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.
Source? Everything seems to point to it being an action, including the Monster Manual itself:
"Multiattack
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."
An entry in the Actions part of a stat block seems like it would be an Action the creature can take. Now, it does specify that it uses the Attack action. However, that's splitting hairs, as you wouldn't say that a single attack is a trait instead of an action. Rather, it's one of several options with the Attack action.
From what I understand, in the 2014 MM, Multiattack was an action (a special one for monsters, if you prefer), but in the 2024 MM, Multiattack is once again an action, but now it's part of the Attack action..
If it helps in some way:
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 Monster Manual, and literally every stat block, says otherwise.
Incorrect
Multiattack
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.
This is essentially the same language used for PCs
Level 5: Extra Attack
You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
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.
Incorrect
Multiattack
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.
This is essentially the same language used for PCs
Level 5: Extra Attack
You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Is "Extra Attack" an action?
"Multiattack" is listed under Actions in the Monster Manual, which is where it appears in every stat block it appears in.
So, I'm not really sure where you, or Smite, are going with this.
The Monster Manual, and literally every stat block, says otherwise.
Incorrect
Multiattack
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.
This is essentially the same language used for PCs
Level 5: Extra Attack
You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Is "Extra Attack" an action?
"Multiattack" is listed under Actions in the Monster Manual, which is where it appears in every stat block it appears in.
So, I'm not really sure where you, or Smite, are going with this.
And it is explicitly not described as an action, but instead as a modifier on the Attack action
Like, that's what it says. I'm not really sure where you're going with denying the actual text of the rules
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)
The Monster Manual, and literally every stat block, says otherwise.
Incorrect
Multiattack
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.
This is essentially the same language used for PCs
Level 5: Extra Attack
You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Is "Extra Attack" an action?
"Multiattack" is listed under Actions in the Monster Manual, which is where it appears in every stat block it appears in.
So, I'm not really sure where you, or Smite, are going with this.
And it is explicitly not described as an action, but instead as a modifier on the Attack action
Like, that's what it says. I'm not really sure where you're going with denying the actual text of the rules
Under your own logic, casting a spell with a time of 1 Action isn't an action, it's a trait, because it falls under the Magic action...
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.
If a monster has a trait that says it can do X... it can do X. This is true whether you interpret the action it's using as the one listed on the monster's stat sheet, the attack action, the magic action, or anything else, regardless of the normal limits of that action.
Under your own logic, casting a spell with a time of 1 Action isn't an action, it's a trait, because it falls under the Magic action...
The Action used when you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action is the Magic action, yes. That's how the rules work
What Action do you take when you use Extra Attack, or Multiattack?
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)
What Action do you take when you use Extra Attack, or Multiattack?
Creatures can use either generic actions (e.g. attack) or specific named actions. If a creature uses a specific named action... it's using that action.
What Action do you take when you use Extra Attack, or Multiattack?
Creatures can use either generic actions (e.g. attack) or specific named actions. If a creature uses a specific named action... it's using that action.
You didn't answer the question, but that's fine because it's irrelevant to a discussion of opportunity attacks anyway, as I said a couple pages ago
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)
Under your own logic, casting a spell with a time of 1 Action isn't an action, it's a trait, because it falls under the Magic action...
Wizards don't take the Cast Fire Bolt action, they take the Magic action to cast Fire Bolt.
Fighters don't take the Extra Attack action, they take the Attack and benefit from the Extra Attack feature, giving them extra attacks as part of the Attack action.
Eldritch Knights don't take the War Magic action, they take the Attack and benefit from the War Magic feature, giving them additional options as part of the Attack action.
Monsters don't take the Multiattack action, they take the Attack and benefit from the Multiattack feature, giving them additional options and/or attacks as part of the Attack action.
The Multiattack action isn't an action. It's a feature that affects the actions that the Monster can take. I can see how the organization can be confusing, but if you ready the feature, you will see that you must use the Attack action to use it. When you use it, you are therefore restricted by the restrictions of the Attack action except where contradicted by the Multiattack entry. War Magic is probably a better comparison than Extra Attack.
When you use it, you are therefore restricted by the restrictions of the Attack action except where contradicted by the Multiattack entry.
The Multiattack entry is either its own action, or completely overrides the attack action. In either case, the restrictions on the attack action do not apply.
When you use it, you are therefore restricted by the restrictions of the Attack action except where contradicted by the Multiattack entry.
