[...] And if the word Creature was replaced with the word Monster, would you still consider a Construct a Creature? As I previously said we can agree to disagree, but if the Monster Manual has the word creature replaced by the word Monster, would people be so quick to say a Construct is a Creature?
Monster in the Rules Glossary also says it's a creature, just controlled by the DM:
A monster is a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent. See also “Creature” and “NPC.”
EDIT: format.
By 2024 definition, whereas previously the original context was that Constructs were Objects and not Creatures or PC’s. Again this is the Monster Manual’s specific exceptions becoming the general norm by way of logic fallacy for the express purpose of ease of play.
The very rules that govern Constructs are different than the rules that govern general creatures. Agree to disagree, sorry.
As off-topic as this is, I'll entertain it for the time being.
Construct has been a Creature Type since in the year of our Lord 2000, so what previous or original context are you referring to?
Point us to these rules you say govern them differently than general creatures.
As this is not the best place to start a tangent of discussion, the rules stated in a previous post of mine gives examples of what the context of a Construct is as an object, and that list was just a quick search.
Constructs can be designed and constructed to make actions similar to creatures, but effectively are considered objects that are built not living beings with a soul of their own. Of course, the aforementioned Warforged are again an exception to the general rules.
So constructs can by constructive design be created to make actions that can be used as an attack of opportunity.
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.
We all 'know' nothing of the sort. There are explicit references to monsters taking actions in their stat blocks (for example, beastmaster ranger allows you "command the beast to take the Beast’s Strike action"). But, it doesn't matter. Actions in D&D are a permission based structure: they allow you to do something. They don't forbid anything. Thus, there are two possibilities for an attack in the creature's stat block
They permit the creature to take that action.
They permit the creature to use that attack as part of another action, such as attack or magic.
Either way, the normal restrictions of the attack action are irrelevant, because the creature stat block permits it to make the specified attack, regardless of its actual type. The problem is that the opportunity attack reaction (also a permission) does not get overridden in the same way.
[...] And if the word Creature was replaced with the word Monster, would you still consider a Construct a Creature? As I previously said we can agree to disagree, but if the Monster Manual has the word creature replaced by the word Monster, would people be so quick to say a Construct is a Creature?
Monster in the Rules Glossary also says it's a creature, just controlled by the DM:
A monster is a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent. See also “Creature” and “NPC.”
EDIT: format.
By 2024 definition, whereas previously the original context was that Constructs were Objects and not Creatures or PC’s. Again this is the Monster Manual’s specific exceptions becoming the general norm by way of logic fallacy for the express purpose of ease of play.
The very rules that govern Constructs are different than the rules that govern general creatures. Agree to disagree, sorry.
As off-topic as this is, I'll entertain it for the time being.
Construct has been a Creature Type since in the year of our Lord 2000, so what previous or original context are you referring to?
Point us to these rules you say govern them differently than general creatures.
In the 1986 AC9 Creature Catalogue, constructs were part of the conjuration type.
In 1991, the Rules Cyclopedia established constructs as their own type.
In 2000, the Monster Manual (3.0) reintroduced the construct type.
sorry, I have been doing D&D since the 80s. So sometimes you forget subtle changes like constructs are creatures.
[...] And if the word Creature was replaced with the word Monster, would you still consider a Construct a Creature? As I previously said we can agree to disagree, but if the Monster Manual has the word creature replaced by the word Monster, would people be so quick to say a Construct is a Creature?
Monster in the Rules Glossary also says it's a creature, just controlled by the DM:
A monster is a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent. See also “Creature” and “NPC.”
EDIT: format.
By 2024 definition, whereas previously the original context was that Constructs were Objects and not Creatures or PC’s. Again this is the Monster Manual’s specific exceptions becoming the general norm by way of logic fallacy for the express purpose of ease of play.
The very rules that govern Constructs are different than the rules that govern general creatures. Agree to disagree, sorry.
As off-topic as this is, I'll entertain it for the time being.
Construct has been a Creature Type since in the year of our Lord 2000, so what previous or original context are you referring to?
Point us to these rules you say govern them differently than general creatures.
In the 1986 AC9 Creature Catalogue, constructs were part of the conjuration type.
In 1991, the Rules Cyclopedia established constructs as their own type.
