So, one movement out of range doesn't provoke all of the heads?
That is certainly RAI, but I'm actually not sure it is RAW. I don't see any rule that prevents you from making multiple OAs against the same target from the same movement if you are able (I would be happy to be wrong if Lunali or anyone can find one).
Since opportunity attack's occur before the movement (out of necessity), the target can choose to not move after taking the attack. If they still choose to move, I don't see why that wouldn't trigger another OA.
I wouldn't run hydras that way because that is extremely punishing (could KO a level 10 spellcaster in 1 turn).
Reactive Heads. For each head the hydra has beyond one, it gets an extra reaction that can be used only for opportunity attacks.
Not sure if it would qualify as RAW or would be more of a RAI, but the way that I read the above entry would be that the hydra gains an extra reaction for each additional head. A single creature moving away from the hydra would allow it to use one of its reactions to make an opportunity attack. So, despite having multiple heads, the hydra is still one creature taking one reaction for this specific opportunity attack (i.e., it's not taking multiple reactions at the same time).
Now, if the same creature moves in and out of the hydra's reach multiple times (thus provoking multiple OA), then the hydra could use extra heads to take additional reactions. Not sure why anybody would ever intentionally expose themselves to multiple OAs, but that's a different intellectual discussion.
Reactive Heads. For each head the hydra has beyond one, it gets an extra reaction that can be used only for opportunity attacks.
Not sure if it would qualify as RAW or would be more of a RAI, but the way that I read the above entry would be that the hydra gains an extra reaction for each additional head. A single creature moving away from the hydra would allow it to use one of its reactions to make an opportunity attack. So, despite having multiple heads, the hydra is still one creature taking one reaction for this specific opportunity attack (i.e., it's not taking multiple reactions at the same time).
Now, if the same creature moves in and out of the hydra's reach multiple times (thus provoking multiple OA), then the hydra could use extra heads to take additional reactions. Not sure why anybody would ever intentionally expose themselves to multiple OAs, but that's a different intellectual discussion.
One such moment I can think of - an ally that needs to absorb all of the reactions to ensure that their friend can escape far enough away without using disengage. That’s... about it. Haha
Reading the single sentence for reactive heads, RAW appears ambiguous. My hunch is that the intention was that each individual OA would provoke from one head and that this process could be repeated a number of times equal to the number of heads before the reaction resets on the hydra's turn. If they were meant to go off all at once, it would have been MUCH simpler just to say "When a creature provokes an opportunity attack, each head attacks."
Hmm, I don't see how it fails to answer that question.
He didn't say yes or no about attacking with each head, he only said 1 attack per opportunity attack. Our issue is: are multiple opportunity attacks triggered?
If yes, everything he said is still true. If no, everything he said is still true. That is how it failed to answer...
Can a hydra use Reactive Heads to make multiple opportunity attacks against one creature at the same time when it provokes? Yes. For that reason, we recommend taking the Disengage action when you’re going to move away from a hydra.
Most of the questions about reactions (e.g. can one action trigger multiple times) are masked by the fact that creatures only get one per round, and thus 5e didn't bother to answer them. Thus, when you get a creature that can take multiple reactions, how they work is immediately unclear.
Can a hydra use Reactive Heads to make multiple opportunity attacks against one creature at the same time when it provokes? Yes. For that reason, we recommend taking the Disengage action when you’re going to move away from a hydra.
I honestly thought (and hoped) it wasn't intended to work this way, even though I was arguing for it from a RAW perspective.
Can a hydra use Reactive Heads to make multiple opportunity attacks against one creature at the same time when it provokes? Yes. For that reason, we recommend taking the Disengage action when you’re going to move away from a hydra.
I honestly thought (and hoped) it wasn't intended to work this way, even though I was arguing for it from a RAW perspective.
And you’ll feel like a jerk DM if you don’t give some form of heads up about this to players because you know there will a person to do an attack and then move actions.
“sorry, five heads five opportunity attacks? Didn’t know about that? Well next time you can take the disengage action to avoid it. “
Can a hydra use Reactive Heads to make multiple opportunity attacks against one creature at the same time when it provokes? Yes. For that reason, we recommend taking the Disengage action when you’re going to move away from a hydra.
