Um... nothing in there actually supports your assertion? And some is errata for the 2014 rules and therefore completely irrelevant to 2024 rules? You need text for at least one of the following:
Attacks in the stat block for monsters are weapon attacks. This was stated in 2014; it is not stated in 2024.
Attacks in the stat block for monsters are unarmed attacks. This was explicitly untrue in 2014; 2024 is silent.
A rule that allows a monster to use an attack in its stat block for an opportunity attack, despite not being a weapon or unarmed attack. This was true in 2014, is it not true in 2024.
Every Rule cited is clipped from the 2024Free Rules and the errata is the change that was made from the original 2014PHB that is the same as the 2024 Rule minus the exception for an unarmed strike as not a weapon. 2024 changed the format of monster attacks and if your not looking close enough you might miss it.
Look closely at the attacks and notice the new Range description after it says the attack type, the ankylo has a reach of 10ft. Can that ankylo make 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.
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.
If every creature is assumed to take the Attack to use its attack rolls, and Multiattack certainly states this is the case, the action itself requires attacks to be made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. This means every attack roll in a creature's stat block must be one of these two things.
Ergo, if a creature has a Melee Attack Roll listed in its stat block, then it can use said attack roll for an Opportunity Attack.
If every creature is assumed to take the Attack to use its attack rolls, and Multiattack certainly states this is the case, the action itself requires attacks to be made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. This means every attack roll in a creature's stat block must be one of these two things.
There are two errors with that logic:
There is no evidence that creatures are assumed to take the attack action to use attack rolls. In fact, actions in the stat block are specifically described as "A monster can take the actions in this section ortake one of the actions available to all creatures" (emphasis mine) -- indicating that the actions in the stat block, unless specifically noted otherwise, are not among the set of actions available to all creatures.
Even if that's true, the action only requires attacks to be made with a weapon or unarmed strike if not overridden by other text -- such as an action in its stat block.
Every creature has the opportunity attack reaction. They still cannot use that reaction without matching the prerequisites (note that monsters can make an unarmed attack, doing 1+Strength Modifier... they just can't use the attacks in their stat block).
So your position is that, per "RAW", a frost giant cannot make an Opportunity Attack with its Frost Axe. Because after all, there's no listing for a frost axe in the Weapons section of the PHB, so therefore it cannot be a weapon
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)
So your position is that, per "RAW", a frost giant cannot make an Opportunity Attack with its Frost Axe. Because after all, there's no listing for a frost axe in the Weapons section of the PHB, so therefore it cannot be a weapon
RAW is that the text is silent on whether the frost axe is a weapon. The DM will probably rule that it is, because it obviously resembles a weapon, but wouldn't be wrong to rule otherwise, and there are less clear cases --
Can an aboleth make an opportunity attack with Tentacle? That's a body part, not a weapon, but it clearly doesn't obey the rules for an unarmed strike.
Can an air elemental make an opportunity attack with Thunderous Slam? That's not even an identifiable body part, it's just the name of an action.
Can an ankheg make an opportunity attack with Bite? That's a verb, not a noun -- the body part would be something like Teeth.
Can a pixie make an opportunity attack with Faerie Dust? That resembles an object... but an object that would not normally be considered a weapon. Also, it appear to be Charisma-based attack, so it might be a Magic action.
Can a mage make an opportunity attack with Arcane Burst? That doesn't seem to be an object, and it seems to be an Int-based attack, so again, might be Magic.
So your position is that, per "RAW", a frost giant cannot make an Opportunity Attack with its Frost Axe. Because after all, there's no listing for a frost axe in the Weapons section of the PHB, so therefore it cannot be a weapon
RAW is that the text is silent on whether the frost axe is a weapon. The DM will probably rule that it is, because it obviously resembles a weapon, but wouldn't be wrong to rule otherwise, and there are less clear cases --
Can an aboleth make an opportunity attack with Tentacle? That's a body part, not a weapon, but it clearly doesn't obey the rules for an unarmed strike.
Can an air elemental make an opportunity attack with Thunderous Slam? That's not even an identifiable body part, it's just the name of an action.