In 2000, the Monster Manual (3.0) reintroduced the construct type.
sorry, I have been doing D&D since the 80s. So sometimes you forget subtle changes like constructs are creatures.
1978 1e monster manual golems are constructed “Monsters” that were even back then considered “Creatures” until proven otherwise. The debate over whether a construct is a living creature is just as old, and the former rules clarified that the construct is a collection of objects that are magically made to house a collected “soul” that can automate the creation. ( the spells and requirements to create a golem are extensive, and requires high level magic access for the process.)
but a collection of objects does not a living thing make. It’s a Monster, but not technically a creature in the general sense, and does not by the rules itself benefit from the same affects as a living “Free willed” creature does.
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.
We all 'know' nothing of the sort. There are explicit references to monsters taking actions in their stat blocks (for example, beastmaster ranger allows you "command the beast to take the Beast’s Strike action"). But, it doesn't matter. Actions in D&D are a permission based structure: they allow you to do something. They don't forbid anything. Thus, there are two possibilities for an attack in the creature's stat block
They permit the creature to take that action.
They permit the creature to use that attack as part of another action, such as attack or magic.
Either way, the normal restrictions of the attack action are irrelevant, because the creature stat block permits it to make the specified attack, regardless of its actual type. The problem is that the opportunity attack reaction (also a permission) does not get overridden in the same way.
You can't even prove every entry in a monster's "Actions" is actually an action.
The absolutely best you've been able to do this entire time is shrug your shoulders.
1978 1e monster manual golems are constructed “Monsters” that were even back then considered “Creatures” until proven otherwise. The debate over whether a construct is a living creature is just as old, and the former rules clarified that the construct is a collection of objects that are magically made to house a collected “soul” that can automate the creation. ( the spells and requirements to create a golem are extensive, and requires high level magic access for the process.)
but a collection of objects does not a living thing make. It’s a Monster, but not technically a creature in the general sense, and does not by the rules itself benefit from the same affects as a living “Free willed” creature does.
This sounds like more of a philosophical argument about whether a construct is "alive" in a conceptual sense. That's a perfectly valid debate to have, and it's perfectly reasonable for people to politely disagree about it; I don't think there's a clear philosophical answer.
However, there is a clear and unambiguous answer to the question of whether things that are described as "constructs" in D&D count as "creatures" under 5e D&D rules. The answer is that they do, because that is explicitly stated in the rules, as has been pointed out several times in this thread.
You can't even prove every entry in a monster's "Actions" is actually an action.
Um...
it's labeled "action"
The discussion of the 'actions' section tells us "A monster can take the actions in this section"
Unfortunately, lower case "action" is not the same as an "Action". It's not defining a new type of action, it's just saying how the monster can act on its turn.
Action is listed in the Actions section and is not a new Action type that a monster can take on its turn so the assumption that the section is defining new actions is false.
Action is listed in the Actions section and is not a new Action type that a monster can take on its turn so the assumption that the section is defining new actions is false.
Does not follow. It just indicates that things in the actions section are not required to be new actions.
Either we just like arguing or we want to understand the other perspective. Personally, I think some people besides myself here are making life harder for themselves because it takes actual effort to be this obtuse.
The only thing I don't agree with in the latest answer is that I don't think the monsters' actions should be matched to the named ones in the PHB. It probably doesn't matter, but in my opinion, it's technically incorrect.
The only named action in the Monster Manual rules is the Attack action (in the context of Multiattack). IMO, the others are unique to monsters.
If it helps to defend my POV, one example could be a breath weapon:
What actions can monsters use to make opportunity attacks? Are Multiattack and breath weapon actions allowed?
A monster follows the normal opportunity attack rules, which specify that an attack of opportunity is one melee attack. That means a monster must choose a single melee attack to make, either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack, like an unarmed strike. Multiattack doesn’t qualify, not only because it’s more than one attack, but also because the rule on Multiattack (MM , "Multiattack") states that this action can’t be used for opportunity attacks. An action, such as a breath weapon, that doesn’t include an attack roll is also not eligible.
The only thing I don't agree with in the latest answer is that I don't think the monsters' actions should be matched to the named ones in the PHB. It probably doesn't matter, but in my opinion, it's technically incorrect.
