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 move betwixt attacks that are made using the Multiattack action?

(Note I am asking specifically well-nigh Multiattack and not about Extra Set on)

(Apologies if this has come up before)

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

Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post

Can anyone indicate me to a source that says that monsters (or anyone) can move between attacks that are fabricated using the Multiattack action?

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

(Apologies if this has come up before)

The standard ruling on page 190 covers information technology.

"If you take an activity that includes more than than one weapon attack, you tin can break up your move even further by moving betwixt those attacks."

While the page uses actress assault as an case, information technology doesn't preclude Multiattack. And multi attacks are considered weapon attacks.

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

The just histrion feature that I know of capable of using Multiattack is the Ranger, and there are already two pages full of arguing on exactly why you lot tin can't practice that. (Ranger's Multiattack is i attack with multiple rolls). Monsters are gratis to move betwixt Multi-Attacks because their feature says they brand two attacks with different weapons.

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

Quote Originally Posted past Sabeta View Post

The only actor feature that I know of capable of using Multiattack is the Ranger, and there are already two pages full of arguing on exactly why y'all can't do that. (Ranger's Multiattack is one attack with multiple rolls). Monsters are free to motion between Multi-Attacks because their feature says they brand ii attacks with different weapons.

Druid'south wildshape?

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

I hadn't considered that. Then aye, Wildshape probably allows yous to move betwixt your attacks; since the entries for bears and similar creatures says that you specifically make 2 attacks.

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

Quote Originally Posted past mgshamster View Post

The standard ruling on page 190 covers information technology.

"If you lot take an action that includes more than than i weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving betwixt those attacks."

While the page uses extra attack as an example, information technology doesn't preclude Multiattack. And multi attacks are considered weapon attacks.

Yep. Cheers. At present, I'm just trying to be thorough, 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 information technology reasonable to presume that rules written in the PHB and intended for PCs ought to exist applied to monsters as well?

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

Quote Originally Posted by Sabeta View Post

The only actor feature that I know of capable of using Multiattack is the Ranger, and there are already two pages total of arguing on exactly why you can't do that. (Ranger'southward Multiattack is one attack with multiple rolls). Monsters are free to move between Multi-Attacks because their feature says they make two attacks with unlike weapons.

Whirlwind

RAW: Move and assault

CRAWford: No move and attack.

Crawford disregards his own (and the books'due south) raw rulings on making multiple attack rolls being separate attacks in order to try and make the RAI fit into the game as RAW... But anyone who can read and doesn't accept an agenda tin can come across that it is multiple attack rolls and thus multiple attacks (again unless you take an agenda and are ignoring the feature).

Then the answer is to ask your DM if y'all want the feature to be near worthless (CRAWford/RAI) or useful and nigh every bit skillful equally Volley (RAW).

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

Quote Originally Posted by R.Shackleford View Post

Whirlwind

RAW: Move and attack

CRAWford: No move and attack.

Crawford disregards his own (and the books'due south) raw rulings on making multiple attack rolls being carve up attacks in order to try and make the RAI fit into the game as RAW... But anyone who can read and doesn't have an agenda tin run across that it is multiple assault rolls and thus multiple attacks (again unless yous take an agenda and are ignoring the feature).

So the respond is to ask your DM if yous want the feature to exist well-nigh worthless (CRAWford/RAI) or useful and near as good equally Volley (RAW).

Y'all should not restart the discussion in this topic when the other is still hot, especially to put what is merely a personal opinion every bit an indusputable truth. ;)

@OP: if you have some time, the thread in question is this ane (at to the lowest degree for the latest, people come up and try regularly to create problems where it doesn't exist).

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

Quote Originally Posted by R.Shackleford View Post

Crawford disregards his ain (and the books's) raw rulings on making multiple attack rolls being carve up attacks in order to try and make the RAI fit into the game every bit RAW...

Could you quote that RAW?

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

Quote Originally Posted by ClintACK View Post

Could yous quote that RAW?