Can an ankheg make an opportunity attack with Bite? That's a verb, not a noun -- the body part would be something like Teeth.
Can a pixie make an opportunity attack with Faerie Dust? That resembles an object... but an object that would not normally be considered a weapon. Also, it appear to be Charisma-based attack, so it might be a Magic action.
Can a mage make an opportunity attack with Arcane Burst? That doesn't seem to be an object, and it seems to be an Int-based attack, so again, might be Magic.
Yes to all, because they all have an unarmed melee attack at the creature’s natural reach range. 2024 MM pretty much gives nearly all monsters a chance to make an attack of opportunity, whereas 2014 MM has monsters like a pixie that doesn’t not have attack actions.
One of the many changes that makes absolutely zero sense, but if not done would have people asking why certain Monsters/Creatures can not make AoO’s. Might also be the case that the changes to the CR system forced the Monsters/Creatures to need an attack action to boost their CR worth.
But many creature/monster in 2024 now has attacks that if looked at closely might have a melee reach attack that can be used in making an attack of opportunity.
[ edit: Frost Giant has a looong Reach, 10+ft, so moving out of reach range is going take some work, just like moving out of the reach range of the aboleth’s tentacle. ( which makes it most definitely an unarmed attack with the creatures natural weapon.)
And a Pixie doesn’t add it’s Str mod(min=0) to it’s damage, which might be an oversight of the Unarmed Attacks Damage wording or a monster specific trait? ( IMHO, the missing minimum of zero for attack ability modifiers that might be negative for unarmed attacks will eventually become another issue for discussion. )]
" 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.
If every creature is assumed to take the Attack to use its attack rolls, and Multiattack certainly states this is the case, the action itself requires attacks to be made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. This means every attack roll in a creature's stat block must be one of these two things.
There are two errors with that logic:
There is no evidence that creatures are assumed to take the attack action to use attack rolls. In fact, actions in the stat block are specifically described as "A monster can take the actions in this section ortake one of the actions available to all creatures" (emphasis mine) -- indicating that the actions in the stat block, unless specifically noted otherwise, are not among the set of actions available to all creatures.
Even if that's true, the action only requires attacks to be made with a weapon or unarmed strike if not overridden by other text -- such as an action in its stat block.
There are two errors with that logic:
Despite its placement within the NPC stat block, the description for Multiattack pointedly states that monsters take the Attack action to use their attack roll(s).
The rules for the Attack action are unambiguous: When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Can an aboleth make an opportunity attack with Tentacle? That's a body part, not a weapon, but it clearly doesn't obey the rules for an unarmed strike.
Can an air elemental make an opportunity attack with Thunderous Slam? That's not even an identifiable body part, it's just the name of an action.
Can an ankheg make an opportunity attack with Bite? That's a verb, not a noun -- the body part would be something like Teeth.
Can a pixie make an opportunity attack with Faerie Dust? That resembles an object... but an object that would not normally be considered a weapon. Also, it appear to be Charisma-based attack, so it might be a Magic action.
Can a mage make an opportunity attack with Arcane Burst? That doesn't seem to be an object, and it seems to be an Int-based attack, so again, might be Magic.
They all count because the rules state they must be eligible. A creature that takes the Attack to use the melee attack roll(s) in its stat block is also capable of using the same rolls(s) for an Opportunity Attack, so long as they're limited to a single roll, because the only way to take the Attack action is to use a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
So your position is that, per "RAW", a frost giant cannot make an Opportunity Attack with its Frost Axe. Because after all, there's no listing for a frost axe in the Weapons section of the PHB, so therefore it cannot be a weapon
RAW is that the text is silent on whether the frost axe is a weapon.
As someone said recently, it is important to know the difference between "what you think the rules should say" and "what the rules actually say" -- especially if you're going to adhere to an interpretation of the rules that collapses into a reductio ad absurdum fairly quickly
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 bottom line here is that the Rules Glossary, useful though it is, was written specifically for PCs as a design choice, and monster stat blocks aren't structured the same way that PCs are
You can either make entirely logical, defensible, and (most importantly) playable allowances for that, or you can, well, do the other thing
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)
If every creature is assumed to take the Attack to use its attack rolls, and Multiattack certainly states this is the case, the action itself requires attacks to be made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. This means every attack roll in a creature's stat block must be one of these two things.