The Multiattack entry is either its own action, or completely overrides the attack action. In either case, the restrictions on the attack action do not apply.
It only overrides the portions of the Attack that it explicitly overrides. For example, Equipping and Unequipping Weapons and Moving Between Attacks are not overridden. The only thing overridden is generally the one portion of "When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike."
It only overrides the portions of the Attack that it explicitly overrides. For example, Equipping and Unequipping Weapons and Moving Between Attacks are not overridden. The only thing overridden is generally the one portion of "When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike."
So, it only overrides the portion that is relevant to this discussion?
Wow, what’s the point of discussing whether a creature/monster with multi-attack, which by the way is the same as a PC with Extra Attacks, uses the attack action?
The point of the OP question was does a creatures Natural Weapons still count as a weapon attack or an unarmed strike when it comes to Attacks of Opportunity. Natural weapons count for AoO attacks, no Multi-attack can’t be used, only a single attack can be used in AoO’s, and a DM has to rule it on the fly. This is why SAC and other third party sources shouldn’t be allowed in debates on what the rules should mean, as now it all boils down to someone being stuck on semantics.
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.
Wow, what’s the point of discussing whether a creature/monster with multi-attack, which by the way is the same as a PC with Extra Attacks, uses the attack action?
The point of the OP question was does a creatures Natural Weapons still count as a weapon attack or an unarmed strike when it comes to Attacks of Opportunity. Natural weapons count for AoO attacks, no Multi-attack can’t be used, only a single attack can be used in AoO’s, and a DM has to rule it on the fly. This is why SAC and other third party sources shouldn’t be allowed in debates on what the rules should mean, as now it all boils down to someone being stuck on semantics.
Wow, what’s the point of discussing whether a creature/monster with multi-attack, which by the way is the same as a PC with Extra Attacks, uses the attack action?
The point of the OP question was does a creatures Natural Weapons still count as a weapon attack or an unarmed strike when it comes to Attacks of Opportunity. Natural weapons count for AoO attacks, no Multi-attack can’t be used, only a single attack can be used in AoO’s, and a DM has to rule it on the fly. This is why SAC and other third party sources shouldn’t be allowed in debates on what the rules should mean, as now it all boils down to someone being stuck on semantics.
Note: SAC is 100% official.
And the point still stands, without the inference of SAC, the question is easy enough to solve. Who says it’s official, The mods? SAC literally says it’s not official Rulings, and the SAC itself says that the Rules have to be taken without the designers intent into consideration when determining what the context of the rules are. Crawford wrote the 2024 rules, it’s practically his updated version of a SAC, and attempts to use outdated references to the older versions of SAC and other such things has only proven in this topic and others that when SAC and older “Rulings” are used, the conversation will become a heated debate over what’s correct, and ultimately lead to someone saying “ guess we’ll have to wait for an updated SA”.
The rules have to stand on their own without the designers intent or want of how they believe the rules should work or apply. And with the new rules out, that literally makes all former SAC and comments from the Principal game designer moot, simply because it’s his version of how the Rules as Written are supposed to work. So, SAC is no longer official, the context of the rules have to be taken without the designers intent or interpretation into consideration, and a simple reading of the rules clearly demonstrates the same intent as before; If a monster/creature has a attack that is a melee reach based attack, that attack can be made during an attack of opportunity. Unarmed attacks only really apply to creatures or monsters that can use manufactured weapons, and follows the same rules as a PC would if that PC were to make a melee range attack without a manufactured weapon. ( and yes, a conjured weapon would count as manufactured weapon.)
Toss old “Rulings” in and now it’s : “ well what’s correct intent?”, and that falls on what the new rules tell us what the intent is, and for monsters that is unless the description of the monster makes explicit exception to the general rules with respect to an attack being made declared as an unarmed attack, it is natural weapon attack, is not an unarmed attack, and if the attack targets a single target that is in the creature’s natural reach, it can be used against a creature that triggers 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.
Well, it's official with respect to the 2014 rules. It's presumably still valid for rules that work the same in 2024. The problem is that creature attacks in 2024 are not listed as melee weapon attack, they are listed as meleeattack, so it's unspecified whether it's actually a weapon attack. In contrast, the 2014 opportunity attack rules specify "melee attack" and thus work with both 2014 and 2024.
