicalities in natural language writing -- since the meaning is the only bit that maters. I think EVEN in law, most cases are arbitrated based on the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
If this rules writing intends that it only works on its turn, then that is what the meaning is.
It's not necessarily germane to the rules discussion, but I noticed last night that there *is* a situation in which a player would have to worry about whether Multiattack can be Readied, and not just have it be an issue for DMs running monsters -- Beast Master rangers
Bestial Fury
Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action.
I don't think there are any 1/4 CR beasts in the rules that start with anything more than two attacks as part of their Multiattack, but over the course of a campaign that's reached at least level 11, who knows what sort of buffs your giant badger friend might have gotten...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It is also an issue for druids or people who polymorph.
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.
I will offer up that rules that convey their intent in their writing have RAW that match RAI; there are no technicalities in natural language writing -- since the meaning is the only bit that maters. I think EVEN in law, most cases are arbitrated based on the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
You think incorrectly. Considerations of original intent are sometimes (with some controversy) used to decide situations of unclear language, but this isn't unclear language, it's just language that doesn't mean what the authors probably intended.
I agree that it isn’t unclear language. And seemingly everyone knows what it actually means. So you seem to be the incorrect one.
"Seemingly everyone knows what it means" doesn't typically end up with an 8+ page long discussion on what it means. So. Maybe everyone doesn't know what it means.
You can search this topic other places than just this thread here on dndbeyond, and it is an open question without a concrete resolution.
Some places seem to land on a more RAW based interpretation, other threads go with a RAI or interpretation of an unspoken intent based answers. Nowhere is it a settled question though.
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.
From everybody else's ramblings, would I be correct in assuming that some people think that an Order of Scribes can use their Manifest Mind to cast a readied spell on somebody else's turn?
Yes, the ability says "Whenever you cast a wizard spell on your turn, you can cast it as if you were in the spectral mind’s space, instead of your own, using its senses."
But some people are saying that since you Ready on your own turn, then you ready the use of this ability with the spell that you've decided to ready.
Or, more simply, the same logic allows somebody to Ready an Attack from which they can benefit from Extra Attack.
But some people are saying that since you Ready on your own turn, then you ready the use of this ability with the spell that you've decided to ready.
The rules for readied spells are a bit of an oddity -- unlike other readied effects that occur entirely when the trigger fires, for spells you cast on your turn, and release when the trigger fires, so arguably you could use manifest mind.
I say arguably because the only effect of manifest mind is to change the origin point when computing effects such as targets, range and line of sight, and I think it is normally assumed that those effects are computed at the point when you release the spell, by which time it is no longer your turn (I would point out that the rules on readying a spell don't actually say this, though I don't think I've ever seen someone argue the converse).
I agree that it isn’t unclear language. And seemingly everyone knows what it actually means. So you seem to be the incorrect one.
"Seemingly everyone knows what it means" doesn't typically end up with an 8+ page long discussion on what it means. So. Maybe everyone doesn't know what it means.
You can search this topic other places than just this thread here on dndbeyond, and it is an open question without a concrete resolution.
Some places seem to land on a more RAW based interpretation, other threads go with a RAI or interpretation of an unspoken intent based answers. Nowhere is it a settled question though.
I dunno man, I've seen a lot of very obvious questions on here that end up with 8+ page discussions. Easy things, like the clearly defined multiclass rules, bonus action casting rules, or even "does Extra Attack stack with another classes Extra Attack?" posts reach absurd post counts all the time, each with people fighting tooth and nail throughout. "Can you use a spellcasting focus for a spell with M components but not S components" has over six hundred replies, despite having a concrete answer years ago. The post count doesn't make the answer less clear.
On a complete RAW basic (for which this post it based on) answer, the Multiattack action can in fact, be readied.
That is the way readying an action works. If the beast uses a spell in its multiattack than it just takes the slot then simple. The only thing supposedly restricting the readying of a multiattack. Is the words "on its turn" which if you take into context and use some basic english grammer, does nothing.
Simple answer to my thread, yes, you can ready multiattack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Anyone can smith at the cosmic anvil, yet only I can forge a weapon as good as thee."
"First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger"
A player can only take Actions granted to is by its class, or in the Action's section of the PHP. Can you provide a direct reference to where you think PC's can obtain a "Multi-attack" option?
Druid wildshape, true polymorph
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You said it was 'just like' extra attack. For that to be true, either extra attack would have to be an action or multiattack would have to not be an action.
It's ''use on your turn'' that just like Extra Attack. So basically you can Ready the Multiattack action and attack multiple time as a rection on your turn.
Likewise you can Ready the Attack action and attack multiple time as a rection on your turn if you have Extra Attack.
I mean, if you are arguing that you can ready attack and use extra attack… well, then, no wonder your argument on other readied actions don’t make sense.
My argument made sense since the begining but some people misinterpretated my correlation to Extra Attack. which is another ability that let you attack multiple times on your turn when you ready.
So back to topic, can Multiattack be readied and used on your turn ?
If so then what's up for debate should be if it can also be used on other's turn or not.
I can't see any justification for it behaving differently; either multiattack cannot be readied at all, or if it's readied it works the same regardless of what turn it's used on.