There are two errors with that logic:
There is no evidence that creatures are assumed to take the attack action to use attack rolls. In fact, actions in the stat block are specifically described as "A monster can take the actions in this section ortake one of the actions available to all creatures" (emphasis mine) -- indicating that the actions in the stat block, unless specifically noted otherwise, are not among the set of actions available to all creatures.
Even if that's true, the action only requires attacks to be made with a weapon or unarmed strike if not overridden by other text -- such as an action in its stat block.
There are two errors with that logic:
Despite its placement within the NPC stat block, the description for Multiattack pointedly states that monsters take the Attack action to use their attack roll(s).
The rules for the Attack action are unambiguous: When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Can an aboleth make an opportunity attack with Tentacle? That's a body part, not a weapon, but it clearly doesn't obey the rules for an unarmed strike.
Can an air elemental make an opportunity attack with Thunderous Slam? That's not even an identifiable body part, it's just the name of an action.
Can an ankheg make an opportunity attack with Bite? That's a verb, not a noun -- the body part would be something like Teeth.
Can a pixie make an opportunity attack with Faerie Dust? That resembles an object... but an object that would not normally be considered a weapon. Also, it appear to be Charisma-based attack, so it might be a Magic action.
Can a mage make an opportunity attack with Arcane Burst? That doesn't seem to be an object, and it seems to be an Int-based attack, so again, might be Magic.
They all count because the rules state they must be eligible. A creature that takes the Attack to use the melee attack roll(s) in its stat block is also capable of using the same rolls(s) for an Opportunity Attack, so long as they're limited to a single roll, because the only way to take the Attack action is to use a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
You're arguing backwards.
Just because they needs to be an Unarmed Strike or a weapon to use the default attack action... doesn't mean that they are.
I need to use a Magic Action to attack with my sword. (When casting true strike) but that doesn't force attacks with my sword to then necessarily be usable with magic actions just generally. That'd be the same kind of backwards logic.
The fact that attack actions are by default done with weapons or unarmed attacks doesn't then force all attacks in the game to be weapon or unarmed attacks. It just doesn't follow.
It also wouldn't answer which these attacks are, even if they must be one of the two... which of the two are they?
Is a Mage's arcane burst... a weapon, or an unarmed strike?
Obviously it is neither. But you get the point. Without the game rules telling us what they are... they're just only what they say they are.
If anything, this only highlights that some stat blocks are broken in a more severe way than just opportunity attacks. And some of their multiattack functions might not work right by raw, too. If we used your logic, anyway.
But thankfully we don't need to. The actions monsters have listed are eligible for the Attack action because the rules say they are. Even if the default description of the Attack action does, the monster manual discusses the actions listed and there is DOES say the listed actions CAN be used with an Attack action.
The only thing missing? Anything that tells us if they're weapons, unarmed, magic, etc. An absent that... they're not any of those.
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 could still be a simple or martial weapon -- nothing in the text says that the list in the PHB is exhaustive.
Yeah, this.
Also: "Hey Siri, is an axe a weapon?"
But tbf, this is ultimately going to come down to the DMs interpretation of the monster. If the frost axe is some magical effect that happens when your DMs version of the monster swings his arms? Not a weapon.
If it is a big pole with an axehead on it that's really cold? It is a weapon. (Just not listed in the phb)
Should the MM tell us one way or the other? Yes. It should.
Unfortunately it doesn't.
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.
If every creature is assumed to take the Attack to use its attack rolls, and Multiattack certainly states this is the case, the action itself requires attacks to be made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. This means every attack roll in a creature's stat block must be one of these two things.
There are two errors with that logic:
There is no evidence that creatures are assumed to take the attack action to use attack rolls. In fact, actions in the stat block are specifically described as "A monster can take the actions in this section ortake one of the actions available to all creatures" (emphasis mine) -- indicating that the actions in the stat block, unless specifically noted otherwise, are not among the set of actions available to all creatures.
