When a monster attacks with a melee attack, what action do you think they are using?
What does that have to do with anything? They are either using the action in their stat block, or they are using a different action (typically attack or magic) where the normal rules are being overridden (and thus, they can make an attack that is not unarmed or a weapon attack).
When a monster attacks with a melee attack, what action do you think they are using?
What does that have to do with anything? They are either using the action in their stat block, or they are using a different action (typically attack or magic) where the normal rules are being overridden (and thus, they can make an attack that is not unarmed or a weapon attack).
Only Multiattack overrides the Attack action restrictions. The other attacks must use the Attack action.
Only Multiattack overrides the Attack action restrictions. The other attacks must use the Attack action.
Statement must be justified by rules text. RAW, nothing in creature writeups says that using individual attacks in the stat block uses the attack action, the only reference to the attack action in the section on creature statblocks is under multiattack. It may well be intended, but if so it functions just like multiattack and overrides any normal restrictions.
Only Multiattack overrides the Attack action restrictions. The other attacks must use the Attack action.
Statement must be justified by rules text. RAW, nothing in creature writeups says that using individual attacks in the stat block uses the attack action, the only reference to the attack action in the section on creature statblocks is under multiattack. It may well be intended, but if so it functions just like multiattack and overrides any normal restrictions.
My mistake, they must use the Utilize. The actions they can take are not new actions, but what they can do with the existing action types. If a Doppelganger wants to use its spellcasting, they still have to use the Magic to cast the spells. They still have to use the [attack]Attack[/action] to attack with a slam.
This indicates that the the things in the actions section are, in fact, new actions, and distinct from the set of actions available to all creatures.
I don't think so. Spellcasting is still going to take the Magic action, not the Spellcasting action. Multiattack has already been refuted as a new action. If a creature has a Bite entry in the actions section, on their turn, they can use the Attack action to make a Bite attack. This is just saying that monsters may have unique options for the use with the existing Action types.
When a monster attacks with a melee attack, what action do you think they are using?
What does that have to do with anything? They are either using the action in their stat block, or they are using a different action (typically attack or magic) where the normal rules are being overridden (and thus, they can make an attack that is not unarmed or a weapon attack).
An opportunity attack = one melee attack, not one melee action
Whether you think Multiattack is an action or a modifier of the Attack Action, or both, it's irrelevant to the discussion
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)
This indicates that the the things in the actions section are, in fact, new actions, and distinct from the set of actions available to all creatures.
I don't think so. Spellcasting is still going to take the Magic action, not the Spellcasting action. Multiattack has already been refuted as a new action. If a creature has a Bite entry in the actions section, on their turn, they can use the Attack action to make a Bite attack. This is just saying that monsters may have unique options for the use with the existing Action types.
That might very well be the intent, and I can see that being a reasonable inference, but it isn't RAW. Multiattack specifically states it modifies the Attack action (and I'll get into why in a second). Spellcasting action makes no mention of the Magic action; save for when casting a spell with a casting time greater than 1 action.
The reason why Multiattack states it modifies the Attack action is because of how the Attack action interacts with Opportunity Attacks. The Attack specifies that it needs to be taken with either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. This means something like the Mage'sArcane Burst must be treated as either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. It's to cover bases.
Not that this is entirely germain to a discussion on whether monsters can make Opportunity Attacks, but I'm still going to try and keep this thread on-topic.
I don't think so. Spellcasting is still going to take the Magic action, not the Spellcasting action.
While it seems very likely that the spellcasting action in 2024 stat blocks is intended to work like the spellcasting trait in character stat blocks, or the spellcasting trait in monster stat blocks in 2014, as written it's an action, and spellcasting takes the spellcasting action.
On the original thread: the basic issue is that an opportunity attack in 2024 requires a weapon or unarmed attack, and creature attacks in 2024 do not have a tag that indicates their type. The correct answer to "can the monster make an opportunity attack with X" is "I don't know". In most cases the intended answer appears to be yes, but there are a decent number of monsters with attacks with a cantrip-like description where you'd actually expect an answer of "no".
The correct answer to "can the monster make an opportunity attack with X" is "I don't know".
1) Opportunity attacks are a Reaction available to all creatures 2) Opportunity attacks consist of one (1) melee attack 3) Ergo, if a creature has a melee attack in its stat block, it can make an opportunity attack with it
If you don't know whether a particular melee attack in a stat block is an option for an opportunity attack, it's because you're choosing to be confused
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)
1) Opportunity attacks are a Reaction available to all creatures 2) Opportunity attacks consist of one (1) melee attack 3) Ergo, if a creature has a melee attack in its stat block, it can make an opportunity attack with it
Opportunity attacks in 2014 were one melee attack. In 2024 opportunity attacks are a melee attack with a weapon or unarmed strike. Which means we need to know whether the melee attack in its stat block is one of those. Which the game does not tell us.
