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.
The "let's nerf War Caster because I refuse to consider that I might be wrong" part at the end was really the cherry on top of this whole discussion. There's really nothing more that needs to be added -- it's the perfect button
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)
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.
Partly correct there is one natural language interpretation. The one that says a creatures strikes are unarmed strikes because they use parts of their body. That relies entirely on natural language, the arguments against it rely on logic errors.
Partly correct there is one natural language interpretation. The one that says a creatures strikes are unarmed strikes because they use parts of their body.
"Natural language" only applies to terms that are not defined explicitly in the rules. As unarmed strike is specifically defined in the rules glossary, natural language is irrelevant.
[...] 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.
I'd say that even with that change, at least for PCs, they should follow the rules for spellcasting and Casting Time.
Monsters work differently. The next entry in the SAC does explain that they can make opportunity attacks with melee [spell] attacks. I know, 2014 rules, but I think the intent now with the 2024 rules is the same.
Can you use a melee spell attack to make an opportunity attack?
You can’t if the spell attack is created by casting a spell. When a creature triggers an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against it. The opportunity attack doesn’t suddenly give you the ability to cast a spell, such as shocking grasp.
Each spell has a casting time. A game feature, such as an opportunity attack, doesn’t let you bypass that casting time, unless the feature says otherwise. The War Caster feat is an example of a feature that does let you bypass a 1-action casting time to cast a spell in place of making an opportunity attack.
A few monsters can make opportunity attacks with melee spell attacks. Here’s how: certain monsters—including the banshee, the lich, and the specter—have a melee spell attack that isn’t delivered by a spell. For example, the banshee’s Corrupting Touch action is a melee spell attack but no spell is cast to make it. The banshee can, therefore, make opportunity attacks with Corrupting Touch.
We really should be careful about citing the SAC, and for a number of reasons:
While it's a collection of official rulings, it isn't binding.
It hasn't been updated since before Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
It was written with the 2014 core books in mind; not the 2024-2025 core books.
Yes should be careful as Sage Advice Compendium is:
A. [Not] Official Rulings or Rules as Written, as they are the collective tweets and and remarks of a company employee who has a significant role in the games development and design, and therefore has to be taken as advice with a grain of salt.
B. The last updated SAC is v2.7-(c)2021, which has TCoE and fair number of ( as at the time ) newer publications that had been released for 2014.
C. It was written with the intention that if and when 2024-25 system would be developed, those tweets and comments would supposedly become the official RAW of the system, while attempting to rewrite the former system of rules that were developed by a different designer. Now that Jeremy Crawford IS the Primary Designer and Architect of the 2024-25 Rules of Dungeons and Dragons, his “Advice” can never be considered or even acknowledged as “Official” without serious repercussions from what might be considered a “Conflict of Interest”.( look that phrase up, and the picture becomes clearer as to why Wizards has to make a statement about SAC being Unofficial.)
2024-25 spellcasting monsters where literally given a “War Caster” version of the feat, which then forces every creature with innate spellcasting ability to make an attack of opportunity with a spell that can be considered a “Touch” or “creature based Reach ranged” spell attack.
So in effect Crawfords 2014 “Houserules” have now become Official parts of RAW, and are at odds with itself and creates a “Conflict of Intent” as to what is the correct way to interpret the context of the new rules. It’s also why SAC , as of the release of 2024 D&D rules, can not be considered “Official RAW”, and no new version of such by Crawford can or will be released without creating a very serious controversy.
And citing SAC in 2024-25 rules debates has clearly demonstrated that a “Conflict of Intent” with regards to the Rules as Written vs Rules as Wished will develop and cause serious problems.
Thus SageAdvice and the compendium thereof has to be disregarded and only used to understand why the design changes where made.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another. When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule. - Jeremy Crawford; Principle Rules Architect of 2024-25 Dungeons and Dragons Role Playing Game.
SAC as Official RAW or Rulings very much contradicts that set of statements by the very designer of the game. 2024-25 spellcasting monsters and creatures now have the “War Caster Feat”, and SAC can only point to why it’s so.
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.
While it's a collection of official rulings, it isn't binding.
What does this sentence mean?
I would think the key word in Sage Advice Compendium is self-evident.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.
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.
Right. But THEN it says that they ALSO have the actions listed in their statblocks IN ADDITION to the normal options.
You keep ignoring that part.
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.
Nope.
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.
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.
Partly correct there is one natural language interpretation. The one that says a creatures strikes are unarmed strikes because they use parts of their body. That relies entirely on natural language, the arguments against it rely on it being logic errors.
Fixed.
It is a categorical error. I've already pointed that out a couple times now.
All dogs are mammals. But that doesn't mean all mammals are dogs.
All unarmed strikes(dogs) are made with body parts(mammals). But that doesn't mean all body parts(mammals) used to attack result in unarmed attacks(dogs).
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 would think the key word in Sage Advice Compendium is self-evident.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.
With this in mind, do you consider SAC to be RAW for the purposes of discussions in this forum?