Even if that's true, the action only requires attacks to be made with a weapon or unarmed strike if not overridden by other text -- such as an action in its stat block.
There are two errors with that logic:
Despite its placement within the NPC stat block, the description for Multiattack pointedly states that monsters take the Attack action to use their attack roll(s).
The rules for the Attack action are unambiguous: When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Can an aboleth make an opportunity attack with Tentacle? That's a body part, not a weapon, but it clearly doesn't obey the rules for an unarmed strike.
Can an air elemental make an opportunity attack with Thunderous Slam? That's not even an identifiable body part, it's just the name of an action.
Can an ankheg make an opportunity attack with Bite? That's a verb, not a noun -- the body part would be something like Teeth.
Can a pixie make an opportunity attack with Faerie Dust? That resembles an object... but an object that would not normally be considered a weapon. Also, it appear to be Charisma-based attack, so it might be a Magic action.
Can a mage make an opportunity attack with Arcane Burst? That doesn't seem to be an object, and it seems to be an Int-based attack, so again, might be Magic.
They all count because the rules state they must be eligible. A creature that takes the Attack to use the melee attack roll(s) in its stat block is also capable of using the same rolls(s) for an Opportunity Attack, so long as they're limited to a single roll, because the only way to take the Attack action is to use a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
You're arguing backwards.
Just because they needs to be an Unarmed Strike or a weapon to use the default attack action... doesn't mean that they are.
I need to use a Magic Action to attack with my sword. (When casting true strike) but that doesn't force attacks with my sword to then necessarily be usable with magic actions just generally. That'd be the same kind of backwards logic.
The fact that attack actions are by default done with weapons or unarmed attacks doesn't then force all attacks in the game to be weapon or unarmed attacks. It just doesn't follow.
It also wouldn't answer which these attacks are, even if they must be one of the two... which of the two are they?
Is a Mage's arcane burst... a weapon, or an unarmed strike?
Obviously it is neither. But you get the point. Without the game rules telling us what they are... they're just only what they say they are.
If anything, this only highlights that some stat blocks are broken in a more severe way than just opportunity attacks. And some of their multiattack functions might not work right by raw, too.
I'm not working backwards. I'm using the Rules Glossary and Monster Manual to lay the path in front of me. The attack rolls in a monster's stat block don't say what kind of attack they are, beyond melee or ranged, just that they're attack rolls. A player might attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or make a spell attack; only we aren't talking about players. We're talking about monsters.
Multiattack specifically states it modifies the Attack action, allowing the monster to perform multiple attacks as prescribed. The Attack action specifies an attack must be made with a weapon or Unarmed Strike. This is unambiguous. Ergo, if an attack roll in a monster's stat block is included in its Multiattack, then it must be compatible with the Attack action. And since an attack made as an Opportunity Attack has the same critera as a melee attack made with the Attack, we know all melee attack rolls in a monster's stat block can be used for an Opportunity Attack.
It doesn't matter if we imagine it differently; because of a name, ability modifier, or whatever. The rules tell us how to treat them.
You are traveling to the city of RAW. You come to a fork in the road, with a solider standing guard at each path.
One path appears to be covered in a tangle of briars and leads along the edge of a cliff, impassable and dangerous. The solider standing guard over that path says, "Well, this might be the right way. Who knows, really? It's unclear."
The other path is paved, clear and leads straight to the gates of the city. The solider standing guard over that path says, "I mean, you could try the other way, but why would you want to?"
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)
You are traveling to the city of RAW. You come to a fork in the road, with a solider standing guard at each path.
One path appears to be covered in a tangle of briars and leads along the edge of a cliff, impassable and dangerous. The solider standing guard over that path says, "Well, this might be the right way. Who knows, really? It's unclear."
The other path is paved, clear and leads straight to the gates of the city. The solider standing guard over that path says, "I mean, you could try the other way, but why would you want to?"
