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.
Spellcasting is an example of exception-based rules having an exception -- the exception is that the monster uses the Spellcasting action instead of the Magic action. Just like it's an exception that monsters use named actions to attack with instead of the attack action (except when using multiattack, because what good is it to have exceptions if you don't have exceptions to the exceptions). Everyone who is insisting "the monster must always use the attack action, and the monster's attacks must be legal for the attack action" is missing the concept of exception-based rules.
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.
In 2014, a Mage had a special trait for casting spells, nothing related to the "Cast a Spell" action.
EDIT: Under the 2014 rules, we had the entry I previously quoted in the SAC, and Corrupting Touch was its own action, not a "Cast a Spell" action:
A few monsters can make opportunity attacks with melee spell attacks. Here’s how: certain monsters—including the banshee, the lich, and the specter—have a melee spell attack that isn’t delivered by a spell. For example, the banshee’s Corrupting Touch action is a melee spell attack but no spell is cast to make it. The banshee can, therefore, make opportunity attacks with Corrupting Touch.
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.
Since 2014, spellcasting creatures have tended to have the Spellcasting trait, the Innate Spellcasting Trait, or both. Starting in 2021, we have merged those two traits into an action called Spellcasting. That action now appears in the “Actions” section of a stat block, and it has a few important qualities:
The Spellcasting action doesn’t use spell slots. A creature can cast the action’s spells a certain number of times per day.
The only spells that appear in the Spellcasting action are ones that take an action to cast. If a spell requires a bonus action, a reaction, or a minute or more to cast, that spell must appear elsewhere in the stat block. This change ensures that bonus actions and reactions—such as misty step and shield—aren’t hiding out in a list of spells.
We’re more selective about which spells appear in a stat block, focusing on spells that have noncombat utility. A magic-using monster’s most potent firepower is now usually represented by a special magical action, rather than relying on spells.
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.
Spellcasting is an example of exception-based rules having an exception -- the exception is that the monster uses the Spellcasting action instead of the Magic action. Just like it's an exception that monsters use named actions to attack with instead of the attack action (except when using multiattack, because what good is it to have exceptions if you don't have exceptions to the exceptions). Everyone who is insisting "the monster must always use the attack action, and the monster's attacks must be legal for the attack action" is missing the concept of exception-based rules.
That's rich coming from someone who says monsters can't make an Opportunity Attack using "actions" listed in their stat blocks.
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.
In 2014, a Mage had a special trait for casting spells, nothing related to the "Cast a Spell" action.
The only "action" in its stat block is "Dagger", so what action would you have them use?
Spellcasting is an example of exception-based rules having an exception -- the exception is that the monster uses the Spellcasting action instead of the Magic action. Just like it's an exception that monsters use named actions to attack with instead of the attack action (except when using multiattack, because what good is it to have exceptions if you don't have exceptions to the exceptions). Everyone who is insisting "the monster must always use the attack action, and the monster's attacks must be legal for the attack action" is missing the concept of exception-based rules.
That's rich coming from someone who says monsters can't make an Opportunity Attack using "actions" listed in their stat blocks.
The reason monsters can't (necessarily) make opportunity attacks using the actions in their stat block is that those actions are not classed as weapon attacks or unarmed strikes, not because they're actions in the stat block.
The fundamental way 5e is written is that you can do something if at least one rule says you can, and no rules say you can't.
Monsters can attack with the actions in their stat block because the rules say they can take actions in their stat block, and there's no rule saying they can't.
Monsters cannot necessarily use those actions for opportunity attacks because the rules for opportunity attacks (in 2024) limit it to weapon and unarmed strikes, and the actions in the monster stat block are not classified as either one. The DM is neither required nor forbidden to classify those attacks into one of those categories, so maybe they're usable... that's a DM call. Note that a 2024 monster can make an opportunity attack according to 2014 rules (because those rules just required a melee attack), and a 2014 monster can make an opportunity attack according to 2024 rules (because its actions are labeled "melee weapon attack"), it's just that a 2024 monster can't make opportunity attacks under 2024 rules.
Why did 2024 change the opportunity attack rules? At a guess, it was to allow trip and grapple as an opportunity attack (they aren't attacks, so not legal per 2014 rules) and someone didn't notice that this rules change, combined with the layout change where monster attacks are no longer listed as "melee weapon attack", just "melee attack", breaks monsters.
