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.
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.
But not with listed attacks. Only with weapons or unarmed 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.
Just RAI. They changed the way several key rules were written and this is all probably a mistake they didn't intend. It is unlikely they meant for it to be played how it is written.
Exactly which abilities are appropriate is GM's call in ambiguous cases, and this is fine.
Yeah the reason this isn't going to be an issue in actual play is that the GM controls monsters anyway, so they can/cant do whatever he feels like. Regardless what RAW says.
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.
Yeah the reason this isn't going to be an issue in actual play is that the GM controls monsters anyway, so they can/cant do whatever he feels like. Regardless what RAW says.
I mean, a DM can just write "The monster can make opportunity attacks with X" on the monster's character sheet. The only time it's an actual problem is for player-controlled entities -- for example, can a moon druid use its wild shape's attacks as opportunity attacks (RAI, probably), can a beastmaster ranger's animal companion make opportunity attacks with Beast's Strike? (RAI, probably but not entirely sure? It's using spell attack modifier, which would normally be the kind of thing that didn't allow opportunity attacks).
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.
But not with listed attacks. Only with weapons or unarmed 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.
Just RAI. They changed the way several key rules were written and this is all probably a mistake they didn't intend. It is unlikely they meant for it to be played how it is written.
Yeah, we're on page 13 of the thread of people arguing it, so it can be safely concluded that RAW is not that cut and dried.
If the RAW is unclear, we're firmly in the zone of "you could rule it that way, but why would you want to?"
In this case, even if the RAW were clear, virtually nobody would rule it that way. If the designers made a public statement that your reading was the way they intended it to be, virtually nobody would do it that way. Even if the book actually said it outright, very few would rule it that way.
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.
But not with listed attacks. Only with weapons or unarmed 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.
Just RAI. They changed the way several key rules were written and this is all probably a mistake they didn't intend. It is unlikely they meant for it to be played how it is written.
Yeah, we're on page 13 of the thread of people arguing it, so it can be safely concluded that RAW is not that cut and dried.
RAW is always cut and dry. It is just a matter of reading what is written.
Often, people mistakenly bring in outside information to that process. What they expect it to do. What they want it to do. What they think would work better.
And you should do all those things when adjudicating the rules in actual practice. Those are good things to do.
They just happen to be irrelevant to what the RAW is.
If the RAW is unclear, we're firmly in the zone of "you could rule it that way, but why would you want to?"
Well, I'm of the mind that you shouldn't limit your rulings to what is or isn't RAW anyway. The world is your oyster, make up whatever rules you and your friends like. So we're always in the "you could rule it anyway you want" territory as far as I'm concerned. Half the RAW are silly if you really think about em for a while.
In this case, even if the RAW were clear, virtually nobody would rule it that way. If the designers made a public statement that your reading was the way they intended it to be, virtually nobody would do it that way. Even if the book actually said it outright, very few would rule it that way.
I believe it just happens to be very helpful to know what the rules actually say before you go modifying or editing them. That's all. And that's where RAW comes in handy. Looking at the blueprints of the game so you can make smart choices about how to tinker, and ensure your changes have the effect you expect them to. And everyone at the table expects too.
Knowing what the RAW is is inherently valuable even if you deviate from it, maybe especially if you deviate from it.
That aside, I think if they made it clear that not only is this RAW but also RAI and erratad the book to add a statement to that effect... a LOT of people would fall in line very quickly. RAI is king.
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.
Yeah, we're on page 13 of the thread of people arguing it, so it can be safely concluded that RAW is not that cut and dried.
RAW is always cut and dry. It is just a matter of reading what is written.
No, it really is not.
It is often quite clear, and sometimes can be made clear with some careful analysis, but the English language is not a formal logical system. People can and do disagree on interpretation.
The 5e rules (both versions) are also often not written first and foremost with rigor in mind. (And even if it were, there would still be places where it's ambiguous, because English, and because the writers are human, and because the number of possible interactions are immense.)
And if you're basing your argument on pulling together rules from separate parts of the book, none of which directly touch upon the question, that's not RAW; it's interpretation.
And interpretation is fine. But it's not RAW. And these absurdly prolonged rules threads usually come from people arguing their interpretations while insisting it's RAW.
Yeah, we're on page 13 of the thread of people arguing it, so it can be safely concluded that RAW is not that cut and dried.
RAW is always cut and dry. It is just a matter of reading what is written.
No, it really is not.
It is often quite clear, and sometimes can be made clear with some careful analysis, but the English language is not a formal logical system. People can and do disagree on interpretation.
The 5e rules (both versions) are also often not written first and foremost with rigor in mind. (And even if it were, there would still be places where it's ambiguous, because English, and because the writers are human, and because the number of possible interactions are immense.)
And if you're basing your argument on pulling together rules from separate parts of the book, none of which directly touch upon the question, that's not RAW; it's interpretation.