Or you could look down, see a manhole and take the path least traveled. Sure, it might be a “unique” way to get to where you want to go, but eventually you’ll ether get to where you want to go or not. 2024/25 monsters are designed to be DM/GM controlled NPCs/Enemies/creatures /monsters/etc.
by design, some 2024/25 Monsters/Creatures are completely incompatible with 2014 Rules and the 2024/25 MM relies on the 2024PHB. Sdrawkcabssa s’tI
It means the design of the MM was based on making the monsters/creatures/and etc such that if you somehow manage to control such a creature, it’s easy to see the magic behind the curtain, so to speak.
It also makes the RAW of the game such that you have to make a choice between allowing it or tossing it. A Pixie tossing dust at you and causing a single point of bludgeoning damage just became the fey creature version of the peasant rail gun.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
You are traveling to the city of RAW. You come to a fork in the road, with a solider standing guard at each path.
One path appears to be covered in a tangle of briars and leads along the edge of a cliff, impassable and dangerous. The solider standing guard over that path says, "Well, this might be the right way. Who knows, really? It's unclear."
The other path is paved, clear and leads straight to the gates of the city. The solider standing guard over that path says, "I mean, you could try the other way, but why would you want to?"
In discussions of RAW, "Are the results of applying this interpretation good" is not generally the point -- rather, the point is "wow, this is a badly written rule". This is not a hard thing to fix -- the most obvious fix, that I suspect most DMs will do unconsciously, is to just strike the words "with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike" from the definition of an opportunity attack. That would technically allow a PC to use a melee attack cantrip to make an opportunity attack without bothering with war caster, but I have trouble caring, that's not why people take war caster anyway.
It does seem really dumb that they removed the concept of natural weapons without explicitly expanding unarmed strikes to include the stuff natural weapons used to cover. People are saying they hope for clarification in the future when THIS is supposed to be the future clarification of the old rules.
It does seem really dumb that they removed the concept of natural weapons without explicitly expanding unarmed strikes to include the stuff natural weapons used to cover. People are saying they hope for clarification in the future when THIS is supposed to be the future clarification of the old rules.
Unarmed Strikes were explicitly expanded to include the stuff natural weapons used to cover.
Keep in mind, "natural weapons" wasn't all that well-defined for monsters, either. A Claw was just as much a melee attack roll as a Longsword or Unarmed Strike, and a Javelin was as much a ranged weapon attack as the Tail Spike of a Manticore. It was just a term thrown around. Eventually, as playable races were added that came with natural weapons, those became usable as unarmed strikes. The rules glossary simply cuts out the middle man by lumping them together under a single name, and why shouldn't it?
A player's Unarmed Strike defaults to 1 + Strength modifier damage. That does not mean a monster's needs to.
You are traveling to the city of RAW. You come to a fork in the road, with a solider standing guard at each path.
One path appears to be covered in a tangle of briars and leads along the edge of a cliff, impassable and dangerous. The solider standing guard over that path says, "Well, this might be the right way. Who knows, really? It's unclear."
The other path is paved, clear and leads straight to the gates of the city. The solider standing guard over that path says, "I mean, you could try the other way, but why would you want to?"
In discussions of RAW, "Are the results of applying this interpretation good" is not generally the point -- rather, the point is "wow, this is a badly written rule". This is not a hard thing to fix -- the most obvious fix, that I suspect most DMs will do unconsciously, is to just strike the words "with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike" from the definition of an opportunity attack. That would technically allow a PC to use a melee attack cantrip to make an opportunity attack without bothering with war caster, but I have trouble caring, that's not why people take war caster anyway.
When there are two natural language interpretations of a phrase and one is functional and the other is not and is not consistent with all available sources of RAW, the resolution is clear.
When there are two natural language interpretations of a phrase and one is functional and the other is not and is not consistent with all available sources of RAW, the resolution is clear.
There aren't two natural language interpretations. The arguments for why it's fine don't rely on natural language, they rely on logic errors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Every Rule cited is clipped from the 2024Free Rules and the errata is the change that was made from the original 2014PHB that is the same as the 2024 Rule minus the exception for an unarmed strike as not a weapon.
2024 changed the format of monster attacks and if your not looking close enough you might miss it.