1) Opportunity attacks are a Reaction available to all creatures 2) Opportunity attacks consist of one (1) melee attack 3) Ergo, if a creature has a melee attack in its stat block, it can make an opportunity attack with it
Opportunity attacks in 2014 were one melee attack. In 2024 opportunity attacks are a melee attack with a weapon or unarmed strike. Which means we need to know whether the melee attack in its stat block is one of those. Which the game does not tell us.
No, actually, you don't need to know whether a melee attack listed in a monster stat block is a weapon or an unarmed strike, because it has absolutely no effect on play
Every creature can make an opportunity attack consisting of one (1) melee attack. If a creature has a melee attack listed on its stat block, it can make an opportunity attack with it. Any argument to the contrary is just silly
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)
So the players handbook said that AoOs can be made with weapon or unarmed strikes. Monsters say they can make reactions if part of their stat block. Therefore eithernon-weapon attacks are considered unarmed strikesormonsters can't make AoOs. I didn't see any clarification in the Monster Manual so what is considered RAW?
"non-weapon attacks are considered unarmed strikes" is the correct answer. That's what "unarmed" means, and fits with the PHB definition of Unarmed Strike.
Any melee attack either uses a weapon or it doesn't (that's a tautology). Whether or not a "bite" or whatnot counts as a weapon or unarmed is irrelevant, because it can't be neither.
No, actually, you don't need to know whether a melee attack listed in a monster stat block is a weapon or an unarmed strike, because it has absolutely no effect on play
The effect on play is "if it's not one of those things, it cannot be used to make an opportunity attack".
Every creature can make an opportunity attack consisting of one (1) melee attack. If a creature has a melee attack listed on its stat block, it can make an opportunity attack with it. Any argument to the contrary is just silly
In rules discussions, try to provide an actual rule that supports your belief. In 2014 your statement would be correct, because opportunity attacks were not restricted to specific types of melee attack. In 2024 opportunity attacks are explicitly restricted to certain types of attacks, which means we need to know whether an attack listed in the stat block is one of those types.
No, actually, you don't need to know whether a melee attack listed in a monster stat block is a weapon or an unarmed strike, because it has absolutely no effect on play
The effect on play is "if it's not one of those things, it cannot be used to make an opportunity attack".
Every creature can make an opportunity attack consisting of one (1) melee attack. If a creature has a melee attack listed on its stat block, it can make an opportunity attack with it. Any argument to the contrary is just silly
In rules discussions, try to provide an actual rule that supports your belief. In 2014 your statement would be correct, because opportunity attacks were not restricted to specific types of melee attack. In 2024 opportunity attacks are explicitly restricted to certain types of attacks, which means we need to know whether an attack listed in the stat block is one of those types.
Let me help you:
Melee Attacks:
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters make melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
Reach:
A creature has a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet when making a melee attack. Certain creatures have melee attacks with a reach greater than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
Making an Opportunity Attack: You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach. [aforementioned]
Weapons : Melee or Ranged.
A weapon is classified as either Melee or Ranged. A Melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet, whereas a Ranged weapon is used to attack at a greater distance.
Unarmed Strike:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect. Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Errata 1.22-2017(c)WotC :Combat
Ready (p. 193). You have until the start of your next turn to use a readied action.
Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows:
“Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an un- armed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”
2024 removed the part in parentheses, and basically turned Unarmed Strikes back into Simple Melee Weapons, Aka 2014PHB Weapons Table, and does what it was initially designed to accomplish, make unarmed attacks natural weapons that a creature or monster is proficient with, and because unarmed strikes are reach range attacks, qualifies for Attacks of Opportunity.
2024 monsters have a new Range field in the action description, after the attack type of ether Melee/Ranged. Reach ranged attacks that are melee now meet the requirements for use as AoO’s.
It’s there in the print, blending in. RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Um... nothing in there actually supports your assertion? And some is errata for the 2014 rules and therefore completely irrelevant to 2024 rules? You need text for at least one of the following:
Attacks in the stat block for monsters are weapon attacks. This was stated in 2014; it is not stated in 2024.
Attacks in the stat block for monsters are unarmed attacks. This was explicitly untrue in 2014; 2024 is silent.
