With Multiattack Can You Move Attack Then Move Again and Attack

2016-08-06,06:23 PM (ISO 8601)

Can anyone bespeak me to a source that says that monsters (or anyone) can movement between attacks that are made using the Multiattack action?

(Note I am asking specifically near Multiattack and non nigh Extra Attack)

(Apologies if this has come up earlier)

2016-08-06,06:34 PM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post

Can anyone bespeak me to a source that says that monsters (or anyone) can move between attacks that are made using the Multiattack activity?

(Note I am asking specifically almost Multiattack and not about Extra Attack)

(Apologies if this has come upwardly before)

The standard ruling on page 190 covers it.

"If you accept an activity that includes more than one weapon attack, you tin interruption up your movement fifty-fifty further past moving between those attacks."

While the folio uses actress assault as an example, information technology doesn't foreclose Multiattack. And multi attacks are considered weapon attacks.

2016-08-06,07:49 PM (ISO 8601)

The simply actor characteristic that I know of capable of using Multiattack is the Ranger, and in that location are already two pages full of arguing on exactly why you can't practice that. (Ranger's Multiattack is one attack with multiple rolls). Monsters are free to move betwixt Multi-Attacks considering their characteristic says they make 2 attacks with different weapons.

2016-08-06,08:12 PM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by Sabeta View Post

The merely player feature that I know of capable of using Multiattack is the Ranger, and there are already two pages full of arguing on exactly why yous tin can't do that. (Ranger'southward Multiattack is i attack with multiple rolls). Monsters are costless to movement betwixt Multi-Attacks because their feature says they make 2 attacks with dissimilar weapons.

Druid's wildshape?

2016-08-06,08:42 PM (ISO 8601)

I hadn't considered that. Then yep, Wildshape probably allows you to motility between your attacks; since the entries for bears and similar creatures says that you specifically make two attacks.

2016-08-07,01:36 AM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by mgshamster View Post

The standard ruling on page 190 covers it.

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon assail, you can pause up your move even further by moving betwixt those attacks."

While the folio uses actress assail as an example, it doesn't preclude Multiattack. And multi attacks are considered weapon attacks.

Yep. Thank you. Now, I'm just trying to be thorough, and so forgive me if this is an obvious question: If I'm not mistaken, the MM doesn't say anywhere that monsters can move between attacks when using Multiattack, so is it reasonable to assume that rules written in the PHB and intended for PCs ought to be applied to monsters also?

2016-08-07,02:33 AM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by Sabeta View Post

The just player feature that I know of capable of using Multiattack is the Ranger, and in that location are already two pages full of arguing on exactly why you can't do that. (Ranger'south Multiattack is one set on with multiple rolls). Monsters are free to motion betwixt Multi-Attacks because their feature says they make two attacks with different weapons.

Whirlwind

RAW: Move and attack

CRAWford: No move and attack.

Crawford disregards his own (and the books'southward) raw rulings on making multiple assault rolls being split attacks in club to try and make the RAI fit into the game equally RAW... But anyone who tin read and doesn't have an agenda can see that it is multiple set on rolls and thus multiple attacks (again unless you take an agenda and are ignoring the feature).

So the answer is to enquire your DM if you want the feature to be nigh worthless (CRAWford/RAI) or useful and almost as good every bit Volley (RAW).

2016-08-07,02:42 AM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by R.Shackleford View Post

Cyclone

RAW: Move and assault

CRAWford: No motility and attack.

Crawford disregards his own (and the books'due south) raw rulings on making multiple attack rolls being split attacks in order to endeavour and brand the RAI fit into the game as RAW... Merely anyone who can read and doesn't have an agenda can see that it is multiple attack rolls and thus multiple attacks (again unless you take an agenda and are ignoring the feature).

So the answer is to ask your DM if you desire the feature to exist near worthless (CRAWford/RAI) or useful and almost every bit adept every bit Volley (RAW).

You lot should not restart the word in this topic when the other is even so hot, especially to put what is only a personal opinion as an indusputable truth. ;)

@OP: if yous have some fourth dimension, the thread in question is this one (at least for the latest, people come and endeavor regularly to create problems where it doesn't be).

2016-08-07,02:42 AM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by R.Shackleford View Post

Crawford disregards his ain (and the books'due south) raw rulings on making multiple set on rolls beingness separate attacks in order to try and brand the RAI fit into the game as RAW...

Could you lot quote that RAW?

2016-08-07,03:37 AM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by ClintACK View Post

Could y'all quote that RAW?