Check out: ( Free rules )
ankylosaurus vs ape
Look closely at the attacks and notice the new Range description after it says the attack type, the ankylo has a reach of 10ft.
Can that ankylo make 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.
If every creature is assumed to take the Attack to use its attack rolls, and Multiattack certainly states this is the case, the action itself requires attacks to be made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. This means every attack roll in a creature's stat block must be one of these two things.
Ergo, if a creature has a Melee Attack Roll listed in its stat block, then it can use said attack roll for an Opportunity Attack.
There are two errors with that logic:
So your position is that, per "RAW", a frost giant cannot make an Opportunity Attack with its Frost Axe. Because after all, there's no listing for a frost axe in the Weapons section of the PHB, so therefore it cannot be a weapon
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)
RAW is that the text is silent on whether the frost axe is a weapon. The DM will probably rule that it is, because it obviously resembles a weapon, but wouldn't be wrong to rule otherwise, and there are less clear cases --
Yes to all, because they all have an unarmed melee attack at the creature’s natural reach range.
2024 MM pretty much gives nearly all monsters a chance to make an attack of opportunity, whereas 2014 MM has monsters like a pixie that doesn’t not have attack actions.
One of the many changes that makes absolutely zero sense, but if not done would have people asking why certain Monsters/Creatures can not make AoO’s. Might also be the case that the changes to the CR system forced the Monsters/Creatures to need an attack action to boost their CR worth.
But many creature/monster in 2024 now has attacks that if looked at closely might have a melee reach attack that can be used in making an attack of opportunity.
[ edit: Frost Giant has a looong Reach, 10+ft, so moving out of reach range is going take some work, just like moving out of the reach range of the aboleth’s tentacle. ( which makes it most definitely an unarmed attack with the creatures natural weapon.)
And a Pixie doesn’t add it’s Str mod(min=0) to it’s damage, which might be an oversight of the Unarmed Attacks Damage wording or a monster specific trait? ( IMHO, the missing minimum of zero for attack ability modifiers that might be negative for unarmed attacks will eventually become another issue for discussion. )]
" 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.
There are two errors with that logic:
They all count because the rules state they must be eligible. A creature that takes the Attack to use the melee attack roll(s) in its stat block is also capable of using the same rolls(s) for an Opportunity Attack, so long as they're limited to a single roll, because the only way to take the Attack action is to use a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
It isn't, though
As someone said recently, it is important to know the difference between "what you think the rules should say" and "what the rules actually say" -- especially if you're going to adhere to an interpretation of the rules that collapses into a reductio ad absurdum fairly quickly
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 bottom line here is that the Rules Glossary, useful though it is, was written specifically for PCs as a design choice, and monster stat blocks aren't structured the same way that PCs are
You can either make entirely logical, defensible, and (most importantly) playable allowances for that, or you can, well, do the other thing
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)
It could still be a simple or martial weapon -- nothing in the text says that the list in the PHB is exhaustive.
You're arguing backwards.
Just because they needs to be an Unarmed Strike or a weapon to use the default attack action... doesn't mean that they are.
I need to use a Magic Action to attack with my sword. (When casting true strike) but that doesn't force attacks with my sword to then necessarily be usable with magic actions just generally. That'd be the same kind of backwards logic.
The fact that attack actions are by default done with weapons or unarmed attacks doesn't then force all attacks in the game to be weapon or unarmed attacks. It just doesn't follow.
It also wouldn't answer which these attacks are, even if they must be one of the two... which of the two are they?
Is a Mage's arcane burst... a weapon, or an unarmed strike?
Obviously it is neither. But you get the point. Without the game rules telling us what they are... they're just only what they say they are.
If anything, this only highlights that some stat blocks are broken in a more severe way than just opportunity attacks. And some of their multiattack functions might not work right by raw, too. If we used your logic, anyway.
But thankfully we don't need to. The actions monsters have listed are eligible for the Attack action because the rules say they are. Even if the default description of the Attack action does, the monster manual discusses the actions listed and there is DOES say the listed actions CAN be used with an Attack action.
The only thing missing? Anything that tells us if they're weapons, unarmed, magic, etc. An absent that... they're not any of those.