We really should be careful about citing the SAC, and for a number of reasons:
While it's a collection of official rulings, it isn't binding.
As opposed to the printed books? WotC is not going to take anyone to court if they don't play by the official rules at their table. However, if you are playing in an Adventurer's League game, I would expect them to be binding, but it's been a while since I looked into it.
This is the dumbest argument ever. Wether or not it's RAW, it's obviously RAI. This forum was made on FEBUARY 4TH. People need to chill.
Nah, "the Telekinetic feat doesn't actually increase the range on your Mage Hand" still gets my vote for the dumbest RAW argument ever
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)
I would think the key word in Sage Advice Compendium is self-evident.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.
With this in mind, do you consider SAC to be RAW for the purposes of discussions in this forum?
I do not consider the SAC to be relevant in a discussion of the 2024 rules, no.
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.
Right. But THEN it says that they ALSO have the actions listed in their statblocks IN ADDITION to the normal options.
You keep ignoring that part.
I'm not ignoring anything. Those other actions only matter if we're discussing those other actions, and we aren't. The rules are telling us that certain attacks are to be used as part of the Attack. Multiattack explicitly modified that action, so a Mage, for example, must take the Attack to use its Arcane Burst. That means, for all intents and purposes, Arcane Bust must be either a weapon attack or Unarmed Strike. There's nothing telling us to treat it differently, so we shouldn't.
You're literally arguing against the text of both the Player's Handbook (2024) the Monster Manual (2025).
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.
Nope.
I really don't like repeating myself, so I'm throwing down the gauntlet. I've been providing citations. You haven't.
With this in mind, do you consider SAC to be RAW for the purposes of discussions in this forum?
I do not consider the SAC to be relevant in a discussion of the 2024 rules, no.
Fair enough. In that case, we just don't see eye to eye regarding what is a valid source of authority when discussing the written rules of the game on this forum.
I'm not ignoring anything. Those other actions only matter if we're discussing those other actions, and we aren't. The rules are telling us that certain attacks are to be used as part of the Attack. Multiattack explicitly modified that action, so a Mage, for example, must take the Attack to use its Arcane Burst. That means, for all intents and purposes, Arcane Bust must be either a weapon attack or Unarmed Strike. There's nothing telling us to treat it differently, so we shouldn't.
Multiattack modifies the attack action to permit things that are not normally legal as part of the attack action, and thus the fact that something can be used as part of a multiattack tells us absolutely nothing (a lot of multiattacks -- the first I find is the aboleth -- incorporate things that are definitely not weapon attacks or unarmed strikes, as they aren't attacks at all). A mage can't use arcane burst as part of an attack option because it's a weapon or unarmed strike, it can use it because multiattack says it can use it.
I'm not ignoring anything. Those other actions only matter if we're discussing those other actions, and we aren't. The rules are telling us that certain attacks are to be used as part of the Attack. Multiattack explicitly modified that action, so a Mage, for example, must take the Attack to use its Arcane Burst. That means, for all intents and purposes, Arcane Bust must be either a weapon attack or Unarmed Strike. There's nothing telling us to treat it differently, so we shouldn't.
Multiattack modifies the attack action to permit things that are not normally legal as part of the attack action, and thus the fact that something can be used as part of a multiattack tells us absolutely nothing (a lot of multiattacks -- the first I find is the aboleth -- incorporate things that are definitely not weapon attacks or unarmed strikes, as they aren't attacks at all). A mage can't use arcane burst as part of an attack option because it's a weapon or unarmed strike, it can use it because multiattack says it can use it.
Why, though?
We have people arguing here that a Bite, Claw, and Tail aren't an Unarmed Strike, despite meeting all the requirements, for still unspecified reasons. Some bull hockey about not being the right part of the body or some such when there's nothing in any book supporting that claim.
Multiattack still requires taking the Attack action, and the aboleth makes two Tentacle attacks as part of its. Is there a single use of Multiattack in the Monster Manual which doesn't include an attack? Is there even a single creature that doesn't have a melee attack roll?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The "let's nerf War Caster because I refuse to consider that I might be wrong" part at the end was really the cherry on top of this whole discussion. There's really nothing more that needs to be added -- it's the perfect button
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)
Partly correct there is one natural language interpretation. The one that says a creatures strikes are unarmed strikes because they use parts of their body. That relies entirely on natural language, the arguments against it rely on logic errors.
"Natural language" only applies to terms that are not defined explicitly in the rules. As unarmed strike is specifically defined in the rules glossary, natural language is irrelevant.
I'd say that even with that change, at least for PCs, they should follow the rules for spellcasting and Casting Time.
Monsters work differently. The next entry in the SAC does explain that they can make opportunity attacks with melee [spell] attacks. I know, 2014 rules, but I think the intent now with the 2024 rules is the same.
