I didn't include the rest because it wasn't relevant. We don't need definitions of what Damage, Grapple, and Shove options are. We are talking about the creature using its body to do those things.
What you've cited is a general rule in the Player's Handbook. The rules of the game are also exception-based. Meaning, a general rule only applies so long as nothing more specific contradicts it. The Tavern Brawler feat grants an exception which allows an Unarmed Strike to also, once per turn, Push a target. That doesn't mean an Unarmed Strike stops being an Unarmed Strike because it can check off two bullets. If you were to order mashed potatoes with gravy as a side dish at a restaurant, you'd still be eating mashed potatoes. The gravy wouldn't transubstantiate the side into something else.
Every creature making a Melee Attack Roll is either using something it's wielding, like a weapon, or part of its body to make that Opportunity Attack. It simply doesn't matter if there's another sentence with an addendum; whether that creature is a Tough Boss or Wolf. Just as an attack with a weapon can have an unspecified Trait or Weapon Mastery applied, an Unarmed Strike can have a rider effect and still be an Unarmed Strike.
It is entirely relevant, because those rules say specifically what an Unarmed Strike is.
If you have Tavern Brawler, that is a feat that specifically affects your Unarmed Strike. It is not the same thing as claiming an attack that doesn't fall into one of the listed types of Unarmed Strike is in fact an Unarmed Strike, just because you say it is.
You have no understanding of the rules you're trying to defend, from a company that released a half-baked product trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It doesn't make you a stupid person to acknowledge that there is a clear mistake here. It doesn't make you less of a person to admit the error. There is literally no one paying you to rabidly defend WotC in spite of objective reality.
Tone down the rhetoric, sport. This isn't rocket science. I just think people need to actually read the Rules Glossary before complaining about something that is fairly straightforward.
An Unarmed Strike is, "a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you." It doesn't matter which option they choose, and it doesn't matter if one of those options also includes a secondary effect. Even the names of some of these attacks employ artistic license. The Air Elemental has a Thunderous Slam, and "slam" can be either a noun or verb. We're talking about something made of air, yet is still solid enough that something solid, like a weapon, can harm it. As far as any reasonable person should be concerned, such an attack is a part of the elemental's body.
The only alternative is a mythical third rail that isn't implied anywhere in the rules. You'd literally have to invent that out of whole cloth. It takes effort to be that obtuse.
Yeah. Absent a feature, that modifies how unarmed attacks are to work, it cannot be said that creature attacks - which DONT work like unarmed attacks do - can be said to be unarmed attacks with no justification for that declaration.
Some character species options modify unarmed attacks. Some class features do. Some feats do. All sorts of ways to modify the functionality of an unarmed attack to be better than 1 + str.
But the unavoidable fact is creatures lack said features. They're just not in their stat blocks. So their use of unarmed attacks is the default unarmed attack rules.
This might seem controversial, but an Unarmed Strike doesn't need to be labeled an Unarmed Strike in order to be an Unarmed Strike. The Allosaurus has a Bite attack, as does the Dire Wolf, but only the latter has one with a rider effect.
Is labeling both those an Unarmed Strike honestly a bridge too far?
Uh, yes. Making something up whole cloth and pretending the rules says it, is indeed a bridge too far.
Neither of those work like the unarmed attack mechanics work as described by the actual rules. So they're not unarmed attacks.
Is someone seriously trying to suggest something can't be an Unarmed Strike if it does A+B?
Come on, folks.
A. It isn't called an unarmed strike.
B. It doesn't work like unarmed strike.
So yeah, A + B means it ain't an unarmed attack.
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.
-Monsters have actions player characters can't take, per the Monster Manual
-Monster attacks aren't even bound by the same damage dice as player characters when using weapons that are defined as able to be picked up, per the Monster Manual
-Every creature is explicitly stated to be able to make Opportunity Attacks, per the PHB
It would make absolutely no sense to state that monsters can't use their standard attacks as Opportunity Attacks. Anyone genuinely arguing for that stance doesn't know what they're talking about, and anyone arguing for it but actually using those as Opportunity Attacks anyway is just arguing to argue.
The easy, clean answer: Even if it isn't a weapon like players can equip, the attacks count as weapons or unarmed strikes. The riders show up differently because that's how monsters are designed, plain and simple.
Do you really think any of the people in this thread claiming it's "RAW" that monsters can't make opportunity attacks with their claws or whatever will actually play that way at their tables?