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, this.
Also: "Hey Siri, is an axe a weapon?"
But tbf, this is ultimately going to come down to the DMs interpretation of the monster. If the frost axe is some magical effect that happens when your DMs version of the monster swings his arms? Not a weapon.
If it is a big pole with an axehead on it that's really cold? It is a weapon. (Just not listed in the phb)
Should the MM tell us one way or the other? Yes. It should.
Unfortunately it doesn't.
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'm not working backwards. I'm using the Rules Glossary and Monster Manual to lay the path in front of me. The attack rolls in a monster's stat block don't say what kind of attack they are, beyond melee or ranged, just that they're attack rolls. A player might attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or make a spell attack; only we aren't talking about players. We're talking about monsters.
Multiattack specifically states it modifies the Attack action, allowing the monster to perform multiple attacks as prescribed. The Attack action specifies an attack must be made with a weapon or Unarmed Strike. This is unambiguous. Ergo, if an attack roll in a monster's stat block is included in its Multiattack, then it must be compatible with the Attack action. And since an attack made as an Opportunity Attack has the same critera as a melee attack made with the Attack, we know all melee attack rolls in a monster's stat block can be used for an Opportunity Attack.
It doesn't matter if we imagine it differently; because of a name, ability modifier, or whatever. The rules tell us how to treat them.
You are traveling to the city of RAW. You come to a fork in the road, with a solider standing guard at each path.
One path appears to be covered in a tangle of briars and leads along the edge of a cliff, impassable and dangerous. The solider standing guard over that path says, "Well, this might be the right way. Who knows, really? It's unclear."
The other path is paved, clear and leads straight to the gates of the city. The solider standing guard over that path says, "I mean, you could try the other way, but why would you want to?"
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)
Or you could look down, see a manhole and take the path least traveled. Sure, it might be a “unique” way to get to where you want to go, but eventually you’ll ether get to where you want to go or not.
2024/25 monsters are designed to be DM/GM controlled NPCs/Enemies/creatures /monsters/etc.
by design, some 2024/25 Monsters/Creatures are completely incompatible with 2014 Rules and the 2024/25 MM relies on the 2024PHB.
Sdrawkcabssa s’tI
It means the design of the MM was based on making the monsters/creatures/and etc such that if you somehow manage to control such a creature, it’s easy to see the magic behind the curtain, so to speak.
It also makes the RAW of the game such that you have to make a choice between allowing it or tossing it. A Pixie tossing dust at you and causing a single point of bludgeoning damage just became the fey creature version of the peasant rail gun.
" 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.
In discussions of RAW, "Are the results of applying this interpretation good" is not generally the point -- rather, the point is "wow, this is a badly written rule". This is not a hard thing to fix -- the most obvious fix, that I suspect most DMs will do unconsciously, is to just strike the words "with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike" from the definition of an opportunity attack. That would technically allow a PC to use a melee attack cantrip to make an opportunity attack without bothering with war caster, but I have trouble caring, that's not why people take war caster anyway.
It does seem really dumb that they removed the concept of natural weapons without explicitly expanding unarmed strikes to include the stuff natural weapons used to cover. People are saying they hope for clarification in the future when THIS is supposed to be the future clarification of the old rules.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Unarmed Strikes were explicitly expanded to include the stuff natural weapons used to cover.
Keep in mind, "natural weapons" wasn't all that well-defined for monsters, either. A Claw was just as much a melee attack roll as a Longsword or Unarmed Strike, and a Javelin was as much a ranged weapon attack as the Tail Spike of a Manticore. It was just a term thrown around. Eventually, as playable races were added that came with natural weapons, those became usable as unarmed strikes. The rules glossary simply cuts out the middle man by lumping them together under a single name, and why shouldn't it?
A player's Unarmed Strike defaults to 1 + Strength modifier damage. That does not mean a monster's needs to.
When there are two natural language interpretations of a phrase and one is functional and the other is not and is not consistent with all available sources of RAW, the resolution is clear.
How to add Tooltips.
There aren't two natural language interpretations. The arguments for why it's fine don't rely on natural language, they rely on logic errors.