The only named action in the Monster Manual rules is the Attack action (in the context of Multiattack). IMO, the others are unique to monsters.
If it helps to defend my POV, one example could be a breath weapon:
What actions can monsters use to make opportunity attacks? Are Multiattack and breath weapon actions allowed?
A monster follows the normal opportunity attack rules, which specify that an attack of opportunity is one melee attack. That means a monster must choose a single melee attack to make, either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack, like an unarmed strike. Multiattack doesn’t qualify, not only because it’s more than one attack, but also because the rule on Multiattack (MM , "Multiattack") states that this action can’t be used for opportunity attacks. An action, such as a breath weapon, that doesn’t include an attack roll is also not eligible.
Sage Advice was written for a specific set of rules in a specific time, neither of which apply today. It's useful for looking back on rules at the time, and we can trace their evolution, but it is wrongheaded to rely on them for interpreting 5.2.
In the 2014 PH, a Ranger (Beast Master Archetype) would order its Ranger's Companion to take the Attack action in order to use the attacks in its stat block. A Mage, or even Strahd von Zarovich, would take the "Cast a Spell" action to use their Spellcasting trait to cast Fireball. The default assumption was you use one of the Actions available to all creatures; unless it didn't fit what you were trying to do. For example, the breath weapon of a dragon or dragonborn.
Then new books changed the format for monster stat blocks. Spellcasting stopped being a trait (with a spellcasting class, level, and spell slots) and was placed under "Actions" with a truncated list and limited castings of each spell per day. I understand the impulse to call Spellcasting an Action, because we want consistency and how dare exception-based rules have exceptions, but those people are wrong.
To sum up, there are Actions and there are actions. The list of Actions in the Rules Glossary is not exhaustive; but it is the list of Actions available to all creatures. Some have special Actions beyond those. The Bite of a wolf is an action it performs when taking an Action: Attack. And I can understand how that might be confusing, but it isn't an Action unto itself. It can't be. Because if we say that it is, then whether it is its own Action, or something done as part of a different Action, is arbitrarily circumstantial. And that is insane. Go make a character on DDB, if you don't already have one, and look up its attacks. I'll even link to one of mine below.
Nero doesn't actually have a Battleaxe action, a Dart action, a Fail action, a Javelin action, or a Luck Blade Greatsword action. They're attacks made with his Action when he takes the Attack action.
The only thing I don't agree with in the latest answer is that I don't think the monsters' actions should be matched to the named ones in the PHB. It probably doesn't matter, but in my opinion, it's technically incorrect.
The only named action in the Monster Manual rules is the Attack action (in the context of Multiattack). IMO, the others are unique to monsters.
If it helps to defend my POV, one example could be a breath weapon:
What actions can monsters use to make opportunity attacks? Are Multiattack and breath weapon actions allowed?
A monster follows the normal opportunity attack rules, which specify that an attack of opportunity is one melee attack. That means a monster must choose a single melee attack to make, either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack, like an unarmed strike. Multiattack doesn’t qualify, not only because it’s more than one attack, but also because the rule on Multiattack (MM , "Multiattack") states that this action can’t be used for opportunity attacks. An action, such as a breath weapon, that doesn’t include an attack roll is also not eligible.
Sage Advice was written for a specific set of rules in a specific time, neither of which apply today. It's useful for looking back on rules at the time, and we can trace their evolution, but it is wrongheaded to rely on them for interpreting 5.2.
In the 2014 PH, a Ranger (Beast Master Archetype) would order its Ranger's Companion to take the Attack action in order to use the attacks in its stat block. A Mage, or even Strahd von Zarovich, would take the "Cast a Spell" action to use their Spellcasting trait to cast Fireball. The default assumption was you use one of the actions available to all creatures; unless it didn't fit what you were trying to do. For example, the breath weapon of a dragon or dragonborn.
Then new books changed the format for monster stat blocks. Spellcasting stopped being a trait (with a spellcasting class, level, and spell slots) and was placed under "Actions" with a truncated list and limited castings of each spell per day. I understand the impulse to call Spellcasting an Action, because we want consistency and how dare exception-based rules have exceptions, but those people are wrong.