If you're asking my opinion, then no. I don't think they will. And I also don't think it's needed. Rules don't need to be logically unassailable from every conceivable angle. They just need to say what they do. And there's value in being concise, just like there is value in being comprehensive.
Do you really think any of the people in this thread claiming it's "RAW" that monsters can't make opportunity attacks with their claws or whatever will actually play that way at their tables?
You wind up with oddities with whether creatures are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks (can a mage use arcane burst for an opportunity attack?), but I expect most people will just ignore RAW. However, "everyone has to house rule this because RAW is insane" is not good design.
Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.
For the purpose of discussions in the Rules & Game Mechanics forum, SAC is considered RAW. That has been true since it was published, and the clarification I have received is that is still considered RAW for 2024 rules discussions.
Therefore, RAW, Monsters can make Attacks of Opportunity as long as their profile includes natural weapons, manufactured weapons, or unarmed strikes.
Edit: Additionally, to make an attack with its natural weapons, the monster must take the Attack which only allows attacks with weapons and unarmed strikes.
Do you really think any of the people in this thread claiming it's "RAW" that monsters can't make opportunity attacks with their claws or whatever will actually play that way at their tables?
You wind up with oddities with whether creatures are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks (can a mage use arcane burst for an opportunity attack?), but I expect most people will just ignore RAW. However, "everyone has to house rule this because RAW is insane" is not good design.
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)
At worst, that makes it a rule that has not been replaced.
Monsters attack with the Attack which only allows weapon and unarmed strikes.
The Sage Advice Compendium ruling still stands as there is no contradiction with the 2024/2025 rules.
It's a rule that's been removed, not a rule that's been replaced.
Monsters attack with the actions in their stat block. There is an implication that multiattack is the attack action, but even if so, multiattack specifically permits using every ability in the multiattack, and that overrides the normal restrictions of the attack action.
No contradiction does not mean relevant. If SAC refers to a rule that doesn't exist in 2024, that particular components of SAC no longer has meaning.
I didn't include the rest because it wasn't relevant. We don't need definitions of what Damage, Grapple, and Shove options are. We are talking about the creature using its body to do those things.
What you've cited is a general rule in the Player's Handbook. The rules of the game are also exception-based. Meaning, a general rule only applies so long as nothing more specific contradicts it. The Tavern Brawler feat grants an exception which allows an Unarmed Strike to also, once per turn, Push a target. That doesn't mean an Unarmed Strike stops being an Unarmed Strike because it can check off two bullets. If you were to order mashed potatoes with gravy as a side dish at a restaurant, you'd still be eating mashed potatoes. The gravy wouldn't transubstantiate the side into something else.
Every creature making a Melee Attack Roll is either using something it's wielding, like a weapon, or part of its body to make that Opportunity Attack. It simply doesn't matter if there's another sentence with an addendum; whether that creature is a Tough Boss or Wolf. Just as an attack with a weapon can have an unspecified Trait or Weapon Mastery applied, an Unarmed Strike can have a rider effect and still be an Unarmed Strike.
It is entirely relevant, because those rules say specifically what an Unarmed Strike is.
If you have Tavern Brawler, that is a feat that specifically affects your Unarmed Strike. It is not the same thing as claiming an attack that doesn't fall into one of the listed types of Unarmed Strike is in fact an Unarmed Strike, just because you say it is.
You have no understanding of the rules you're trying to defend, from a company that released a half-baked product trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It doesn't make you a stupid person to acknowledge that there is a clear mistake here. It doesn't make you less of a person to admit the error. There is literally no one paying you to rabidly defend WotC in spite of objective reality.
Tone down the rhetoric, sport. This isn't rocket science. I just think people need to actually read the Rules Glossary before complaining about something that is fairly straightforward.
An Unarmed Strike is, "a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you." It doesn't matter which option they choose, and it doesn't matter if one of those options also includes a secondary effect. Even the names of some of these attacks employ artistic license. The Air Elemental has a Thunderous Slam, and "slam" can be either a noun or verb. We're talking about something made of air, yet is still solid enough that something solid, like a weapon, can harm it. As far as any reasonable person should be concerned, such an attack is a part of the elemental's body.
The only alternative is a mythical third rail that isn't implied anywhere in the rules. You'd literally have to invent that out of whole cloth. It takes effort to be that obtuse.