I was at one of the local shops last night and there was a group of people talking about this very thread. The consensus of those talking about it was that it was great example of what kept them from using DnDBeyond for rules advice.
I really don't like repeating myself, so I'm throwing down the gauntlet. I've been providing citations. You haven't.
It's past time you put up or stepped out.
The relevant text is exactly where I told you to read. The Monster Manual. Right in the beginning. To not know means you for sure haven't read the book. Which, explains some things.
This tells us that the actions it has listed are IN ADDITION to the normal options. So when it lists Arcane Burst as an Attack action in the stat block. That is IN ADDITION to the option all characters have of attacking with a weapon or an Unarmed strike.
'But Rav how can you be sure it means that?'
Idk, why not keep reading in this section how it explains this more?
> "This entry details the attacks a creature can make, as well as any additional abilities it can use, as part of the Attack action."
Really take a moment and read that for me. Read it.
It tells you in no uncertain terms that it is saying the creature CAN use it as part of the Attack action.
This is permission-granting language. It tells use they CAN do so.
So they can. Because it says they can. That's the reason they can. Because the INTRO to the monster manual takes time to explain how the monster stats work. If you read it.
So because something CAN be used as part of the Attack, and attack rolls performed with the Attack action are, by default, performed with a weapon or Unarmed Strike, we should logically treat all attack rolls as if they're either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
No. That doesn't make any sense.
If the default was live or die. Right. Two options.
But then necromancer steps into the field of play and has rules that says in addition to the normal options they can also undeath.
Now you're over here arguing that undeath is either living or dying. But... it isn't either. It is the 3rd extra option that the rules added for us.
Same going on with monster attacks.
Normally you can make an Attack with a Weapon or Unarmed attacks. Anyone can.
Then the monster manual tells us creatures have extra options besides those. Like how that mage can Arcane Burst.
Now you over here trying to figure out which Arcane Burst is, weapon or Unarmed. Meanwhile, the obvious answer is staring you right in the face: it is an Arcane Burst. The 3rd option the mage has. In ADDITION to making attacks with weapons or making unarmed attacks it can ALSO Arcane Burst.
Because we have nothing telling us to treat them differently.
Naw
Thanks for agreeing with me, though I wish you weren't so hostile about it.
I'm not.
Between the two of us, I think which one of us has actually read the rules is pretty clear.
But no, seriously. You're literally making the categorical error I just described. Just because the description of an unarmed attack is that it is a forceful attack with the body doesn't then mean all other attacks with a body part MUST be unarmed attacks. Re: dogs are mammals. Again.
It does, actually. The general rule governing Unarmed Strikes doesn't distinguish body parts. To put it in terms you might understand, not all Unarmed Strikes made by an Aarakocra deal 1d6 + Strength modifier Slashing damage. Just the ones that use its Talons.
Right, because they have a feature that specifically modifies default Unarmed Attack mechanics to allow their Unarmed attacks with Talons to deal higher base damage.
A feature monsters in the monster manual lack.
Nobody is saying every Unarmed Strike by a monster deals 1 + Strength modifier Bludgeoning damage. We're saying some have Unarmed Strikes which deal damage beyond this base value.
If they had a feature like the Aarakocra, sure, that'd be true. I've said this several times. It could have been written that way.
It wasn't written that way.
And whether an Arcane Burst is made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike is up to the DM to sort out.
No, it isn't. Because it is neither.
The rules don't say, and I don't think it particularly matters.
The rules would say if it was either. They don't, because it isn't.
We know it's usable as part of the Attack action, and...well, you know the rest.
It is usable as part of the Attack action because the rules in the monster manual tell us it can be used in addition to normal options for attack actions.
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 was at one of the local shops last night and there was a group of people talking about this very thread. The consensus of those talking about it was that it was great example of what kept them from using DnDBeyond for rules advice.
It's all in how you ask the question.
If the question is "I can't find the rule for X, can anyone tell me what it is?", assuming such a rule exists, someone will probably be able to point out a rule.
If the question is "I can't figure out what rule X actually means", well, it could well be that there's disagreement on what rule X means, in which case expect argument.
If the question is "How should I rule on X", you may get different responses, but unless there's a rule that covers the situation and that rule is disputed, probably not an argument.
I was at one of the local shops last night and there was a group of people talking about this very thread. The consensus of those talking about it was that it was great example of what kept them from using DnDBeyond for rules advice.
