I think monsters multi-attack works the same as player multiattack aka you can do it in whatever order that you want. Its just that certain monster attack tends to combo off the others, and so it makes sense to specify them in a specific order, but I don't see any language that really forces that order.
D&D (2024) Monster Manual 2025: Is Multiattack order prescriptive now?
- Thread starter Keith Ammann
- Start date
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I didn’t say the rules are written tightly. I said it’s inaccurate to say that WotC doesn’t value tight writing.
Yes, so like I said, there was no design architect and not enough development time.
Indeed. Shame there wasn’t more development time.
Oberoni fallacy.
DinoInDisguise
A russian spy disguised as a t-rex.
Wasn't there a post about this being a very strange "fallacy." We should remember that a fallacy requires a "mistaken belief" or a "failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid"
Snarf had a wonderful write up on the issues with this "fallacy." I bolded the important part.
To quote Snarf:
You are dismissing an argument for a difference in philosophy, not because of an actual fallacy.
Source: Fallacious Follies: Oberoni, Stormwind, and Fallacies OH MY!
Last edited:
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
In previous editions, creatures had attack routines stated because that was how they usually attacked. With animals, they rely largely on instinct, so in ordinary situations, they will attack prey in a fairly predictable manner. Creatures like the Roper, or Dragons, who have different reaches with different attacks probably use them in a similar manner as well. When I see a Multiattack that says "do this, then that", I see that more as advice to a DM to give them an idea of how the creature is intended to work, not a strict "it must attack in this way".
For example, few, if any, monsters tell us which attack they use to make opportunity attacks with. Normally they would use the attack with the most reach or damage, but there might be reasons to do otherwise. And if so, there's no reason to say "nope nope, rules don't let you"- I mean, players can generally make their attacks in any order they wish with the Attack action, after all. It's bonus and reaction attacks that usually have qualifiers, if at all.
Now if there is a RAW here, and some creatures are in fact, always expected to attack in the same way every time, like automatons, and they aren't golems or zombies, I can't imagine any DM who wouldn't just ignore that if it didn't make sense to them, so I'm not entirely sure what the debate here is, unless this is just some mental exercise (at which point, carry on, don't mind me!). But I don't believe that there is any real RAW.
After all, then you get questions of "well, if the monster is somehow affected by Haste, which of it's attacks will it use?" lol.
Also! I've noticed some of the new monsters have become very simple with their attacks. The Ancient Green Dragon, at least in the preview I saw, doesn't even bother to have different attacks. It has instead of claws/bite/wing/tail just a generic "Rend" and it's Multiattack lets it Rend thrice, or replace one Rend with a special attack (a spell as I recall). So in some cases, it's kind of moot.
-As an aside, I don't like this approach. I'm not usually a big stickler for verisimilitude, but "Rend" makes me think of a claw attack or something, not a bite or tail slap. Yet "Rend" has a 15' reach, where traditionally, dragons have variable reach based on their body configuration. Probably not relevant to this discussion, but it does strike me as kind of weird.
For example, few, if any, monsters tell us which attack they use to make opportunity attacks with. Normally they would use the attack with the most reach or damage, but there might be reasons to do otherwise. And if so, there's no reason to say "nope nope, rules don't let you"- I mean, players can generally make their attacks in any order they wish with the Attack action, after all. It's bonus and reaction attacks that usually have qualifiers, if at all.
Now if there is a RAW here, and some creatures are in fact, always expected to attack in the same way every time, like automatons, and they aren't golems or zombies, I can't imagine any DM who wouldn't just ignore that if it didn't make sense to them, so I'm not entirely sure what the debate here is, unless this is just some mental exercise (at which point, carry on, don't mind me!). But I don't believe that there is any real RAW.
After all, then you get questions of "well, if the monster is somehow affected by Haste, which of it's attacks will it use?" lol.
Also! I've noticed some of the new monsters have become very simple with their attacks. The Ancient Green Dragon, at least in the preview I saw, doesn't even bother to have different attacks. It has instead of claws/bite/wing/tail just a generic "Rend" and it's Multiattack lets it Rend thrice, or replace one Rend with a special attack (a spell as I recall). So in some cases, it's kind of moot.
-As an aside, I don't like this approach. I'm not usually a big stickler for verisimilitude, but "Rend" makes me think of a claw attack or something, not a bite or tail slap. Yet "Rend" has a 15' reach, where traditionally, dragons have variable reach based on their body configuration. Probably not relevant to this discussion, but it does strike me as kind of weird.
pukunui
Legend
The OP is the author of the Monsters Know What They're Doing series, so I'm guessing he's worried about giving his customers the "wrong" advice.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
whatever wording you want to use for it “the rules aren’t broken because you can fix them” is a bad argument.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
That explains what I otherwise thought was a very strange position to take.
DinoInDisguise
A russian spy disguised as a t-rex.
The point was that it's a difference of opinion, and not a fallacy. If we agree on that, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Again, I'm not too fussed what we refer to it as. My point is, @Jefe Bergenstein and I seem to agree that the rules are written loosely and inconsistently, and I don't think "it's not a problem because DMs are going to do what they want with it anyway" is a compelling argument. It is definitely a problem.
Hussar
Legend
The rules here aren’t broken though. They are perfectly understandable.
If the rules don’t say X happens, then it doesn’t happen. That’s the general rule in WotC DnD and has been since 3e. That’s why electrical attacks work on flying creatures and underwater.
Do the rules say the order is proscriptive? No? Then they aren’t. End of story.
If the rules don’t say X happens, then it doesn’t happen. That’s the general rule in WotC DnD and has been since 3e. That’s why electrical attacks work on flying creatures and underwater.
Do the rules say the order is proscriptive? No? Then they aren’t. End of story.
Similar Threads