The Monster Manual(2024) has a section called Attack Notation under the general title of Actions as part of a creatures stat block. That section pertains to how to identify if an attack action is eligible for other actions or features as defined in the 2024PHB. Bonus Actions and Reactions are under the 2024PHB rules, that are general guidelines for all creatures, just like the general rules for actions are. Multi-Attack and spellcasting is somewhat refined to creature specific abilities, but still follows the general spellcasting rules for 2024.
The only thing that has specifically changed is the unarmed attack damage, from a 1 point of bludgeoning damage to 1+str mod bludgeoning. ( does that mean that unarmed strikes are now considered “Natural Weapons”? And if so, does a monks fist now become Melee weapon Attacks? Can they be considered Finesse Weapons?, Can a Monk have Versatility in their “Natural Weapons”? Can this also apply to Creatures and Monsters? [ sometimes you just have to take a minute to find the smallest detail that makes the biggest difference. The difference between 2014 and 2024 is that small detail about “Unarmed Strikes” and how much damage they can do. “Unarmed Strikes” have always been “Natural weapon attacks”, head butts, knees, tail, claws, teeth, fist.] )
The point is, just from an rules only perspective, without any outside interference, I can find ways to make it work better than possible if the ability to just keep it as Written Rules as Is, not Written Rules as Said.
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.
Well, it's official with respect to the 2014 rules. It's presumably still valid for rules that work the same in 2024. The problem is that creature attacks in 2024 are not listed as melee weapon attack, they are listed as meleeattack, so it's unspecified whether it's actually a weapon attack. In contrast, the 2014 opportunity attack rules specify "melee attack" and thus work with both 2014 and 2024.
When a monster attacks with a melee attack, what action do you think they are using?
Source? Everything seems to point to it being an action, including the Monster Manual itself:
"Multiattack
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."
An entry in the Actions part of a stat block seems like it would be an Action the creature can take. Now, it does specify that it uses the Attack action. However, that's splitting hairs, as you wouldn't say that a single attack is a trait instead of an action. Rather, it's one of several options with the Attack action.
From what I understand, in the 2014 MM, Multiattack was an action (a special one for monsters, if you prefer), but in the 2024 MM, Multiattack is once again an action, but now it's part of the Attack action..
If it helps in some way:
Incorrect
This is essentially the same language used for PCs
Is "Extra Attack" 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)
"Multiattack" is listed under Actions in the Monster Manual, which is where it appears in every stat block it appears in.
So, I'm not really sure where you, or Smite, are going with this.
And it is explicitly not described as an action, but instead as a modifier on the Attack action
Like, that's what it says. I'm not really sure where you're going with denying the actual text of the rules
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)
Under your own logic, casting a spell with a time of 1 Action isn't an action, it's a trait, because it falls under the Magic action...
If a monster has a trait that says it can do X... it can do X. This is true whether you interpret the action it's using as the one listed on the monster's stat sheet, the attack action, the magic action, or anything else, regardless of the normal limits of that action.
The Action used when you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action is the Magic action, yes. That's how the rules work
What Action do you take when you use Extra Attack, or Multiattack?
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)
Creatures can use either generic actions (e.g. attack) or specific named actions. If a creature uses a specific named action... it's using that action.
You didn't answer the question, but that's fine because it's irrelevant to a discussion of opportunity attacks anyway, as I said a couple pages ago
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)
Wizards don't take the Cast Fire Bolt action, they take the Magic action to cast Fire Bolt.
Fighters don't take the Extra Attack action, they take the Attack and benefit from the Extra Attack feature, giving them extra attacks as part of the Attack action.
Eldritch Knights don't take the War Magic action, they take the Attack and benefit from the War Magic feature, giving them additional options as part of the Attack action.
Monsters don't take the Multiattack action, they take the Attack and benefit from the Multiattack feature, giving them additional options and/or attacks as part of the Attack action.
The Multiattack action isn't an action. It's a feature that affects the actions that the Monster can take. I can see how the organization can be confusing, but if you ready the feature, you will see that you must use the Attack action to use it. When you use it, you are therefore restricted by the restrictions of the Attack action except where contradicted by the Multiattack entry. War Magic is probably a better comparison than Extra Attack.
How to add Tooltips.
It's listed in the Actions section. Claiming that it's somehow not an action is nonsense. But it also does not matter.
The Multiattack entry is either its own action, or completely overrides the attack action. In either case, the restrictions on the attack action do not apply.
It is not its own action. It is not a new action.