Information technology'southward not RAW. It'southward Shackelford's Interpretation (I tin can't even call it RAI considering it's just outright wrong). This thread was linked once already but I'll link it once again for visibility. Information technology cites several examples from the PHB on why exactly Cyclone Set on is a unmarried attack which hits confronting multiple ACs, and therefore necessitates multiple attack roles. The extreme TLDR though is, "Whirlwind Assault: You can utilise your action to make a melee assail against any number of creatures within 5 feet of yous". The book conspicuously says make A Melee Attack. If information technology meant more than ane it would say "Melee Attacks". There is no room for error there. The statement solitary stems from people misinterpreting the statement "If you're making an assault roll, you lot're making an attack", as all assault rolls are also attacks. Truth is, an assault with multiple attack rolls is still "an assault"

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

Quote Originally Posted past BurgerBeast View Post

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

Yous are correct in both assumptions. The MM does not specifically state it and the MM references the PHB several times in the Attack section.

As Multiattack in the MM always references which weapon is used, and the weapon used always specifies that it's a weapon attack, and the attack rules in the MM tell you to see the PHB for more information, and the PHB says that a creature making more than ane attack with a weapon attack can move between attacks, I call up it's safe to presume that the rules are connected and a creature with Multiattack can move betwixt attacks.

Interestingly, the wording for Multiattack says, "A creature that tin make multiple attacks on its plough has Multiattack." It'southward not saying that you need to have Multiattack to make multiple attacks, it'south saying that if you tin make multiple attacks, yous automatically have this ability. In other words, Multiattack is derived from the ability to make multiple attacks, and not the other way effectually (multiple attacks are not derived from Multiattack). This is in dissimilarity to Extra Attack, where the power to brand multiple attacks is dependent on the Extra Attack power. Hopefully I'm not being besides convoluted here.

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

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

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

Quote Originally Posted past Zman View Post

Hmm... I wonder if I can do with with my melee Magician and Twin Spell. It is an activeness with more than 1 melee attack...

The rules specify weapon attack.

I'm uncertain if a spell assault 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 attack.

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

Spell attacks are not weapon attacks (so a Warlock can't motility between Eldritch Blasts). However it becomes more blurred with spells similar GFB/BB that are weapon attacks that deport a spell rider.

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

Quote Originally Posted by mgshamster View Post

The rules specify weapon set on.

I'1000 uncertain if a spell attack is included in the category of weapon attacks, just I suspect not.

Quote Originally Posted by RickAllison View Post

Spell attacks are non weapon attacks (then a Warlock can't move betwixt Eldritch Blasts). All the same it becomes more blurred with spells like GFB/BB that are weapon attacks that carry a spell passenger.

Exactly, with Booming Blade you are making a weapon assail as office 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 red herring.

To each his own interpretation, merely I find this one the almost aesthetically pleasing. Information technology doesn't terminate yous from moving betwixt attacks, information technology just forces yous 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

Information technology's not RAW. It's Shackelford's Estimation (I can't fifty-fifty call information technology RAI because information technology's just outright wrong). This thread was linked in one case already but I'll link it again for visibility. It cites several examples from the PHB on why exactly Whirlwind Attack is a unmarried attack which hits against multiple ACs, and therefore necessitates multiple attack roles. The extreme TLDR though is, "Whirlwind Attack: Y'all tin can use your activity to brand a melee assail against any number of creatures within 5 anxiety of you". The volume conspicuously says make A Melee Attack. If it meant more than i it would say "Melee Attacks". There is no room for error at that place. The argument alone stems from people misinterpreting the statement "If yous're making an attack ringlet, you're making an set on", equally all attack rolls are also attacks. Truth is, an attack with multiple assail rolls is nonetheless "an assail"

Y'all are completely and utterly incorrect, in that location is no "estimation" when it comes to cyclone.

