Movement Between Multiattacks

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

(Apologies if this has come up before)

[mgshamster]

Can anyone point me to a source that says that monsters (or anyone) can move between attacks that are made 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 it.

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

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

[Sabeta]

The only 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 you can't do that. (Ranger's Multiattack is one attack with multiple rolls). Monsters are free to move between Multi-Attacks because their feature says they make two attacks with different weapons.

[mgshamster]

The only 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 you can't do that. (Ranger's Multiattack is one attack with multiple rolls). Monsters are free to move between Multi-Attacks because their feature says they make two attacks with different weapons.

Druid's wildshape?

[Sabeta]

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

[BurgerBeast]

The standard ruling on page 190 covers it.

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

While the page uses extra attack 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, 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 as well?

[R.Shackleford]

The only 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 you can't do that. (Ranger's Multiattack is one attack with multiple rolls). Monsters are free to move between 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's) 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 have an agenda can see that it is multiple attack rolls and thus multiple attacks (again unless you have an agenda and are ignoring the feature).

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

[Citan]

Whirlwind

RAW: Move and attack

CRAWford: No move and attack.

Crawford disregards his own (and the books's) 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 have an agenda can see that it is multiple attack rolls and thus multiple attacks (again unless you have an agenda and are ignoring the feature).

So the answer is to ask your DM if you want the feature to be near worthless (CRAWford/RAI) or useful and almost as good as Volley (RAW).
You should not restart the discussion in this topic when the other is still hot, especially to put what is only a personal opinion as an indusputable truth. ;)

@OP: if you have some time, the thread in question is this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?496447-Multiattack-Rules) (at least for the latest, people come and try regularly to create problems where it doesn't exist).

[ClintACK]

Crawford disregards his own (and the books's) raw rulings on making multiple attack rolls being separate attacks in order to try and make the RAI fit into the game as RAW...

Could you quote that RAW?

[Sabeta]

Could you quote that RAW?

It's not RAW. It's Shackelford's Interpretation (I can't even call it RAI because it's just outright wrong). This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?496447-Multiattack-Rules) thread was linked once already but 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 attack roles. The extreme TLDR though is, "Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you". The book clearly says make A Melee Attack. If it meant more than one it would say "Melee Attacks". There 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 also attacks. Truth is, an attack with multiple attack rolls is still "an attack"

[mgshamster]

Yep. Thank you. Now, 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 it reasonable to assume that rules written in the PHB and intended for PCs ought to be applied to monsters as well?

You 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 one attack with a weapon attack can move between attacks, I think it's safe to assume that the rules are connected and a creature with Multiattack can move between attacks.

Interestingly, the wording for Multiattack says, "A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has Multiattack." It's not saying that you need to have Multiattack to make multiple attacks, it's saying that if you can make multiple attacks, you automatically have this ability. In other words, Multiattack is derived from the ability to make multiple attacks, and not the other way around (multiple attacks are not derived from Multiattack). This is in contrast to Extra Attack, where the ability to make multiple attacks is dependent on the Extra Attack ability. Hopefully I'm not being too convoluted here.

[Zman]

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

[mgshamster]

Hmm... I wonder if I can do 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 attack is included in the category of weapon attacks, but I suspect not.

[RickAllison]

The rules specify weapon attack.

I'm 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 move between Eldritch Blasts). However it becomes more blurred with spells like GFB/BB that are weapon attacks that carry a spell rider.

[Zman]

The rules specify weapon attack.

I'm 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 move between Eldritch Blasts). However it becomes more blurred with spells like GFB/BB that are weapon attacks that carry a spell rider.

Exactly, with Booming Blade you are making a weapon attack as part of the casting, when twinned you are making multiple weapon attacks.

[bid]

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

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

[R.Shackleford]

It's not RAW. It's Shackelford's Interpretation (I can't even call it RAI because it's just outright wrong). This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?496447-Multiattack-Rules) thread was linked once already but 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 attack roles. The extreme TLDR though is, "Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you". The book clearly says make A Melee Attack. If it meant more than one it would say "Melee Attacks". There 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 also attacks. Truth is, an attack with multiple attack rolls is still "an attack"

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

From the SRD

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action 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 attack" in different media.

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

[Sabeta]

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

From the SRD

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action 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 attack" 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'm beginning to feel that your arguments are not based on Whirlwind Attack at all, but on your disdain for Crawford because you perceive him as inconsistent. So I'm going to try a different approach this time. Please explain to me how it is impossible to make multiple attacks rolls with one attack. Not "because 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 least one Attack Roll, I have also made An Attack, so this isn't contradicting the SRD. The SRD Ruling isn't about making multiple attacks when you take feats like Extra Attack, it's about determining if you can use abilities that key off of "When you make a Melee Attack". I can Guarantee you that if you asked Crawdad: "There's been a lot of debate about your ruling on Whirlwind 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 way that I, or most people on this forum have so far.

[Goober4473]

I think we've covered the OP's question fairly 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 you can't move between those abilities, but how would you handle it as a DM? Also, what order can you use non-attack abilities granted by multiattack? Do you have to use them first, or can a dragon attack before using frightful presence?

[mgshamster]

I think we've covered the OP's question fairly 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 you can't move between those abilities, but how would you handle it as a DM? Also, what order can you use non-attack abilities granted by multiattack? Do you have to use them first, or can a dragon attack before using frightful presence?

A dragon can use its frightful presence. It *then* can attack (allowing movements between its attacks).

Exact quote: "The dragon can use its Frightful Presence. It then makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws."

[Vogonjeltz]

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action 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 attack" in different media.

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

[WereRabbitz]

Whirlwind

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

Thats a little much.

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

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

I never understood why people hate on whirlwind if your have 1 or 2 targets don't use it, but if you have 3 or more it's an improvement to your normal attack by all means.