That's not an example of specific beats general, sorry. "Here's how you cast a Readied spell" is actually part of the general Ready rule. If anything, the idea that Multiattack can be Readied -- allowing you to make whatever choices that come along with it when the action is triggered -- is the specific case that would overrule the general
If your Multiattack only involves different melee attack options (let's use dragon turtle as an example):
you wouldn't have to declare in advance which of those you're using. It's not "The dragon turtle Readies Multiattack, which will consist of one bite and one tail", any more than it's "The dragon turtle Readies movement, which will consist of swimming 25 feet due west, then 15 feet south-west"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You need to specify what you plan on doing. Specify the action, ||or|| move up to your speed. They're different clauses. If you're readying an action you must spell it out, what you're planning to do, in some detail.
Disagree? Where is the "pull the level that opens a trapdoor" action printed? Because if they had intended you to merely declare the action type alone, that example would have said "If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll Use an Object".
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.
This may well be the intent, but it's not actually how the rule is worded. One of the lessons the writers seem to have learned from 3e and 4e is "we should avoid having clearly written rules", I guess on the theory that it overly restricts DM creativity to have rules actually say what they mean?
If the printed example in the body of the text of the rule has a clear intent: the rule is clear.
It asks you to choose "the action you will take". It doesn't ask you to choose the "action type" you will take. You have to specify what you actually plan to do.
Moreover, if you did fail to specify precisely what you planned to do, when you took your reaction to complete it your incompletely specified reaction would fail because it lacks specifics. If you just said, "if an enemy comes into view I take the attack action". You'd better be banking that your DM inferred that you're attacking with your held longbow and the target is the enemy in the trigger. Because if he doesn't infer that, you'd attack nothing with nothing. Kind of a pointless exercise.
You either take your pre-prepared reaction or you don't. You don't get to edit it later. If it is missing details you messed up.
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 will offer up that rules that convey their intent in their writing have RAW that match RAI; there are no technicalities in natural language writing -- since the meaning is the only bit that maters. I think EVEN in law, most cases are arbitrated based on the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
If this rules writing intends that it only works on its turn, then that is what the meaning is.
It's not necessarily germane to the rules discussion, but I noticed last night that there *is* a situation in which a player would have to worry about whether Multiattack can be Readied, and not just have it be an issue for DMs running monsters -- Beast Master rangers
I don't think there are any 1/4 CR beasts in the rules that start with anything more than two attacks as part of their Multiattack, but over the course of a campaign that's reached at least level 11, who knows what sort of buffs your giant badger friend might have gotten...
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It is also an issue for druids or people who polymorph.
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.
You think incorrectly. Considerations of original intent are sometimes (with some controversy) used to decide situations of unclear language, but this isn't unclear language, it's just language that doesn't mean what the authors probably intended.
I agree that it isn’t unclear language. And seemingly everyone knows what it actually means. So you seem to be the incorrect one.
"Seemingly everyone knows what it means" doesn't typically end up with an 8+ page long discussion on what it means. So. Maybe everyone doesn't know what it means.
You can search this topic other places than just this thread here on dndbeyond, and it is an open question without a concrete resolution.
Some places seem to land on a more RAW based interpretation, other threads go with a RAI or interpretation of an unspoken intent based answers. Nowhere is it a settled question though.
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.
From everybody else's ramblings, would I be correct in assuming that some people think that an Order of Scribes can use their Manifest Mind to cast a readied spell on somebody else's turn?
Yes, the ability says "Whenever you cast a wizard spell on your turn, you can cast it as if you were in the spectral mind’s space, instead of your own, using its senses."
But some people are saying that since you Ready on your own turn, then you ready the use of this ability with the spell that you've decided to ready.
Or, more simply, the same logic allows somebody to Ready an Attack from which they can benefit from Extra Attack.
The rules for readied spells are a bit of an oddity -- unlike other readied effects that occur entirely when the trigger fires, for spells you cast on your turn, and release when the trigger fires, so arguably you could use manifest mind.
I say arguably because the only effect of manifest mind is to change the origin point when computing effects such as targets, range and line of sight, and I think it is normally assumed that those effects are computed at the point when you release the spell, by which time it is no longer your turn (I would point out that the rules on readying a spell don't actually say this, though I don't think I've ever seen someone argue the converse).
I dunno man, I've seen a lot of very obvious questions on here that end up with 8+ page discussions. Easy things, like the clearly defined multiclass rules, bonus action casting rules, or even "does Extra Attack stack with another classes Extra Attack?" posts reach absurd post counts all the time, each with people fighting tooth and nail throughout. "Can you use a spellcasting focus for a spell with M components but not S components" has over six hundred replies, despite having a concrete answer years ago. The post count doesn't make the answer less clear.
On a complete RAW basic (for which this post it based on) answer, the Multiattack action can in fact, be readied.
That is the way readying an action works. If the beast uses a spell in its multiattack than it just takes the slot then simple. The only thing supposedly restricting the readying of a multiattack. Is the words "on its turn" which if you take into context and use some basic english grammer, does nothing.
Simple answer to my thread, yes, you can ready multiattack.
"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.
Druid wildshape, true polymorph