I honestly thought (and hoped) it wasn't intended to work this way, even though I was arguing for it from a RAW perspective.
And you’ll feel like a jerk DM if you don’t give some form of heads up about this to players because you know there will a person to do an attack and then move actions.
“sorry, five heads five opportunity attacks? Didn’t know about that? Well next time you can take the disengage action to avoid it. “
It'll be a good learning exercise for the rest of the party!
And this is one of the many reasons the UA Fighting Style "Tunnel Fighter" was not released (The Fighting Style gave infinite Attacks of Opportunity for reference- so yeah).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can the Hydra use it's "Reactive Heads" against a single target or must it be spread out?
Example: A character provoked and AoO, the Hydra has 3 heads, can it make 3 attacks against the single target?
Yes and no, the character would have to trigger the AoO three separate times.
So, one movement out of range doesn't provoke all of the heads?
That is certainly RAI, but I'm actually not sure it is RAW. I don't see any rule that prevents you from making multiple OAs against the same target from the same movement if you are able (I would be happy to be wrong if Lunali or anyone can find one).
Since opportunity attack's occur before the movement (out of necessity), the target can choose to not move after taking the attack. If they still choose to move, I don't see why that wouldn't trigger another OA.
I wouldn't run hydras that way because that is extremely punishing (could KO a level 10 spellcaster in 1 turn).
Not sure if it would qualify as RAW or would be more of a RAI, but the way that I read the above entry would be that the hydra gains an extra reaction for each additional head. A single creature moving away from the hydra would allow it to use one of its reactions to make an opportunity attack. So, despite having multiple heads, the hydra is still one creature taking one reaction for this specific opportunity attack (i.e., it's not taking multiple reactions at the same time).
Now, if the same creature moves in and out of the hydra's reach multiple times (thus provoking multiple OA), then the hydra could use extra heads to take additional reactions. Not sure why anybody would ever intentionally expose themselves to multiple OAs, but that's a different intellectual discussion.
One such moment I can think of - an ally that needs to absorb all of the reactions to ensure that their friend can escape far enough away without using disengage. That’s... about it. Haha
Reading the single sentence for reactive heads, RAW appears ambiguous. My hunch is that the intention was that each individual OA would provoke from one head and that this process could be repeated a number of times equal to the number of heads before the reaction resets on the hydra's turn. If they were meant to go off all at once, it would have been MUCH simpler just to say "When a creature provokes an opportunity attack, each head attacks."
EDIT: In fact, I'm sure it is RAI.
EDIT2: Nope
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That doesn't actually answer the question of whether multiple OA are triggered. No one asked how many attacks can be made with each OA/reaction.
Hmm, I don't see how it fails to answer that question.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
He didn't say yes or no about attacking with each head, he only said 1 attack per opportunity attack. Our issue is: are multiple opportunity attacks triggered?
If yes, everything he said is still true. If no, everything he said is still true. That is how it failed to answer...
I took his point just fine.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Does this help?
Sage Advice Compendium
Thanks for the SAC link. Looks like I was wrong.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Most of the questions about reactions (e.g. can one action trigger multiple times) are masked by the fact that creatures only get one per round, and thus 5e didn't bother to answer them. Thus, when you get a creature that can take multiple reactions, how they work is immediately unclear.
I honestly thought (and hoped) it wasn't intended to work this way, even though I was arguing for it from a RAW perspective.
And you’ll feel like a jerk DM if you don’t give some form of heads up about this to players because you know there will a person to do an attack and then move actions.
“sorry, five heads five opportunity attacks? Didn’t know about that? Well next time you can take the disengage action to avoid it. “
So does that means if a PC were to ever get multiple reactions, they would be able to do the same thing.
If so, good thing Tunnel Fighter is no more.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
It'll be a good learning exercise for the rest of the party!
Unless the way they gained extra reactions specified otherwise, yes.
And this is one of the many reasons the UA Fighting Style "Tunnel Fighter" was not released (The Fighting Style gave infinite Attacks of Opportunity for reference- so yeah).
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.