Yeah. Absent a feature, that modifies how unarmed attacks are to work, it cannot be said that creature attacks - which DONT work like unarmed attacks do - can be said to be unarmed attacks with no justification for that declaration.
Some character species options modify unarmed attacks. Some class features do. Some feats do. All sorts of ways to modify the functionality of an unarmed attack to be better than 1 + str.
But the unavoidable fact is creatures lack said features. They're just not in their stat blocks. So their use of unarmed attacks is the default unarmed attack rules.
This might seem controversial, but an Unarmed Strike doesn't need to be labeled an Unarmed Strike in order to be an Unarmed Strike. The Allosaurus has a Bite attack, as does the Dire Wolf, but only the latter has one with a rider effect.
Is labeling both those an Unarmed Strike honestly a bridge too far?
Uh, yes. Making something up whole cloth and pretending the rules says it, is indeed a bridge too far.
Neither of those work like the unarmed attack mechanics work as described by the actual rules. So they're not unarmed attacks.
Is someone seriously trying to suggest something can't be an Unarmed Strike if it does A+B?
Come on, folks.
A. It isn't called an unarmed strike.
B. It doesn't work like unarmed strike.
So yeah, A + B means it ain't an unarmed attack.
Explain, because I think the entire class would love to know how a bite isn't attacking with part of your body.
Monsters attack with the actions in their stat block. There is an implication that multiattack is the attack action, but even if so, multiattack specifically permits using every ability in the multiattack, and that overrides the normal restrictions of the attack action.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity attacks, which explicitly state that they consist of one (1) melee attack made as a Reaction
To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack
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)
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity attacks, which explicitly state that they consist of one (1) melee attack made as a Reaction
Um... that's not what opportunity attacks actually says (and if it did say that, you could use shocking grasp to make opportunity attacks without a feat).
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity attacks, which explicitly state that they consist of one (1) melee attack made as a Reaction
Um... that's not what opportunity attacks actually says (and if it did say that, you could use shocking grasp to make opportunity attacks without a feat).
You're the one dragging multiattack into this for no reason
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)
At worst, that makes it a rule that has not been replaced.
Monsters attack with the Attack which only allows weapon and unarmed strikes.
The Sage Advice Compendium ruling still stands as there is no contradiction with the 2024/2025 rules.
It's a rule that's been removed, not a rule that's been replaced.
Monsters attack with the actions in their stat block. There is an implication that multiattack is the attack action, but even if so, multiattack specifically permits using every ability in the multiattack, and that overrides the normal restrictions of the attack action.
No contradiction does not mean relevant. If SAC refers to a rule that doesn't exist in 2024, that particular components of SAC no longer has meaning.
The 2014 rules were explicit on what a natural weapon is. No longer being explicit is not the same as removing or replacing the rule.
Some creatures can make more than one attack when they take the Attack action. Such creatures have the Multiattack entry in the “Actions” section of their stat block. This entry details the attacks a creature can make, as well as any additional abilities it can use, as part of the Attack action.
You have to take the attack action for Multiattack to do anything.
The 2014 rules were explicit on what a natural weapon is. No longer being explicit is not the same as removing or replacing the rule.
A natural weapon is something that is listed in a stat block as a natural weapon. No creatures in 2024 have a natural weapon listed in their stat block.
You have to take the attack action for Multiattack to do anything.
Yes, but the normal restrictions on what you can do with an attack action do not apply -- you can do the things listed in the multiattack action even if they would not normally be permitted.
The 2014 rules were explicit on what a natural weapon is. No longer being explicit is not the same as removing or replacing the rule.
A natural weapon is something that is listed in a stat block as a natural weapon. No creatures in 2024 have a natural weapon listed in their stat block.
No creatures in 2014 have a natural weapon listed in their stat block.
You have to take the attack action for Multiattack to do anything.
Yes, but the normal restrictions on what you can do with an attack action do not apply -- you can do the things listed in the multiattack action even if they would not normally be permitted.
The restrictions still apply to the Attack action. The multiattack trait (it is not an action) modifies the Attack action, but it is not always there.
You have to take the attack action for Multiattack to do anything.
Yes, but the normal restrictions on what you can do with an attack action do not apply -- you can do the things listed in the multiattack action even if they would not normally be permitted.
The restrictions still apply to the Attack action. The multiattack trait (it is not an action) modifies the Attack action, but it is not always there.