How do you interpret "Some creatures can make more than one attack when they take the Attack action"?
It only overrides the portions of the Attack that it explicitly overrides. For example, Equipping and Unequipping Weapons and Moving Between Attacks are not overridden. The only thing overridden is generally the one portion of "When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike."
How to add Tooltips.
So, it only overrides the portion that is relevant to this discussion?
Wow, what’s the point of discussing whether a creature/monster with multi-attack, which by the way is the same as a PC with Extra Attacks, uses the attack action?
The point of the OP question was does a creatures Natural Weapons still count as a weapon attack or an unarmed strike when it comes to Attacks of Opportunity. Natural weapons count for AoO attacks, no Multi-attack can’t be used, only a single attack can be used in AoO’s, and a DM has to rule it on the fly. This is why SAC and other third party sources shouldn’t be allowed in debates on what the rules should mean, as now it all boils down to someone being stuck on semantics.
" 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.
Note: SAC is 100% official.
And the point still stands, without the inference of SAC, the question is easy enough to solve.
Who says it’s official, The mods? SAC literally says it’s not official Rulings, and the SAC itself says that the Rules have to be taken without the designers intent into consideration when determining what the context of the rules are.
Crawford wrote the 2024 rules, it’s practically his updated version of a SAC, and attempts to use outdated references to the older versions of SAC and other such things has only proven in this topic and others that when SAC and older “Rulings” are used, the conversation will become a heated debate over what’s correct, and ultimately lead to someone saying “ guess we’ll have to wait for an updated SA”.
The rules have to stand on their own without the designers intent or want of how they believe the rules should work or apply. And with the new rules out, that literally makes all former SAC and comments from the Principal game designer moot, simply because it’s his version of how the Rules as Written are supposed to work.
So, SAC is no longer official, the context of the rules have to be taken without the designers intent or interpretation into consideration, and a simple reading of the rules clearly demonstrates the same intent as before; If a monster/creature has a attack that is a melee reach based attack, that attack can be made during an attack of opportunity.
Unarmed attacks only really apply to creatures or monsters that can use manufactured weapons, and follows the same rules as a PC would if that PC were to make a melee range attack without a manufactured weapon. ( and yes, a conjured weapon would count as manufactured weapon.)
Toss old “Rulings” in and now it’s : “ well what’s correct intent?”, and that falls on what the new rules tell us what the intent is, and for monsters that is unless the description of the monster makes explicit exception to the general rules with respect to an attack being made declared as an unarmed attack, it is natural weapon attack, is not an unarmed attack, and if the attack targets a single target that is in the creature’s natural reach, it can be used against a creature that triggers 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.
Well, it's official with respect to the 2014 rules. It's presumably still valid for rules that work the same in 2024. The problem is that creature attacks in 2024 are not listed as melee weapon attack, they are listed as melee attack, so it's unspecified whether it's actually a weapon attack. In contrast, the 2014 opportunity attack rules specify "melee attack" and thus work with both 2014 and 2024.
The Monster Manual(2024) has a section called Attack Notation under the general title of Actions as part of a creatures stat block. That section pertains to how to identify if an attack action is eligible for other actions or features as defined in the 2024PHB. Bonus Actions and Reactions are under the 2024PHB rules, that are general guidelines for all creatures, just like the general rules for actions are.
Multi-Attack and spellcasting is somewhat refined to creature specific abilities, but still follows the general spellcasting rules for 2024.
The only thing that has specifically changed is the unarmed attack damage, from a 1 point of bludgeoning damage to 1+str mod bludgeoning.
( does that mean that unarmed strikes are now considered “Natural Weapons”? And if so, does a monks fist now become Melee weapon Attacks? Can they be considered Finesse Weapons?, Can a Monk have Versatility in their “Natural Weapons”?
Can this also apply to Creatures and Monsters?
[ sometimes you just have to take a minute to find the smallest detail that makes the biggest difference. The difference between 2014 and 2024 is that small detail about “Unarmed Strikes” and how much damage they can do. “Unarmed Strikes” have always been “Natural weapon attacks”, head butts, knees, tail, claws, teeth, fist.] )
The point is, just from an rules only perspective, without any outside interference, I can find ways to make it work better than possible if the ability to just keep it as Written Rules as Is, not Written Rules as Said.
" 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.
When a monster attacks with a melee attack, what action do you think they are using?
How to add Tooltips.