We really should be careful about citing the SAC, and for a number of reasons:
What does this sentence mean?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes should be careful as Sage Advice Compendium is:
A. [Not] Official Rulings or Rules as Written, as they are the collective tweets and and remarks of a company employee who has a significant role in the games development and design, and therefore has to be taken as advice with a grain of salt.
B. The last updated SAC is v2.7-(c)2021, which has TCoE and fair number of ( as at the time ) newer publications that had been released for 2014.
C. It was written with the intention that if and when 2024-25 system would be developed, those tweets and comments would supposedly become the official RAW of the system, while attempting to rewrite the former system of rules that were developed by a different designer.
Now that Jeremy Crawford IS the Primary Designer and Architect of the 2024-25 Rules of Dungeons and Dragons, his “Advice” can never be considered or even acknowledged as “Official” without serious repercussions from what might be considered a “Conflict of Interest”.( look that phrase up, and the picture becomes clearer as to why Wizards has to make a statement about SAC being Unofficial.)
2024-25 spellcasting monsters where literally given a “War Caster” version of the feat, which then forces every creature with innate spellcasting ability to make an attack of opportunity with a spell that can be considered a “Touch” or “creature based Reach ranged” spell attack.
So in effect Crawfords 2014 “Houserules” have now become Official parts of RAW, and are at odds with itself and creates a “Conflict of Intent” as to what is the correct way to interpret the context of the new rules. It’s also why SAC , as of the release of 2024 D&D rules, can not be considered “Official RAW”, and no new version of such by Crawford can or will be released without creating a very serious controversy.
And citing SAC in 2024-25 rules debates has clearly demonstrated that a “Conflict of Intent” with regards to the Rules as Written vs Rules as Wished will develop and cause serious problems.
Thus SageAdvice and the compendium thereof has to be disregarded and only used to understand why the design changes where made.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
- Jeremy Crawford; Principle Rules Architect of 2024-25 Dungeons and Dragons Role Playing Game.
SAC as Official RAW or Rulings very much contradicts that set of statements by the very designer of the game.
2024-25 spellcasting monsters and creatures now have the “War Caster Feat”, and SAC can only point to why it’s so.
" 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.
I would think the key word in Sage Advice Compendium is self-evident.
Right. But THEN it says that they ALSO have the actions listed in their statblocks IN ADDITION to the normal options.
You keep ignoring that part.
Nope.
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.
Fixed.
It is a categorical error. I've already pointed that out a couple times now.
All dogs are mammals. But that doesn't mean all mammals are dogs.
All unarmed strikes(dogs) are made with body parts(mammals). But that doesn't mean all body parts(mammals) used to attack result in unarmed attacks(dogs).
Your entire argument relies on faulty logic.
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.
With this in mind, do you consider SAC to be RAW for the purposes of discussions in this forum?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
As opposed to the printed books? WotC is not going to take anyone to court if they don't play by the official rules at their table. However, if you are playing in an Adventurer's League game, I would expect them to be binding, but it's been a while since I looked into it.
How to add Tooltips.
This is the dumbest argument ever. Wether or not it's RAW, it's obviously RAI. This forum was made on FEBUARY 4TH. People need to chill.
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!
Nah, "the Telekinetic feat doesn't actually increase the range on your Mage Hand" still gets my vote for the dumbest RAW argument ever
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)
Are you sure that they meant to give all NPC spellcasters war caster?
I do not consider the SAC to be relevant in a discussion of the 2024 rules, no.
I'm not ignoring anything. Those other actions only matter if we're discussing those other actions, and we aren't. The rules are telling us that certain attacks are to be used as part of the Attack. Multiattack explicitly modified that action, so a Mage, for example, must take the Attack to use its Arcane Burst. That means, for all intents and purposes, Arcane Bust must be either a weapon attack or Unarmed Strike. There's nothing telling us to treat it differently, so we shouldn't.
You're literally arguing against the text of both the Player's Handbook (2024) the Monster Manual (2025).
I really don't like repeating myself, so I'm throwing down the gauntlet. I've been providing citations. You haven't.
It's past time you put up or stepped out.
Fair enough. In that case, we just don't see eye to eye regarding what is a valid source of authority when discussing the written rules of the game on this forum.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Multiattack modifies the attack action to permit things that are not normally legal as part of the attack action, and thus the fact that something can be used as part of a multiattack tells us absolutely nothing (a lot of multiattacks -- the first I find is the aboleth -- incorporate things that are definitely not weapon attacks or unarmed strikes, as they aren't attacks at all). A mage can't use arcane burst as part of an attack option because it's a weapon or unarmed strike, it can use it because multiattack says it can use it.
Why, though?
We have people arguing here that a Bite, Claw, and Tail aren't an Unarmed Strike, despite meeting all the requirements, for still unspecified reasons. Some bull hockey about not being the right part of the body or some such when there's nothing in any book supporting that claim.
Multiattack still requires taking the Attack action, and the aboleth makes two Tentacle attacks as part of its. Is there a single use of Multiattack in the Monster Manual which doesn't include an attack? Is there even a single creature that doesn't have a melee attack roll?