To sum up, there are [Tooltip Not Found] and there are actions. The list of Actions in the Rules Glossary is not exhaustive; but it is the list of Actions available to all creatures. Some have special Actions beyond those. The Bite of a wolf is an action it performs when taking an Action: Attack. And I can understand how that might be confusing, but it isn't an Action unto itself. It can't be. Because if we say that it is, then whether it is its own Action, or something done as part of a different Action, is arbitrarily circumstantial. And that is insane. Go make a character on DDB, if you don't already have one, and look up its attacks. I'll even link to one of mine below.
Nero doesn't actually have a Battleaxe action, a Dart action, a Fail action, a Javelin action, or a Luck Blade Greatsword action. They're attacks made with his Action when he takes the Attack action.
Agreed. Now can everyone please stop arguing? This is so dumb.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
I don’t find anything dumb. This “revision” of the rules requires a healthy amount of debate and discussion about what exactly the changes made to the Monster Manual, and the other book rules mean as far as what options and what means a person has in both running and creating a Monster for any flavor of the game.
Obviously, the design is biased towards an understanding that Monsters should be similar to playable characters, but takes liberties that don’t exactly match the intended functionality and creates a disfunction that didn’t exist before. The grouping of actions that are both physical attacks and magical attacks that have little or no relation with the actual mechanics of how they are supposed to work is the problem. Coupled with even less descriptive information about how Monsters are functionally different than typical player characters, that can perform actions and abilities that playable characters can’t, and that is why people are discussing this so passionately.
The lack of actual information about how differently Monsters and PC’s are played is the reason for the discourse. The redesign fails to address this, and as more and more people dig deeper into rules, more and more design conflicts will emerge.
For a revised version, it’s looking more like a rewrite than an update, and instead of clearing or cleaning up the mess, it just been rearranged to look prettier. If we don’t discuss the changes, then how can the fix for this mess ever be determined?
Monsters and their Actions have been made as exceptions to the general rules, and some of those actions are at odds with the precepts of how the rules should work and apply. With how monsters, all monsters, can now take a reaction of Attack of Opportunity, that new functionality creates a whole mess of problems that probably was never considered. And so now it must be addressed.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As this is not the best place to start a tangent of discussion, the rules stated in a previous post of mine gives examples of what the context of a Construct is as an object, and that list was just a quick search.
Constructs can be designed and constructed to make actions similar to creatures, but effectively are considered objects that are built not living beings with a soul of their own.
Of course, the aforementioned Warforged are again an exception to the general rules.
So constructs can by constructive design be created to make actions that can be used as an attack of opportunity.
" 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.
We all 'know' nothing of the sort. There are explicit references to monsters taking actions in their stat blocks (for example, beastmaster ranger allows you "command the beast to take the Beast’s Strike action"). But, it doesn't matter. Actions in D&D are a permission based structure: they allow you to do something. They don't forbid anything. Thus, there are two possibilities for an attack in the creature's stat block
Either way, the normal restrictions of the attack action are irrelevant, because the creature stat block permits it to make the specified attack, regardless of its actual type. The problem is that the opportunity attack reaction (also a permission) does not get overridden in the same way.
sorry, I have been doing D&D since the 80s. So sometimes you forget subtle changes like constructs are creatures.
Blank
1978 1e monster manual golems are constructed “Monsters” that were even back then considered “Creatures” until proven otherwise.
The debate over whether a construct is a living creature is just as old, and the former rules clarified that the construct is a collection of objects that are magically made to house a collected “soul” that can automate the creation.
( the spells and requirements to create a golem are extensive, and requires high level magic access for the process.)
but a collection of objects does not a living thing make. It’s a Monster, but not technically a creature in the general sense, and does not by the rules itself benefit from the same affects as a living “Free willed” creature does.
" 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.
You can't even prove every entry in a monster's "Actions" is actually an action.
The absolutely best you've been able to do this entire time is shrug your shoulders.
This sounds like more of a philosophical argument about whether a construct is "alive" in a conceptual sense. That's a perfectly valid debate to have, and it's perfectly reasonable for people to politely disagree about it; I don't think there's a clear philosophical answer.
However, there is a clear and unambiguous answer to the question of whether things that are described as "constructs" in D&D count as "creatures" under 5e D&D rules. The answer is that they do, because that is explicitly stated in the rules, as has been pointed out several times in this thread.
pronouns: he/she/they
Um...