From the SRD

"If at that place�due south ever any question whether something you lot�re doing counts as an attack, the rule is uncomplicated: if you�re making an assail roll, you�re making an attack."

"Whirlwind Assault: You lot can use your activeness to brand a melee attack confronting any number of creatures within 5 anxiety of you, with a separate set on roll for each target."

Crawford has said multiple times "if yous're making an assail curlicue, y'all'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 are completely and utterly incorrect, there is no "interpretation" when it comes to cyclone.

From the SRD

"If there�s e'er whatever question whether something you�re doing counts as an assail, the rule is simple: if y'all�re making an assault roll, you�re making an assail."

"Whirlwind Attack: You can utilize your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within five feet of you, with a split up attack curl for each target."

Crawford has said multiple times "if you're making an assail roll, you're making an set on" in different 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'chiliad beginning to feel that your arguments are non based on Cyclone Attack at all, but on your disdain for Crawford because you perceive him as inconsistent. Then I'm going to effort a dissimilar approach this time. Please explain to me how it is impossible to make multiple attacks rolls with one attack. Not "considering Crawdaddy said so", simply in your ain words how is information technology incommunicable.

I read the RAW as making A Melee Set on, with Multiple Rolls. Crawfords supports this. Because I have also made at least one Attack Roll, I have also made An Assault, and then this isn't contradicting the SRD. The SRD Ruling isn't about making multiple attacks when you accept feats similar Extra Attack, it's about determining if you tin can use abilities that key off of "When you make a Melee Attack". I can Guarantee y'all that if yous asked Crawdad: "There's been a lot of debate about your ruling on Cyclone Attack seemingly contradicting the statement 'if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.' Can you please elaborate on that?" they'll answer in much the same mode that I, or virtually people on this forum have so far.

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

I retrieve we've covered the OP'south question adequately well, but 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 y'all can't move betwixt those abilities, but how would you lot handle it every bit a DM? Also, what order tin you apply non-attack abilities granted by multiattack? Do you accept to use them first, or can a dragon set on earlier using frightful presence?

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

Quote Originally Posted past Goober4473 View Post

I think we've covered the OP's question fairly well, but hither's an interesting twist: some monsters, similar 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, but how would you handle information technology as a DM? Also, what guild tin you use non-set on abilities granted by multiattack? Practise you have to utilize them first, or can a dragon attack before using frightful presence?

A dragon tin can use its frightful presence. It *then* can assault (assuasive movements betwixt its attacks).

Exact quote: "The dragon can use its Frightful Presence. Information technology then makes three attacks: i with its seize with teeth and two with its claws."

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

Quote Originally Posted past R.Shackleford

"If there�due south ever any question whether something you�re doing counts as an assail, the rule is simple: if you�re making an attack roll, you�re making an set on."

"Whirlwind Attack: You tin can apply your activity to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

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

No ane has ever said that Whirlwind Attack isn't an attack. What they've said is that information technology's one set on. The given quotes practise non in any way contradict this.

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

Quote Originally Posted by R.Shackleford View Post

Cyclone

So the answer is to ask your DM if you lot want the characteristic to be near worthless (CRAWford/RAI) or useful and almost as practiced every bit Volley (RAW).

Thats a fiddling much.

You lot even so have the option of hitting more than targets with Whirlwind then you could doing a full attack even with a off hand weapon. So it's better so "Near worthless" I call back.

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

I never understood why people hate on whirlwind if your take 1 or ii targets don't use it, but if you lot have 3 or more it'due south an improvement to your normal attack by all means.

Gonzales Imselity

With Multiattack Can You Move Attack Then Move Again and Attack

Thread: Movement Between Multiattacks

Motion Between Multiattacks

Re: Motion Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Motion Between Multiattacks

Re: Motion Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Motility Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Motion Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Movement Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Re: Move Betwixt Multiattacks

Re: Movement Between Multiattacks

Posting Permissions

Postar um comentário for "With Multiattack Can You Move Attack Then Move Again and Attack"