Someone should probably tell the design team, because Multiattack keeps getting listed with Actions and not Traits.
You have to take the attack action for Multiattack to do anything.
Yes, but the normal restrictions on what you can do with an attack action do not apply -- you can do the things listed in the multiattack action even if they would not normally be permitted.
The restrictions still apply to the Attack action. The multiattack trait (it is not an action) modifies the Attack action, but it is not always there.
Someone should probably tell the design team, because Multiattack keeps getting listed with Actions and not Traits.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You have to take the attack action for Multiattack to do anything.
Yes, but the normal restrictions on what you can do with an attack action do not apply -- you can do the things listed in the multiattack action even if they would not normally be permitted.
The restrictions still apply to the Attack action. The multiattack trait (it is not an action) modifies the Attack action, but it is not always there.
Someone should probably tell the design team, because Multiattack keeps getting listed with Actions and not Traits.
Uh, yes. Making something up whole cloth and pretending the rules says it, is indeed a bridge too far.
Neither of those work like the unarmed attack mechanics work as described by the actual rules. So they're not unarmed attacks.
A. It isn't called an unarmed strike.
B. It doesn't work like unarmed strike.
So yeah, A + B means it ain't an unarmed attack.
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.
Why are y'all still on this?
-Monsters have actions player characters can't take, per the Monster Manual
-Monster attacks aren't even bound by the same damage dice as player characters when using weapons that are defined as able to be picked up, per the Monster Manual
-Every creature is explicitly stated to be able to make Opportunity Attacks, per the PHB
It would make absolutely no sense to state that monsters can't use their standard attacks as Opportunity Attacks. Anyone genuinely arguing for that stance doesn't know what they're talking about, and anyone arguing for it but actually using those as Opportunity Attacks anyway is just arguing to argue.
The easy, clean answer: Even if it isn't a weapon like players can equip, the attacks count as weapons or unarmed strikes. The riders show up differently because that's how monsters are designed, plain and simple.
If you're asking my opinion, then no. I don't think they will. And I also don't think it's needed. Rules don't need to be logically unassailable from every conceivable angle. They just need to say what they do. And there's value in being concise, just like there is value in being comprehensive.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You wind up with oddities with whether creatures are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks (can a mage use arcane burst for an opportunity attack?), but I expect most people will just ignore RAW. However, "everyone has to house rule this because RAW is insane" is not good design.
Natural Weapons are Weapons and not Unarmed Strikes.
Sage Advice Compendium: Are natural weapons considered weapons?
Related: The SAC is still RAW for the 2024 rules.
Therefore, RAW, Monsters can make Attacks of Opportunity as long as their profile includes natural weapons, manufactured weapons, or unarmed strikes.
Edit: Additionally, to make an attack with its natural weapons, the monster must take the Attack which only allows attacks with weapons and unarmed strikes.
How to add Tooltips.
Which is irrelevant in 2024 since 'weapon attack' (natural or otherwise) is missing from creature stat blocks.
How to add Tooltips.
Yes, they can, and no, that's not "odd"
Would you prefer they use cone of cold?
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)
Explain, because I think the entire class would love to know how a bite isn't attacking with part of your body.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity attacks, which explicitly state that they consist of one (1) melee attack made as a Reaction
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)
Um... that's not what opportunity attacks actually says (and if it did say that, you could use shocking grasp to make opportunity attacks without a feat).
You're the one dragging multiattack into this for no reason
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)
I was addressing the assertion that monsters use the attack action.
The 2014 rules were explicit on what a natural weapon is. No longer being explicit is not the same as removing or replacing the rule.
Multiattack modifies the Attack action.
Multiattack
You have to take the attack action for Multiattack to do anything.
How to add Tooltips.
A natural weapon is something that is listed in a stat block as a natural weapon. No creatures in 2024 have a natural weapon listed in their stat block.
Yes, but the normal restrictions on what you can do with an attack action do not apply -- you can do the things listed in the multiattack action even if they would not normally be permitted.
No creatures in 2014 have a natural weapon listed in their stat block.
The restrictions still apply to the Attack action. The multiattack trait (it is not an action) modifies the Attack action, but it is not always there.
How to add Tooltips.
Someone should probably tell the design team, because Multiattack keeps getting listed with Actions and not Traits.
It might be listed there for convenience, but as Smite noted all of one page ago, it's not an Action
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)
The Monster Manual, and literally every stat block, says otherwise.