Chain Devil and Animate Chains

[alex1g]

So I'm running a game with a Chain Devil.... On my turn I animate the chains. I then attempt to attack one of the players. The players start to tell me that I can not attack on the same round that I animated them, same round. I tell them that I can attack on the same round as when I animated them. Who's right?

[JNAProductions]

So I'm running a game with a Chain Devil.... On my turn I animate the chains. I then attempt to attack one of the players. The players start to tell me that I can not attack on the same round that I animated them, same round. I tell them that I can attack on the same round as when I animated them. Who's right?

By the statblock, it’s a separate action to animate than it is to attack.

Which makes sense-it triples the damage output on following turns.

[kazaryu]

So I'm running a game with a Chain Devil.... On my turn I animate the chains. I then attempt to attack one of the players. The players start to tell me that I can not attack on the same round that I animated them, same round. I tell them that I can attack on the same round as when I animated them. Who's right?

well...it depends.

are you trying to run per the rules?
your player is correct. each individual item listed under the 'actions' section of a statblock are actions to perform. so 'animate chains' and 'multi-attack' are both separate actions. the part that may be confusing you is that under 'animate chains' it allows you to use those chains as part of your multi-attack. however, it doesn't permit you to multiattack on the same turn you animate them. the language that would allow would probably read something like 'when you multi-attack and on the turn you animate them you may..' essentially you'd need similar language to spiritual weapon

However, as a DM you always have the right to change things. if you're deliberately trying to power up a chain devil, then you are well within your rights to do so. so from that perspective, you'd be right.

[Unoriginal]

However, as a DM you always have the right to change things. if you're deliberately trying to power up a chain devil, then you are well within your rights to do so. so from that perspective, you'd be right.

"Animate Chains as part of the Multiattack"/"Animated Chains as a bonus action" sounds like a Chain Devil power up, yeah.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Unless I'm missing something in the reading there's no concentration mechanic or time limit on the animated chains though. Effectively there's no reason the Chain Devil couldn't have the chains pre-animated under most circumstances.
Your players could count themselves lucky you didn't hit them with 6 attacks on round 1.

[stoutstien]

Regardless on how you decide to run stuff like this I'd suggest instilling a general guideline to prevent disruptions

Rule/ruling conversations are for after or before the session.

If serious discussion of a ruling needs to happen, it should take place outside
the game session. Whatever the GM decides goes
for the time being unless it leads to extreme outcomes like hero death.

During theses pre/post game discussions, the player can make
their case and the GM can reflect on their choices. This
doesn’t mean that the GM will agree even then, but the
middle of the session is not the time to break out books or forum scrolling.

[Unoriginal]

Regardless on how you decide to run stuff like this I'd suggest instilling a general guideline to prevent disruptions

Rule/ruling conversations are for after or before the session.

If serious discussion of a ruling needs to happen, it should take place outside
the game session. Whatever the GM decides goes
for the time being unless it leads to extreme outcomes like hero death.

During theses pre/post game discussions, the player can make
their case and the GM can reflect on their choices. This
doesn’t mean that the GM will agree even then, but the
middle of the session is not the time to break out books or forum scrolling.

As a DM I'm fine if the players go "wait, isn't the rule X?", but not if they insist we do things their way once the DM either checked the rule or decided "we're doing it Y".

[stoutstien]

As a DM I'm fine if the players go "wait, isn't the rule X?", but not if they insist we do things their way once the DM either checked the rule or decided "we're doing it Y".
Maybe but you need to have a soft cap on the length of that diversion. I wouldn't consider general rule verifications as serious as long as they don't fold into a dozen other ones.

I'm also more likely to be open to this for like general rulings but I would hard stop anybody questioning information that they're not technically privy to such as NPC blocks or other non-player facing material.

[da newt]

As for the 'can players question the DM' etc side of things - this is all great session zero / table rules discussion stuff that ought to be hammered out outside of play time. It really helps everyone get on the same page and set expectations. It's good for the Players and for the DM.

[RazorChain]

I started with using monster talents to switch up monster abilities.

Today I just switch up monster every which way I want. Just as not every human has the same statblock why should there be no difference between Chain Devils???

Give a Chain Devil animate chains as a bonus action, check


So if you are asking if the Chain Devil can do that? Then yes, if you want him to. If you are looking for a rule clarification because then according to the statblock he has then the answer is no.

If a player in my campaign would suggest that my souped up monsters can't do that because he's reading the MM as we are playing then I would probably just kill his character out of spite and laugh in his face.

[JNAProductions]

I started with using monster talents to switch up monster abilities.

Today I just switch up monster every which way I want. Just as not every human has the same statblock why should there be no difference between Chain Devils???

Give a Chain Devil animate chains as a bonus action, check


So if you are asking if the Chain Devil can do that? Then yes, if you want him to. If you are looking for a rule clarification because then according to the statblock he has then the answer is no.

If a player in my campaign would suggest that my souped up monsters can't do that because he's reading the MM as we are playing then I would probably just kill his character out of spite and laugh in his face.

That's... Really excessive.

Like, I completely get modifying monsters to better challenge your players, and I wouldn't want a player at my table opening the Monster Manual without good reason, but the appropriate response is NOT spite and mean laughter.

[RazorChain]

That's... Really excessive.

Like, I completely get modifying monsters to better challenge your players, and I wouldn't want a player at my table opening the Monster Manual without good reason, but the appropriate response is NOT spite and mean laughter.

Identifying problems without providing solutions is easy. So what is the appropriate response then? Putting the player in chains and selling him into slavery is illegal in most parts of the world. I could maybe let him sit on a stool in the corner with a donkey head mask, watching us pay, until he has learned his lesson?

[ShadowSandbag]

Identifying problems without providing solutions is easy. So what is the appropriate response then? Putting the player in chains and selling him into slavery is illegal in most parts of the world. I could maybe let him sit on a stool in the corner with a donkey head mask, watching us pay, until he has learned his lesson?

"Oh I sometimes change up the stat blocks a bit to give some extra variety. Also, would you mind not looking through the monster manual while we are at the table?"