Keep up the good work lol.
The same at ours. The consensus (with no one in opposition) was the DDB forums were the worst place to look for rules advice other than finding the occasional 'official' post as a reference.
I was at one of the local shops last night and there was a group of people talking about this very thread. The consensus of those talking about it was that it was great example of what kept them from using DnDBeyond for rules advice.
I was at one of the local shops last night and there was a group of people talking about this very thread. The consensus of those talking about it was that it was great example of what kept them from using DnDBeyond for rules advice.
It's all in how you ask the question.
If the question is "I can't find the rule for X, can anyone tell me what it is?", assuming such a rule exists, someone will probably be able to point out a rule.
If the question is "I can't figure out what rule X actually means", well, it could well be that there's disagreement on what rule X means, in which case expect argument.
If the question is "How should I rule on X", you may get different responses, but unless there's a rule that covers the situation and that rule is disputed, probably not an argument.
The fundamental problem is that there should be people with official rules knowledge and a line to the designers here, and elsewhere, and that they should have reference documents on rulings past. Tweeting at Jeremy Crawford and hoping he gives an off-hand answer has never been ideal.
But also the rules culture around D&D on-line is kind of dysfunctional. People try to treat the game like it's Magic, where there has to be one clearly correct Official Answer.
And it just isn't. It can't be. RAW is somewhat useful to establish to give everyone a baseline, but it's way more limited in scope than people try to make it. The actual RAW answer is often "there is no RAW", or "RAW is unclear". And those answers are adequate (though 'unclear' is not ideal). The GM can rule for their table and everything's fine. Usually there's only one way to rule that even makes sense.
This thread is an example. We're firmly in the space of "there's only one way to rule that makes sense", but people are busy making the sort of arguments that, if their players persistently tried them on at the table, would end in "rocks fall, everybody dies". Maybe I'm wrong, and they really would rule that monsters without weapons can't make useful opportunity attacks. It's their table; they can rule as they wish, but trying to convince people that that is what the rules unequivocally say is... a choice.
And I am a giant rules nerd, and I can argue minutia, and I have done so. But my objective is primarily to establish what the baseline is, and secondarily to discuss how you can or should rule when the baseline doesn't exist. (I have, I'm sure, not always held to that ideal. Sometimes somebody is wrong on the internet, and I am as vulnerable to that lure as many people.)
Ok, the debate on whether or not this is RAW is understandable, but can we please just agree that RAI, monsters can make opportunity attacks?
It probably is. But we've gotten very little communication from the designers on 5.24 details like this, so we're just guessing at RAI.
(Though, the fact that most everyone "knows" it's RAI from nothing more than reading the main text and applying basic sense is a pretty good sign that it might be RAW.)
The fundamental problem is that there should be people with official rules knowledge and a line to the designers here, and elsewhere, and that they should have reference documents on rulings past. Tweeting at Jeremy Crawford and hoping he gives an off-hand answer has never been ideal.
D&D is too big. Actually, even TTRPGs with 1/10th the playerbase are too big to treat clarifications like some form of customer support. No-one wants to hand-hold a few thousand people every day through "how to make sense of a game," at least for a "game" that's all about playing stuff in your imagination and there's no money on the line.
Once they get back to publishing SAC (or something like it), things may get better. And I bet they're intentionally holding off doing that until all 3 books have been out for a little while.
This thread is an example. We're firmly in the space of "there's only one way to rule that makes sense", but people are busy making the sort of arguments that, if their players persistently tried them on at the table, would end in "rocks fall, everybody dies". Maybe I'm wrong, and they really would rule that monsters without weapons can't make useful opportunity attacks. It's their table; they can rule as they wish, but trying to convince people that that is what the rules unequivocally say is... a choice.
Sometimes people like to "score points" by calling into question the designers/writers/publishers' competencies. Maybe they think they'll get noticed and hired.
"Someone on the internet is wrong!" isn't usually helpful discourse, especially when trying to argue that the game rules are just "broken" and can't mean what they "intend." That's disfunctional.
Ok, the debate on whether or not this is RAW is understandable, but can we please just agree that RAI, monsters can make opportunity attacks?
RAW, they may make opportunity attacks.
RAI (and probably also W), they can make opportunity attacks with their appropriate inherent abilities, because only allowing them a PC's unarmed attack is silly.
Exactly which abilities are appropriate is GM's call in ambiguous cases, and this is fine.
The fundamental problem is that there should be people with official rules knowledge and a line to the designers here, and elsewhere, and that they should have reference documents on rulings past. Tweeting at Jeremy Crawford and hoping he gives an off-hand answer has never been ideal.
D&D is too big. Actually, even TTRPGs with 1/10th the playerbase are too big to treat clarifications like some form of customer support. No-one wants to hand-hold a few thousand people every day through "how to make sense of a game," at least for a "game" that's all about playing stuff in your imagination and there's no money on the line.
I can't speak for the internet as a whole, but for DDB, it'd need one person who scans rules and general a couple of times a day, and answers unanswered or badly-answered questions where needed.
We already have several people who basically do that, but none of them speak with official voice. (And also some of them don't have a solid model of the rules, so they go awry at times.) They'd likely continue to do so -- people like to be helpful -- and would absorb much of the workload before it happens.
I've done that sort of thing for a much smaller, but more mechanically intricate, game, and it was both comparable in effort and not a big time sink.
Reddit or twitter would be a bigger time sink by far, I admit, but I have no idea how much, because I don't frequent them.
It's doable for D&D because most people just rule on the spot and muddle along. They don't need official word like a competitive game does.
Once they get back to publishing SAC (or something like it), things may get better. And I bet they're intentionally holding off doing that until all 3 books have been out for a little while.
They can't make a SAC without people making rulings. And as they accumulate rulings in a centralized place where people can look it up, the number of questions people will ask will shrink. (Organization and cross-referencing go a long way here.)
I was at one of the local shops last night and there was a group of people talking about this very thread. The consensus of those talking about it was that it was great example of what kept them from using DnDBeyond for rules advice.
Once they get back to publishing SAC (or something like it), things may get better. And I bet they're intentionally holding off doing that until all 3 books have been out for a little while.
Well, they have apparently published errata in the D&D Beyond Changelog and have made changes to the 2024 ruleset (intentionally or unintentionally) within D&D Beyond without publicly documenting them. This is discouraging for the prospect of an official document... "If you want the current rules, just buy from us."
Not all companies publish errata and FAQ. I hope WotC does not go down that route. I am still optimistic for official documents. I think the industry standard is to publish on a new printing, but I hope we don't have to wait that long. The sooner we get official corrections and clarifications, the sooner we don't have to laugh at opportunity attacks from an Ancient Red Dragon dealing 11 damage. (Hey, look! I brought back on topic, sort of.)
The fundamental problem is that there should be people with official rules knowledge and a line to the designers here, and elsewhere, and that they should have reference documents on rulings past. Tweeting at Jeremy Crawford and hoping he gives an off-hand answer has never been ideal.
D&D is too big. Actually, even TTRPGs with 1/10th the playerbase are too big to treat clarifications like some form of customer support. No-one wants to hand-hold a few thousand people every day through "how to make sense of a game," at least for a "game" that's all about playing stuff in your imagination and there's no money on the line.
I can't speak for the internet as a whole, but for DDB, it'd need one person who scans rules and general a couple of times a day, and answers unanswered or badly-answered questions where needed.[...]I've done that sort of thing for a much smaller, but more mechanically intricate, game, and it was both comparable in effort and not a big time sink.
I'm sure just that would be doable. But the moment they start, they'd get a sudden, huge increase in traffic and questions, and it'd go right back to being untenable.
Once they get back to publishing SAC (or something like it), things may get better. And I bet they're intentionally holding off doing that until all 3 books have been out for a little while.
They can't make a SAC without people making rulings. And as they accumulate rulings in a centralized place where people can look it up, the number of questions people will ask will shrink. (Organization and cross-referencing go a long way here.)
oh, totally. I also think they're waiting to (for example) officially release a first round of errata for all 3 books to have been out for awhile.
And it's unclear what form SAC or the like would move forward in. Like, they may need to do a "fresh start" document that still incorporates some of the pre-5.24 rulings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Spellcasting is an example of exception-based rules having an exception -- the exception is that the monster uses the Spellcasting action instead of the Magic action. Just like it's an exception that monsters use named actions to attack with instead of the attack action (except when using multiattack, because what good is it to have exceptions if you don't have exceptions to the exceptions). Everyone who is insisting "the monster must always use the attack action, and the monster's attacks must be legal for the attack action" is missing the concept of exception-based rules.
In 2014, a Mage had a special trait for casting spells, nothing related to the "Cast a Spell" action.
EDIT: Under the 2014 rules, we had the entry I previously quoted in the SAC, and Corrupting Touch was its own action, not a "Cast a Spell" action:
The next article from 2021 explains that Spellcasting has evolved to be its own action for new monsters: https://web.archive.org/web/20240229074356/https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/creature-evolutions (the original article is no longer available, so we need to access it through the Wayback Machine) --- emphasis mine.
That's rich coming from someone who says monsters can't make an Opportunity Attack using "actions" listed in their stat blocks.
The only "action" in its stat block is "Dagger", so what action would you have them use?
@Jounichi1983 Dagger is the only action to use.
EDIT: to cast a spell, a 2014 Mage uses the trait, not an action.
EDIT#2: it's also explained in the article I linked previously.
The reason monsters can't (necessarily) make opportunity attacks using the actions in their stat block is that those actions are not classed as weapon attacks or unarmed strikes, not because they're actions in the stat block.
The fundamental way 5e is written is that you can do something if at least one rule says you can, and no rules say you can't.
Monsters can attack with the actions in their stat block because the rules say they can take actions in their stat block, and there's no rule saying they can't.
Monsters cannot necessarily use those actions for opportunity attacks because the rules for opportunity attacks (in 2024) limit it to weapon and unarmed strikes, and the actions in the monster stat block are not classified as either one. The DM is neither required nor forbidden to classify those attacks into one of those categories, so maybe they're usable... that's a DM call. Note that a 2024 monster can make an opportunity attack according to 2014 rules (because those rules just required a melee attack), and a 2014 monster can make an opportunity attack according to 2024 rules (because its actions are labeled "melee weapon attack"), it's just that a 2024 monster can't make opportunity attacks under 2024 rules.
Why did 2024 change the opportunity attack rules? At a guess, it was to allow trip and grapple as an opportunity attack (they aren't attacks, so not legal per 2014 rules) and someone didn't notice that this rules change, combined with the layout change where monster attacks are no longer listed as "melee weapon attack", just "melee attack", breaks monsters.
You guys are internet famous (sort of).
I was at one of the local shops last night and there was a group of people talking about this very thread. The consensus of those talking about it was that it was great example of what kept them from using DnDBeyond for rules advice.
Keep up the good work lol.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
No. That doesn't make any sense.
If the default was live or die. Right. Two options.
But then necromancer steps into the field of play and has rules that says in addition to the normal options they can also undeath.
Now you're over here arguing that undeath is either living or dying. But... it isn't either. It is the 3rd extra option that the rules added for us.
Same going on with monster attacks.
Normally you can make an Attack with a Weapon or Unarmed attacks. Anyone can.
Then the monster manual tells us creatures have extra options besides those. Like how that mage can Arcane Burst.
Now you over here trying to figure out which Arcane Burst is, weapon or Unarmed. Meanwhile, the obvious answer is staring you right in the face: it is an Arcane Burst. The 3rd option the mage has. In ADDITION to making attacks with weapons or making unarmed attacks it can ALSO Arcane Burst.
Naw
I'm not.
It is.
Right, because they have a feature that specifically modifies default Unarmed Attack mechanics to allow their Unarmed attacks with Talons to deal higher base damage.
A feature monsters in the monster manual lack.
If they had a feature like the Aarakocra, sure, that'd be true. I've said this several times. It could have been written that way.
It wasn't written that way.
No, it isn't. Because it is neither.
The rules would say if it was either. They don't, because it isn't.
It is usable as part of the Attack action because the rules in the monster manual tell us it can be used in addition to normal options for attack actions.
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's all in how you ask the question.
The same at ours. The consensus (with no one in opposition) was the DDB forums were the worst place to look for rules advice other than finding the occasional 'official' post as a reference.
LOL.
Visiting D&D Beyond for the First Time.
How to add Tooltips.
The fundamental problem is that there should be people with official rules knowledge and a line to the designers here, and elsewhere, and that they should have reference documents on rulings past. Tweeting at Jeremy Crawford and hoping he gives an off-hand answer has never been ideal.
But also the rules culture around D&D on-line is kind of dysfunctional. People try to treat the game like it's Magic, where there has to be one clearly correct Official Answer.