And interpretation is fine. But it's not RAW. And these absurdly prolonged rules threads usually come from people arguing their interpretations while insisting it's RAW.
None of this precludes RAW being cut and dry. Nor is how-cut-and-dry-is-raw the subject of the thread. So entire comments dedicated to that topic belong in their own post.
My point was that most of the back and forth on this subject has been misunderstanding, or misapplication of preconceived notions of how it should work. Or what the intent was. Or no one plays like that. Or, well if you apply 2014 rulings to it... etc.
There isn't a strictly RAW counterargument in all 13 of those pages.
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.
What actions can monsters use to make Opportunity Attack? Are Multiattack and breath weapon actions allowed?
When making an Opportunity Attack, a monster can make any single melee attack listed in its stat block. A monster also has the option to make an Unarmed Strike as an Opportunity Attack, following the normal rules of an Unarmed Strike.
An action, such as a breath weapon effect, that doesn’t include a melee attack roll isn’t eligible to be chosen for an Opportunity Attack. Additionally, a monster can’t use its Multiattack when making an Opportunity Attack, because the use of Multiattack specifically predicates on taking the Attack action, and an Opportunity Attack takes a Reaction.
What have you done?
Look what I started!
But not with listed attacks. Only with weapons or unarmed attacks.
Just RAI. They changed the way several key rules were written and this is all probably a mistake they didn't intend. It is unlikely they meant for it to be played how it is written.
Yeah the reason this isn't going to be an issue in actual play is that the GM controls monsters anyway, so they can/cant do whatever he feels like. Regardless what RAW says.
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 mean, a DM can just write "The monster can make opportunity attacks with X" on the monster's character sheet. The only time it's an actual problem is for player-controlled entities -- for example, can a moon druid use its wild shape's attacks as opportunity attacks (RAI, probably), can a beastmaster ranger's animal companion make opportunity attacks with Beast's Strike? (RAI, probably but not entirely sure? It's using spell attack modifier, which would normally be the kind of thing that didn't allow opportunity attacks).
Yeah, we're on page 13 of the thread of people arguing it, so it can be safely concluded that RAW is not that cut and dried.
I believe I have made my thoughts clear, and don't have any interest in arguing it further.
If the RAW is unclear, we're firmly in the zone of "you could rule it that way, but why would you want to?"
In this case, even if the RAW were clear, virtually nobody would rule it that way. If the designers made a public statement that your reading was the way they intended it to be, virtually nobody would do it that way. Even if the book actually said it outright, very few would rule it that way.
RAW is always cut and dry. It is just a matter of reading what is written.
Often, people mistakenly bring in outside information to that process. What they expect it to do. What they want it to do. What they think would work better.
And you should do all those things when adjudicating the rules in actual practice. Those are good things to do.
They just happen to be irrelevant to what the RAW is.
You needn't feel compelled to reply.
Well, I'm of the mind that you shouldn't limit your rulings to what is or isn't RAW anyway. The world is your oyster, make up whatever rules you and your friends like. So we're always in the "you could rule it anyway you want" territory as far as I'm concerned. Half the RAW are silly if you really think about em for a while.
I believe it just happens to be very helpful to know what the rules actually say before you go modifying or editing them. That's all. And that's where RAW comes in handy. Looking at the blueprints of the game so you can make smart choices about how to tinker, and ensure your changes have the effect you expect them to. And everyone at the table expects too.
Knowing what the RAW is is inherently valuable even if you deviate from it, maybe especially if you deviate from it.
That aside, I think if they made it clear that not only is this RAW but also RAI and erratad the book to add a statement to that effect... a LOT of people would fall in line very quickly. RAI is king.
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.
No, it really is not.
It is often quite clear, and sometimes can be made clear with some careful analysis, but the English language is not a formal logical system. People can and do disagree on interpretation.
The 5e rules (both versions) are also often not written first and foremost with rigor in mind. (And even if it were, there would still be places where it's ambiguous, because English, and because the writers are human, and because the number of possible interactions are immense.)
And if you're basing your argument on pulling together rules from separate parts of the book, none of which directly touch upon the question, that's not RAW; it's interpretation.
And interpretation is fine. But it's not RAW. And these absurdly prolonged rules threads usually come from people arguing their interpretations while insisting it's RAW.
None of this precludes RAW being cut and dry. Nor is how-cut-and-dry-is-raw the subject of the thread. So entire comments dedicated to that topic belong in their own post.
My point was that most of the back and forth on this subject has been misunderstanding, or misapplication of preconceived notions of how it should work. Or what the intent was. Or no one plays like that. Or, well if you apply 2014 rulings to it... etc.
There isn't a strictly RAW counterargument in all 13 of those pages.
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.
The new Sage Advice Compendium official ruling;
Oh thank goodness.
pronouns: he/she/they