Unfortunately, lower case "action" is not the same as an "Action". It's not defining a new type of action, it's just saying how the monster can act on its turn.
How to add Tooltips.
The section header is "Actions", not "actions".
You have permission to hijack my thread.
"Multiattack" expressly is not an action.
Query: What are all of the options available to a Knight who takes the Attack action?
So? We aren't talking about multiattack.
Action is listed in the Actions section and is not a new Action type that a monster can take on its turn so the assumption that the section is defining new actions is false.
How to add Tooltips.
How is this discussion not over yet?!
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!
Does not follow. It just indicates that things in the actions section are not required to be new actions.
Interesting.
Either we just like arguing or we want to understand the other perspective. Personally, I think some people besides myself here are making life harder for themselves because it takes actual effort to be this obtuse.
But I suppose that's just my opinion.
The only thing I don't agree with in the latest answer is that I don't think the monsters' actions should be matched to the named ones in the PHB. It probably doesn't matter, but in my opinion, it's technically incorrect.
The only named action in the Monster Manual rules is the Attack action (in the context of Multiattack). IMO, the others are unique to monsters.
If it helps to defend my POV, one example could be a breath weapon:
Sage Advice was written for a specific set of rules in a specific time, neither of which apply today. It's useful for looking back on rules at the time, and we can trace their evolution, but it is wrongheaded to rely on them for interpreting 5.2.
In the 2014 PH, a Ranger (Beast Master Archetype) would order its Ranger's Companion to take the Attack action in order to use the attacks in its stat block. A Mage, or even Strahd von Zarovich, would take the "Cast a Spell" action to use their Spellcasting trait to cast Fireball. The default assumption was you use one of the Actions available to all creatures; unless it didn't fit what you were trying to do. For example, the breath weapon of a dragon or dragonborn.
Then new books changed the format for monster stat blocks. Spellcasting stopped being a trait (with a spellcasting class, level, and spell slots) and was placed under "Actions" with a truncated list and limited castings of each spell per day. I understand the impulse to call Spellcasting an Action, because we want consistency and how dare exception-based rules have exceptions, but those people are wrong.
To sum up, there are Actions and there are actions. The list of Actions in the Rules Glossary is not exhaustive; but it is the list of Actions available to all creatures. Some have special Actions beyond those. The Bite of a wolf is an action it performs when taking an Action: Attack. And I can understand how that might be confusing, but it isn't an Action unto itself. It can't be. Because if we say that it is, then whether it is its own Action, or something done as part of a different Action, is arbitrarily circumstantial. And that is insane. Go make a character on DDB, if you don't already have one, and look up its attacks. I'll even link to one of mine below.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/139047734
Nero doesn't actually have a Battleaxe action, a Dart action, a Fail action, a Javelin action, or a Luck Blade Greatsword action. They're attacks made with his Action when he takes the Attack action.
Agreed. Now can everyone please stop arguing? This is so dumb.
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!
I don’t find anything dumb. This “revision” of the rules requires a healthy amount of debate and discussion about what exactly the changes made to the Monster Manual, and the other book rules mean as far as what options and what means a person has in both running and creating a Monster for any flavor of the game.
Obviously, the design is biased towards an understanding that Monsters should be similar to playable characters, but takes liberties that don’t exactly match the intended functionality and creates a disfunction that didn’t exist before.
The grouping of actions that are both physical attacks and magical attacks that have little or no relation with the actual mechanics of how they are supposed to work is the problem.
Coupled with even less descriptive information about how Monsters are functionally different than typical player characters, that can perform actions and abilities that playable characters can’t, and that is why people are discussing this so passionately.
The lack of actual information about how differently Monsters and PC’s are played is the reason for the discourse. The redesign fails to address this, and as more and more people dig deeper into rules, more and more design conflicts will emerge.
For a revised version, it’s looking more like a rewrite than an update, and instead of clearing or cleaning up the mess, it just been rearranged to look prettier.
If we don’t discuss the changes, then how can the fix for this mess ever be determined?
Monsters and their Actions have been made as exceptions to the general rules, and some of those actions are at odds with the precepts of how the rules should work and apply.
With how monsters, all monsters, can now take a reaction of Attack of Opportunity, that new functionality creates a whole mess of problems that probably was never considered. And so now it must be addressed.
" 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.