And it just isn't. It can't be. RAW is somewhat useful to establish to give everyone a baseline, but it's way more limited in scope than people try to make it. The actual RAW answer is often "there is no RAW", or "RAW is unclear". And those answers are adequate (though 'unclear' is not ideal). The GM can rule for their table and everything's fine. Usually there's only one way to rule that even makes sense.
This thread is an example. We're firmly in the space of "there's only one way to rule that makes sense", but people are busy making the sort of arguments that, if their players persistently tried them on at the table, would end in "rocks fall, everybody dies". Maybe I'm wrong, and they really would rule that monsters without weapons can't make useful opportunity attacks. It's their table; they can rule as they wish, but trying to convince people that that is what the rules unequivocally say is... a choice.
And I am a giant rules nerd, and I can argue minutia, and I have done so. But my objective is primarily to establish what the baseline is, and secondarily to discuss how you can or should rule when the baseline doesn't exist. (I have, I'm sure, not always held to that ideal. Sometimes somebody is wrong on the internet, and I am as vulnerable to that lure as many people.)
Ok, the debate on whether or not this is RAW is understandable, but can we please just agree that RAI, monsters can make opportunity attacks?
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!
It probably is. But we've gotten very little communication from the designers on 5.24 details like this, so we're just guessing at RAI.
(Though, the fact that most everyone "knows" it's RAI from nothing more than reading the main text and applying basic sense is a pretty good sign that it might be RAW.)
D&D is too big. Actually, even TTRPGs with 1/10th the playerbase are too big to treat clarifications like some form of customer support. No-one wants to hand-hold a few thousand people every day through "how to make sense of a game," at least for a "game" that's all about playing stuff in your imagination and there's no money on the line.
Once they get back to publishing SAC (or something like it), things may get better. And I bet they're intentionally holding off doing that until all 3 books have been out for a little while.
Sometimes people like to "score points" by calling into question the designers/writers/publishers' competencies. Maybe they think they'll get noticed and hired.
"Someone on the internet is wrong!" isn't usually helpful discourse, especially when trying to argue that the game rules are just "broken" and can't mean what they "intend." That's disfunctional.
RAW, they may make opportunity attacks.
RAI (and probably also W), they can make opportunity attacks with their appropriate inherent abilities, because only allowing them a PC's unarmed attack is silly.
Exactly which abilities are appropriate is GM's call in ambiguous cases, and this is fine.
Agreed
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!
I can't speak for the internet as a whole, but for DDB, it'd need one person who scans rules and general a couple of times a day, and answers unanswered or badly-answered questions where needed.
We already have several people who basically do that, but none of them speak with official voice. (And also some of them don't have a solid model of the rules, so they go awry at times.) They'd likely continue to do so -- people like to be helpful -- and would absorb much of the workload before it happens.
I've done that sort of thing for a much smaller, but more mechanically intricate, game, and it was both comparable in effort and not a big time sink.
Reddit or twitter would be a bigger time sink by far, I admit, but I have no idea how much, because I don't frequent them.
It's doable for D&D because most people just rule on the spot and muddle along. They don't need official word like a competitive game does.
They can't make a SAC without people making rulings. And as they accumulate rulings in a centralized place where people can look it up, the number of questions people will ask will shrink. (Organization and cross-referencing go a long way here.)
......what have I done
All because of a constructs comment...
Blank
Well, they have apparently published errata in the D&D Beyond Changelog and have made changes to the 2024 ruleset (intentionally or unintentionally) within D&D Beyond without publicly documenting them. This is discouraging for the prospect of an official document... "If you want the current rules, just buy from us."
Not all companies publish errata and FAQ. I hope WotC does not go down that route. I am still optimistic for official documents. I think the industry standard is to publish on a new printing, but I hope we don't have to wait that long. The sooner we get official corrections and clarifications, the sooner we don't have to laugh at opportunity attacks from an Ancient Red Dragon dealing 11 damage. (Hey, look! I brought back on topic, sort of.)
How to add Tooltips.
I'm sure just that would be doable. But the moment they start, they'd get a sudden, huge increase in traffic and questions, and it'd go right back to being untenable.
oh, totally. I also think they're waiting to (for example) officially release a first round of errata for all 3 books to have been out for awhile.
And it's unclear what form SAC or the like would move forward in. Like, they may need to do a "fresh start" document that still incorporates some of the pre-5.24 rulings.