It's not RAW. It'southward Shackelford'south Interpretation (I tin can't even phone call information technology RAI because information technology's simply outright wrong). This thread was linked in one case already only I'll link it again for visibility. It cites several examples from the PHB on why exactly Whirlwind Attack is a single attack which hits against multiple ACs, and therefore necessitates multiple assail roles. The extreme TLDR though is, "Cyclone Set on: You can use your action to brand a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you". The book conspicuously says make A Melee Set on. If it meant more than one information technology would say "Melee Attacks". At that place is no room for fault in that location. The argument alone stems from people misinterpreting the statement "If you're making an attack gyre, you're making an attack", as all assail rolls are also attacks. Truth is, an attack with multiple assail rolls is yet "an attack"

2016-08-07,06:35 AM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post

Yep. Thank you. Now, I'm just trying to be thorough, then forgive me if this is an obvious question: If I'm not mistaken, the MM doesn't say anywhere that monsters can motion betwixt attacks when using Multiattack, so is it reasonable to presume that rules written in the PHB and intended for PCs ought to be applied to monsters also?

Y'all are correct in both assumptions. The MM does not specifically country it and the MM references the PHB several times in the Assail section.

As Multiattack in the MM always references which weapon is used, and the weapon used ever specifies that it's a weapon assault, and the assail rules in the MM tell you to run across the PHB for more information, and the PHB says that a brute making more than one attack with a weapon attack can move betwixt attacks, I think it'southward rubber to assume that the rules are connected and a creature with Multiattack tin can motion between attacks.

Interestingly, the diction for Multiattack says, "A animal that can brand multiple attacks on its plow has Multiattack." It's not saying that y'all need to have Multiattack to make multiple attacks, it's proverb that if you lot tin make multiple attacks, you lot automatically accept this ability. In other words, Multiattack is derived from the ability to make multiple attacks, and non the other way around (multiple attacks are not derived from Multiattack). This is in contrast to Extra Assault, where the ability to make multiple attacks is dependent on the Extra Assail ability. Hopefully I'm not beingness too convoluted here.

2016-08-07,09:49 AM (ISO 8601)

Hmm... I wonder if I can do with with my melee Wizard and Twin Spell. It is an activity with more than i melee attack...

2016-08-07,10:06 AM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by Zman View Post

Hmm... I wonder if I can practise with with my melee Sorcerer and Twin Spell. It is an action with more than one melee attack...

The rules specify weapon attack.

I'm uncertain if a spell assail is included in the category of weapon attacks, but I suspect not.

2016-08-07,10:17 AM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by mgshamster View Post

The rules specify weapon set on.

I'm uncertain if a spell assail is included in the category of weapon attacks, just I doubtable non.

Spell attacks are not weapon attacks (so a Warlock can't movement between Eldritch Blasts). All the same it becomes more than blurred with spells like GFB/BB that are weapon attacks that carry a spell rider.

2016-08-07,10:58 AM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by mgshamster View Post

The rules specify weapon assail.

I'm uncertain if a spell assault is included in the category of weapon attacks, but I suspect non.

Quote Originally Posted past RickAllison View Post

Spell attacks are not weapon attacks (so a Warlock can't move between Eldritch Blasts). Notwithstanding information technology becomes more blurred with spells similar GFB/BB that are weapon attacks that carry a spell rider.

Exactly, with Booming Blade you are making a weapon assault every bit part of the casting, when twinned you are making multiple weapon attacks.

2016-08-07,11:03 AM (ISO 8601)

I think the distinction hinges on "within 5 feet". Multiattack is a reddish herring.

To each his ain interpretation, but I find this one the about aesthetically pleasing. It doesn't end you from moving between attacks, it just forces you to pass through a "square" that is close to all your targets.

2016-08-07,01:39 PM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by Sabeta View Post

It'south not RAW. It'due south Shackelford's Interpretation (I can't even telephone call it RAI because information technology'due south just outright wrong). This thread was linked one time already only I'll link it again for visibility. It cites several examples from the PHB on why exactly Whirlwind Assail is a single set on which hits against multiple ACs, and therefore necessitates multiple attack roles. The extreme TLDR though is, "Whirlwind Set on: You can apply your action to make a melee assault confronting any number of creatures within 5 anxiety of yous". The volume conspicuously says make A Melee Attack. If it meant more one it would say "Melee Attacks". At that place is no room for error there. The argument alone stems from people misinterpreting the statement "If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack", as all attack rolls are too attacks. Truth is, an attack with multiple attack rolls is still "an assault"

You are completely and utterly wrong, in that location is no "interpretation" when it comes to cyclone.

From the SRD

"If in that location�due south ever any question whether something y'all�re doing counts equally an set on, the rule is simple: if you�re making an attack roll, you�re making an attack."

"Whirlwind Assail: You tin apply your activeness to brand a melee assault against any number of creatures within v feet of you, with a separate assail curlicue for each target."

Crawford has said multiple times "if yous're making an attack gyre, yous're making an attack" in different media.