A rule that allows a monster to use an attack in its stat block for an opportunity attack, despite not being a weapon or unarmed attack. This was true in 2014, is it not true in 2024.
In rules discussions, try to provide an actual rule that supports your belief.
Said rules have already been quoted in this thread, multiple times
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)
This is pretty simple in my opinion. If using only 2024 rules, then strictly rules as written, monsters that are not wielding a melee weapon or explicitly attacking with an Unarmed Stike, would not get an Opportunity Attack. Though I highly doubt this is the intention. An easy workaround if you’re a 100% RAW type of guy, would be to have the monster take an Unarmed Strike with it’s Opportunity Attack. If the monster had hands, grapple would be an excellent use of it’s Attack of Opportunity.
This is pretty simple in my opinion. If using only 2024 rules, then strictly rules as written, monsters that are not wielding a melee weapon or explicitly attacking with an Unarmed Stike, would not get an Opportunity Attack.
Player characters have a wealth of options at their disposal -- weapons, unarmed strikes, spells if they have the right feat, etc.
Monsters do not. Most of them have only one melee attack option
If you are ruling that monsters can't make an opportunity attack -- even though the rules explicitly say they can -- because you don't know what label to put on their one and only melee attack, you are making a bad ruling
If you think, Rules As Written, an opportunity attack must be made with a weapon or an unarmed strike, and a monster has only one listed melee attack, then that attack must be either a weapon or an unarmed strike, and it really doesn't matter which. Because the rules tell you flat out the monster can make an opportunity attack. QED
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)
Every creature has the opportunity attack reaction. They still cannot use that reaction without matching the prerequisites (note that monsters can make an unarmed attack, doing 1+Strength Modifier... they just can't use the attacks in their stat block).
If you are ruling that monsters can't make an opportunity attack -- even though the rules explicitly say they can -- because you don't know what label to put on their one and only melee attack, you are making a bad ruling
It is important to know the difference between "what you think the rules should say" and "what the rules actually say". Something can be correct according to RAW and a bad rule.
What does that have to do with anything? They are either using the action in their stat block, or they are using a different action (typically attack or magic) where the normal rules are being overridden (and thus, they can make an attack that is not unarmed or a weapon attack).
Only Multiattack overrides the Attack action restrictions. The other attacks must use the Attack action.
How to add Tooltips.
Statement must be justified by rules text. RAW, nothing in creature writeups says that using individual attacks in the stat block uses the attack action, the only reference to the attack action in the section on creature statblocks is under multiattack. It may well be intended, but if so it functions just like multiattack and overrides any normal restrictions.
My mistake, they must use the Utilize. The actions they can take are not new actions, but what they can do with the existing action types. If a Doppelganger wants to use its spellcasting, they still have to use the Magic to cast the spells. They still have to use the [attack]Attack[/action] to attack with a slam.
How to add Tooltips.
Again, justify with rules text.
This indicates that the the things in the actions section are, in fact, new actions, and distinct from the set of actions available to all creatures.
I don't think so. Spellcasting is still going to take the Magic action, not the Spellcasting action. Multiattack has already been refuted as a new action. If a creature has a Bite entry in the actions section, on their turn, they can use the Attack action to make a Bite attack. This is just saying that monsters may have unique options for the use with the existing Action types.
How to add Tooltips.
An opportunity attack = one melee attack, not one melee action
Whether you think Multiattack is an action or a modifier of the Attack Action, or both, it's irrelevant to the discussion
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)
That might very well be the intent, and I can see that being a reasonable inference, but it isn't RAW. Multiattack specifically states it modifies the Attack action (and I'll get into why in a second). Spellcasting action makes no mention of the Magic action; save for when casting a spell with a casting time greater than 1 action.
The reason why Multiattack states it modifies the Attack action is because of how the Attack action interacts with Opportunity Attacks. The Attack specifies that it needs to be taken with either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. This means something like the Mage's Arcane Burst must be treated as either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. It's to cover bases.
Not that this is entirely germain to a discussion on whether monsters can make Opportunity Attacks, but I'm still going to try and keep this thread on-topic.
While it seems very likely that the spellcasting action in 2024 stat blocks is intended to work like the spellcasting trait in character stat blocks, or the spellcasting trait in monster stat blocks in 2014, as written it's an action, and spellcasting takes the spellcasting action.
On the original thread: the basic issue is that an opportunity attack in 2024 requires a weapon or unarmed attack, and creature attacks in 2024 do not have a tag that indicates their type. The correct answer to "can the monster make an opportunity attack with X" is "I don't know". In most cases the intended answer appears to be yes, but there are a decent number of monsters with attacks with a cantrip-like description where you'd actually expect an answer of "no".
1) Opportunity attacks are a Reaction available to all creatures
2) Opportunity attacks consist of one (1) melee attack
3) Ergo, if a creature has a melee attack in its stat block, it can make an opportunity attack with it
If you don't know whether a particular melee attack in a stat block is an option for an opportunity attack, it's because you're choosing to be confused
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)
Opportunity attacks in 2014 were one melee attack. In 2024 opportunity attacks are a melee attack with a weapon or unarmed strike. Which means we need to know whether the melee attack in its stat block is one of those. Which the game does not tell us.
No, actually, you don't need to know whether a melee attack listed in a monster stat block is a weapon or an unarmed strike, because it has absolutely no effect on play
Every creature can make an opportunity attack consisting of one (1) melee attack. If a creature has a melee attack listed on its stat block, it can make an opportunity attack with it. Any argument to the contrary is just silly
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)
ignoring the ongoing kerfuffle and responding to OP:
"non-weapon attacks are considered unarmed strikes" is the correct answer. That's what "unarmed" means, and fits with the PHB definition of Unarmed Strike.
Any melee attack either uses a weapon or it doesn't (that's a tautology). Whether or not a "bite" or whatnot counts as a weapon or unarmed is irrelevant, because it can't be neither.
The effect on play is "if it's not one of those things, it cannot be used to make an opportunity attack".
In rules discussions, try to provide an actual rule that supports your belief. In 2014 your statement would be correct, because opportunity attacks were not restricted to specific types of melee attack. In 2024 opportunity attacks are explicitly restricted to certain types of attacks, which means we need to know whether an attack listed in the stat block is one of those types.
Let me help you:
Melee Attacks:
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters make melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
Reach:
A creature has a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet when making a melee attack. Certain creatures have melee attacks with a reach greater than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
Making an Opportunity Attack:
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach. [aforementioned]
Weapons : Melee or Ranged.
A weapon is classified as either Melee or Ranged. A Melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet, whereas a Ranged weapon is used to attack at a greater distance.
Unarmed Strike:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Errata 1.22-2017(c)WotC : Combat
Ready (p. 193). You have until the start of your next turn to use a readied action.
Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows:
“Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an un- armed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”
2024 removed the part in parentheses, and basically turned Unarmed Strikes back into Simple Melee Weapons, Aka 2014PHB Weapons Table, and does what it was initially designed to accomplish, make unarmed attacks natural weapons that a creature or monster is proficient with, and because unarmed strikes are reach range attacks, qualifies for Attacks of Opportunity.
2024 monsters have a new Range field in the action description, after the attack type of ether Melee/Ranged. Reach ranged attacks that are melee now meet the requirements for use as AoO’s.
It’s there in the print, blending in. RAW.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Um... nothing in there actually supports your assertion? And some is errata for the 2014 rules and therefore completely irrelevant to 2024 rules? You need text for at least one of the following:
Said rules have already been quoted in this thread, multiple times
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)
This is pretty simple in my opinion. If using only 2024 rules, then strictly rules as written, monsters that are not wielding a melee weapon or explicitly attacking with an Unarmed Stike, would not get an Opportunity Attack. Though I highly doubt this is the intention. An easy workaround if you’re a 100% RAW type of guy, would be to have the monster take an Unarmed Strike with it’s Opportunity Attack. If the monster had hands, grapple would be an excellent use of it’s Attack of Opportunity.
Every creature gets an opportunity attack. That's the rule.
Player characters have a wealth of options at their disposal -- weapons, unarmed strikes, spells if they have the right feat, etc.
Monsters do not. Most of them have only one melee attack option
If you are ruling that monsters can't make an opportunity attack -- even though the rules explicitly say they can -- because you don't know what label to put on their one and only melee attack, you are making a bad ruling
If you think, Rules As Written, an opportunity attack must be made with a weapon or an unarmed strike, and a monster has only one listed melee attack, then that attack must be either a weapon or an unarmed strike, and it really doesn't matter which. Because the rules tell you flat out the monster can make an opportunity attack. QED
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)
Unrelated rules that prove nothing have been quoted in this thread, multiple times.
Every creature has the opportunity attack reaction. They still cannot use that reaction without matching the prerequisites (note that monsters can make an unarmed attack, doing 1+Strength Modifier... they just can't use the attacks in their stat block).
It is important to know the difference between "what you think the rules should say" and "what the rules actually say". Something can be correct according to RAW and a bad rule.