Trying to lawyer the RAW to fit the RAI is unbecoming.

2016-08-07,02:11 PM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by R.Shackleford View Post

You lot are completely and utterly wrong, there is no "interpretation" when it comes to cyclone.

From the SRD

"If there�south ever whatever question whether something yous�re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you�re making an attack whorl, yous�re making an assault."

"Whirlwind Assault: You can utilize your activity to make a melee attack against any number of creatures inside v feet of you, with a carve up attack roll for each target."

Crawford has said multiple times "if you're making an attack roll, y'all're making an attack" in dissimilar media.

Trying to lawyer the RAW to fit the RAI is unbecoming.

We've been over this in three different threads now. Your obstinance is unbecoming, and quite frankly I'm beginning to experience that your arguments are not based on Cyclone Attack at all, but on your disdain for Crawford because you perceive him as inconsistent. And then I'thousand going to endeavour a dissimilar arroyo this fourth dimension. Please explain to me how it is impossible to brand multiple attacks rolls with ane attack. Not "considering Crawdaddy said so", but in your own words how is it impossible.

I read the RAW as making A Melee Attack, with Multiple Rolls. Crawfords supports this. Because I have also made at to the lowest degree one Assault Roll, I accept likewise made An Set on, and so this isn't contradicting the SRD. The SRD Ruling isn't about making multiple attacks when you lot accept feats like Actress Attack, it's nigh determining if y'all can use abilities that primal off of "When you lot make a Melee Assail". I tin Guarantee you that if you asked Crawdad: "There'southward been a lot of debate about your ruling on Whirlwind Attack seemingly contradicting the argument 'if you're making an set on coil, you're making an set on.' Tin you delight elaborate on that?" they'll answer in much the aforementioned style that I, or well-nigh people on this forum have so far.

2016-08-07,02:47 PM (ISO 8601)

I think we've covered the OP's question fairly well, merely here's an interesting twist: some monsters, like dragons, have other abilities in their multiattack, such as frightful presence. Other monsters make spell attacks instead of weapon attacks. RAW obviously suggests you lot can't motion between those abilities, but how would you handle information technology as a DM? Besides, what society can you use non-attack abilities granted by multiattack? Do you take to use them showtime, or can a dragon attack before using frightful presence?

2016-08-07,03:02 PM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by Goober4473 View Post

I call back nosotros've covered the OP'due south question fairly well, but hither's an interesting twist: some monsters, like dragons, have other abilities in their multiattack, such as frightful presence. Other monsters make spell attacks instead of weapon attacks. RAW obviously suggests you can't move between those abilities, only how would you handle information technology as a DM? Also, what guild can you employ non-assault abilities granted by multiattack? Exercise you take to utilise them first, or tin a dragon attack before using frightful presence?

A dragon can apply its frightful presence. It *so* tin attack (allowing movements between its attacks).

Verbal quote: "The dragon can use its Frightful Presence. It so makes iii attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws."

2016-08-08,06:14 PM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by R.Shackleford

"If in that location�s ever whatever question whether something you�re doing counts as an assault, the rule is elementary: if you�re making an assault gyre, you lot�re making an attack."

"Whirlwind Attack: You tin utilise your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within five feet of you, with a separate attack whorl for each target."

Crawford has said multiple times "if you're making an assault ringlet, y'all're making an attack" in different media.

No one has ever said that Whirlwind Attack isn't an set on. What they've said is that it's one set on. The given quotes do not in any way contradict this.

2016-08-09,02:53 PM (ISO 8601)

Quote Originally Posted by R.Shackleford View Post

Whirlwind

And then the answer is to ask your DM if you want the characteristic to be virtually worthless (CRAWford/RAI) or useful and nigh every bit good as Volley (RAW).

Thats a little much.

You still accept the choice of hitting more than targets with Whirlwind then you could doing a full attack fifty-fifty with a off hand weapon. So it'southward amend then "Nearly worthless" I think.

On the other mitt the ability to hit a unlimited corporeality of monsters by moving around the room hitting people (RAW) is better and then Volley as you tin can hit more targets so Volley if your allowed to move.

I never understood why people hate on whirlwind if your have 1 or two targets don't use information technology, but if you take three or more than it'southward an improvement to your normal attack by all means.

With Multiattack Can You Move Attack Then Move Again and Attack

Thread: Motility Betwixt Multiattacks

Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Motion Between Multiattacks

Re: Motility Between Multiattacks

Re: Motility Between Multiattacks

Re: Move Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Move Between Multiattacks

Re: Motion Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Motion Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Motion Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Motion Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Motion Between Multiattacks

Re: Move Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Posting Permissions

0 Response to "With Multiattack Can You Move Attack Then Move Again and Attack"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel