Do monsters ignore (certain) weapon rules?

[Boci]

Take the wererat for example: "Multiattack (Humanoid or Hybrid Form Only). The wererat makes two attacks, only one of which can be a bite." So that seems pretty clear, any two attacks, the only restriction is it cannot be two bites. But, one of its weapons is a hand crossbow, which has the loading special rule. Is the intention that they cannot make two bites OR two crossbow attacks and they didn't reference the later because it was already covered by the crossbow rules? Or are they suppose to ignore that aspect of the weapon? And if so, what else do monsters get to ignore? Can hobgoblins use a shield with their longbow? There's nothing in their statblock that says they can't.

How would you rules two monsters, and other similar ones?

[Mastikator]

I'd say yes, if it says that wererats can make two weapon attacks, and has hand crossbow as a weapon attack action, then it can choose to fire twice. Specific rules override general rules.

A counter example, the knight, has multiattack, either two greatsword attacks or one heavy crossbow attack.

Think of rules for players as suggestions for monsters, but each monster needs special rules if its not following the player's rules.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I don't see why it would remove the loading property. The rat can make one bite and one shortsword attack, or one bite and one crossbow attack, or one crossbow and one shortsword attack, or two shortsword attacks. Monsters ignore player rules only if their description says it ignores it. A player using Multiattack does not remind you that weapons with Loading can only be used once, there's no reason a wererat's Multiattack would.

[Boci]

I don't see why it would remove the loading property. The rat can make one bite and one shortsword attack, or one bite and one crossbow attack, or one crossbow and one shortsword attack, or two shortsword attacks. Monsters ignore player rules only if their description says it ignores it. A player using Multiattack does not remind you that weapons with Loading can only be used once, there's no reason a wererat's Multiattack would.

But player's don't have statblocks, they could be using literally any weapon when they use the attack action with extra attack, so reprinting all weapon rules each class that grants it would be wasteful. But contrast, the wererat statblocks contains two weapons: shortsword and hand crossing. So there absolutely is a reason to expect that to be referenced in the wererat statblock: it is bad design to expect a DM who doesn't know all weapons by heart to have to flick through the players handbook and read each weapon and armour piece that appears in the monster's statblock in case there are some rules the statblock didn't mention. Especially in the wererats case, where adding "melee" to multiattacking would have cleared things up. The effects of the versatile properly for example are spelt out in the statblock of any monster wielding a spear, longsword or battleaxe.


I'd say yes, if it says that wererats can make two weapon attacks, and has hand crossbow as a weapon attack action, then it can choose to fire twice. Specific rules override general rules.

A counter example, the knight, has multiattack, either two greatsword attacks or one heavy crossbow attack.

Think of rules for players as suggestions for monsters, but each monster needs special rules if its not following the player's rules.

That's a reasonable take I feel, avoiding the checking equipment issue for the DM. Though speaking of versatile I mentioned above, the MM gladiator. They wield a spear, completely with the 2d6 vs. 2d8 damage options, and its AC value references a shield. Do their AC drop by 2 when they use the higher damage dice for their spear?

[Dr.Samurai]

Though speaking of versatile, I will mention the MM gladiator. It wields and spear, completely with the 2d6 vs. 2d8 damage options, and its AC value references a shield. Do their AC drop by 2 when they use the higher damage dice for their spear?
Yes, because how else can they wield the spear in two hands if they don't drop doff the shield?

Some monsters have the option to make multiple melee attacks, or a single ranged attack. Even without crossbows, so I don't think the Knight example is as helpful as it seems. Giants are another example of making multiple melee attacks, or a single boulder throw.

Loading property weapons don't allow you to make more than one attack, no matter how many attacks you can make.

The wererat can:

1. Bite and Short Sword
2. Bite and Hand Crossbow
3. Short Sword and Short Sword
4. Short Sword and Hand Crossbow

It cannot:

1. Bite and Bite (explicitly called out in Multiattack)
2. Hand Crossbow and Hand Crossbow (explicitly called out in Loading property of Hand Crossbow)

[Unoriginal]

And if so, what else do monsters get to ignore? Can hobgoblins use a shield with their longbow? There's nothing in their statblock that says they can't.



Though speaking of versatile, I will mention the MM gladiator. It wields and spear, completely with the 2d6 vs. 2d8 damage options, and its AC value references a shield. Do their AC drop by 2 when they use the higher damage dice for their spear?

NPCs have their hands occupied by a shield like anyone else, if they go for two-handing a versatile weapon or use a two-handed-only weapon (like a longbow), then they have to spend their action unclasping the shield and lose 2 AC, like always.

Specifics beat generals, but generals apply unless specifics are explicitly worded in the NPC's entry.

So yes, monsters ignore some of the weapon rules, but only when it's stated so on their statblock.

Ex: Redcaps and their Oversized Weapons.

For Multiattack, in principle the monster can only use the weapons stated in the Multiattack description.

[Amnestic]

I'm pretty sure I've DM'd wererats and gave them a double hand crossbow attack mostly because I forgot about the loading property in the moment.

Clearly they were all crossbow expert wererats.

[Unoriginal]

I'm pretty sure I've DM'd wererats and gave them a double hand crossbow attack mostly because I forgot about the loading property in the moment.

Clearly they were all crossbow expert wererats.

Which is thematically fitting, I think.

[Mastikator]

I'm pretty sure I've DM'd wererats and gave them a double hand crossbow attack mostly because I forgot about the loading property in the moment.

Clearly they were all crossbow expert wererats.

Monsters don't need feats that player characters need. They have their own unique multiattack feature.

You can add a feat to a monster if you wish, or add a feature to a monster that replicates part of or the whole of a feat. But it's not necessary. Monsters have their own set of features which is unbound by player character limitations.

[JackPhoenix]

Slight correction...


2. Hand Crossbow and Hand Crossbow (explicitly called out in Loading property of Hand Crossbow)

It can, assuming it's got two loaded hand crossbows. It can't reload them afterwards, but it CAN shoot both.

[Boci]

Yes, because how else can they wield the spear in two hands if they don't drop doff the shield?

Because the're that good? They also double the weapon dice of the spear they wield, with no explanation for that. Monsters don't follow the same rules PCs do in 5th ed. Don't get me wrong:




The wererat can:

1. Bite and Short Sword
2. Bite and Hand Crossbow
3. Short Sword and Short Sword
4. Short Sword and Hand Crossbow

It cannot:

1. Bite and Bite (explicitly called out in Multiattack)
2. Hand Crossbow and Hand Crossbow (explicitly called out in Loading property of Hand Crossbow)

I feel this is a valid interpretation, but it seems no more valid than letting them make two hand crossbow attacks, because the only restriction in the statblock is for biting. Versatile is referenced in a monster's statblock, so why isn't loading, if it too is meant to apply?

[Witty Username]

Does a wererat need a free hand to load a hand crossbow?
If so, that implies the loading property is still in effect, and there is no specific rule (specific overrides general is the loading property blocking multiple attacks with the general multiattack action).

If not, it isn't stated in the entry anywhere, so the bit about 2-handing with a shield is back on the menu.

I am a fan of crossbows behaving like crossbows, and wolves like wolves. Game objects to represent things are meant to be short hand for that thing. If they behave nothing like eachother why call them the same thing?

[Boci]

I am a fan of crossbows behaving like crossbows, and wolves like wolves. Game objects to represent things are meant to be short hand for that thing. If they behave nothing like eachother why call them the same thing?

Because they needed to explain how wererats have a ranged attack, plus its loot for players. If its meant to have the loading property, why doesn't the statblock reference that, like it does with versatile?

[JackPhoenix]

Because the're that good? They also double the weapon dice of the spear they wield, with no explanation for that.

There is an explanation for that: "Brute: A melee weapon deals one extra die of its damage when the gladiator hits with it (included in the attack)." It's not a PC class ability, but it is an explanation.


I feel this is a valid interpretation, but it seems no more valid than letting them make two hand crossbow attacks, because the only restriction in the statblock is for biting. Versatile is referenced in a monster's statblock, so why isn't loading, if it too is meant to apply?

Versatile is referenced in the statblock because it changes the dice rolled for damage. No other properties are mentioned anywhere else. Does that also mean the wererat's crossbow is not supposed to need ammunition? Of course not, it's just not immediately relevant to have to be mentioned in the stat block.

[Boci]

Versatile is referenced in the statblock because it changes the dice rolled for damage.

And that's important to reference, but the number of attacks the monster can make isn't? That makes zero sense. They could have added "melee" to the wererat's multiattack or "one attack only" to their hand crossbow, and it would have been clear. So either they screwed up, or that omission was intentional. Either's possible, but I'm not sure how you can be certain which it is.


Does that also mean the wererat's crossbow is not supposed to need ammunition?

That's an edge case scenario that won't matter in most encounters. "How many attack a wererat can make" is not an edge case.

[Dr.Samurai]

Because the're that good? They also double the weapon dice of the spear they wield, with no explanation for that. Monsters don't follow the same rules PCs do in 5th ed. Don't get me wrong:
I think if they were that good there would be an ability/feature that said "Gladiators can benefit from the Versatile property while wielding their shield in one hand." or something to that effect.

The double damage is from their Brute trait.

I feel this is a valid interpretation, but it seems no more valid than letting them make two hand crossbow attacks, because the only restriction in the statblock is for biting. Versatile is referenced in a monster's statblock, so why isn't loading, if it too is meant to apply?
Don't all attacks have the damage dice + average damage included for them? So they include the Versatile average damage as well. It's not obvious to me that this necessitates spelling out Loading as well.

[Mastikator]

The problem with multiattack is that it is often read as extra attack, but it is not. Multiattack is a specific sequence of attacks that can have options, but it can also not. The knight for instance has no options baked into the multiattack, he attacks twice with a greatsword, that's it. If the knight attacks with a heavy crossbow he only gets one.

The wererat's multiattack has a "fire twice with hand crossbow" baked into it. The wererat makes two attacks, of which one may be bite. But it has 3 attack options: bite, shortsword, hand crossbow. If the wererat was not meant to be able to fire handcrossbow twice the multiattack would say so. It would say "the wererat makes two shortsword attacks, or one bite and shortsword, or one bite and hand crossbow". But it doesn't. So the wererat can loose bolts twice.

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem with multiattack is that it is often read as extra attack, but it is not. Multiattack is a specific sequence of attacks that can have options, but it can also not. The knight for instance has no options baked into the multiattack, he attacks twice with a greatsword, that's it. If the knight attacks with a heavy crossbow he only gets one.

The wererat's multiattack has a "fire twice with hand crossbow" baked into it. The wererat makes two attacks, of which one may be bite. But it has 3 attack options: bite, shortsword, hand crossbow. If the wererat was not meant to be able to fire handcrossbow twice the multiattack would say so. It would say "the wererat makes two shortsword attacks, or one bite and shortsword, or one bite and hand crossbow". But it doesn't. So the wererat can loose bolts twice.
But we just run into the same problem that Multiattack is being used to override rules of the game. So because the Loading property is not mentioned, we just ignore it. So wererats use special Hand Crossbows that don't require Loading, Ammunition, and aren't Light, because none of these things are mentioned in their stat block. Ergo ergo, it's only what's on the tin, and since the tin leaves out the full stats of the weapon, we can just assume it works completely differently than it does for everyone else.

I don't really buy that.

And Muliattack being a special case doesn't really work. Because the Loading feature specifically says "regardless of the number of attacks you can make". Multiattack lets you make two attacks in this case, and the Loading property still lets you only make one with the Hand Crossbow.

To my mind, the wererat does not have a feature that allows it to ignore the Loading property, and so cannot make two attacks with the same hand crossbow in a turn.

[Mastikator]

But we just run into the same problem that Multiattack is being used to override rules of the game. So because the Loading property is not mentioned, we just ignore it. So wererats use special Hand Crossbows that don't require Loading, Ammunition, and aren't Light, because none of these things are mentioned in their stat block. Ergo ergo, it's only what's on the tin, and since the tin leaves out the full stats of the weapon, we can just assume it works completely differently than it does for everyone else.

I don't really buy that.

And Muliattack being a special case doesn't really work. Because the Loading feature specifically says "regardless of the number of attacks you can make". Multiattack lets you make two attacks in this case, and the Loading property still lets you only make one with the Hand Crossbow.

To my mind, the wererat does not have a feature that allows it to ignore the Loading property, and so cannot make two attacks with the same hand crossbow in a turn.

You don't need to buy any of that. It's a normal hand crossbow, when the players take it of the dead wererat they get a normal hand crossbow.

The only thing you need to buy- something I strongly suspect you already bought, is that specific rules override general rules. The general rule of hand crossbow is that it has the loading property, so when you take the attack action with it you can only fire once even with extra attack.

The wererat doesn't have extra attack, it has multiattack. The multiattack specifically allows the wererat to shoot twice. It only overrides one single rule.

[NontheistCleric]

It depends on what you think is more specific, Multiattack or Loading. Personally, I think it must be Loading since Multiattack applies to all forms of attack the wererat could utilize, whereas Loading applies to hand crossbows (and some other crossbows) in particular.

[GloatingSwine]

I'd also have Loading be the specific effect, because it's specific to the weapon and intended to interact with any and all mechanisms by which the user of the weapon might make more than one attack in a round.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But we just run into the same problem that Multiattack is being used to override rules of the game. So because the Loading property is not mentioned, we just ignore it. So wererats use special Hand Crossbows that don't require Loading, Ammunition, and aren't Light, because none of these things are mentioned in their stat block. Ergo ergo, it's only what's on the tin, and since the tin leaves out the full stats of the weapon, we can just assume it works completely differently than it does for everyone else.

I don't really buy that.

And Muliattack being a special case doesn't really work. Because the Loading feature specifically says "regardless of the number of attacks you can make". Multiattack lets you make two attacks in this case, and the Loading property still lets you only make one with the Hand Crossbow.

To my mind, the wererat does not have a feature that allows it to ignore the Loading property, and so cannot make two attacks with the same hand crossbow in a turn.

Multiattack is more specific than the generic rules, and so overrides them. If it says "2 attacks but only one Bite", it can make 2 attacks with any combination of its abilities that do not include 2 Bite attacks. Period.

Specific beats general, and monsters are always maximally specific. Monsters do exactly what they say in the stat block, overriding and ignoring any general rules to the contrary.

@Nontheistcleric --

Monster abilities only apply to a single (kind of) monster. The Loading property applies to all crossbows, used by anyone. Thus, monster abilities are necessarily more specific than any rule found in the PHB and override when they are in conflict. Heck, monster abilities are more specific than any other rule! They even override MM rules where in conflict!

In essence, there are no rules for DM-side stuff other than things the DM chooses to be bound to. All that stuff in the PHB? Only applies on its face to PCs.

[JackPhoenix]

The general rule of hand crossbow is that it has the loading property, so when you take the attack action with it you can only fire once even with extra attack.

That's not the general rule for hand crossbow. Loading property says "Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." It does not mention Attack action, and thus applies equally to Multiattack or any other possibly action you may take to make an attack.

[Unoriginal]

I think "can shoot twice, if they have two loaded crossbows on them" works.

[Dr.Samurai]

The only thing you need to buy- something I strongly suspect you already bought, is that specific rules override general rules. The general rule of hand crossbow is that it has the loading property, so when you take the attack action with it you can only fire once even with extra attack.
As others have already said, I don't think Multiattack overrides Loading, but rather Loading overrides Multiattack. I don't see a way to parse "which is specific and which is general" apart from opinion, so I fall back on the fact that Loading is referring to an actual mechanism and is representing how that mechanism works in the game, and nothing in the wererat statblock suggests that they get to ignore it.

I mean... I can explain it as "wererats have incredible dexterity with their little rat fingers and can load a crossbow more deftly than others", but I'm going out of my way to explain something that isn't in the feature.


The wererat doesn't have extra attack, it has multiattack. The multiattack specifically allows the wererat to shoot twice. It only overrides one single rule.
Extra Attack is irrelevant. Loading tells us it doesn't matter how many attacks they can make. That would include a Multiattack feature. Loading literally refers to the exact condition that Multiattack confers (more than one attack), and we're supposed to ignore that because Multiattack... is special? How? Why?

[NontheistCleric]

Monster abilities only apply to a single (kind of) monster. The Loading property applies to all crossbows, used by anyone. Thus, monster abilities are necessarily more specific than any rule found in the PHB and override when they are in conflict. Heck, monster abilities are more specific than any other rule! They even override MM rules where in conflict!.
Multiattack applies to all attacks, though. Theoretically, a wererat could pick up any kind of weapon, or make an unarmed strike, and Multiattack would work with it. That seems more general than the Loading property, which applies only to attacks made with crossbows.

Now, if there were an even more specific rule in the wererat statblock, like 'wererats ignore the Loading property of hand crossbows', then I would be convinced, but there isn't.


In essence, there are no rules for DM-side stuff other than things the DM chooses to be bound to. All that stuff in the PHB? Only applies on its face to PCs.

I'd think that by default, rules concerning hand crossbows would apply to all instances of hand crossbows in the game world, including when they are wielded by wererats. Of course, the DM can rule that they don't, but they would have to do that specially.

[GloatingSwine]

Basically if the Wererat were intended to be able to make two attacks in a round with its hand crossbow it would have Crossbow Expert as well as Multiattack.

[Mastikator]

As others have already said, I don't think Multiattack overrides Loading, but rather Loading overrides Multiattack. I don't see a way to parse "which is specific and which is general" apart from opinion, so I fall back on the fact that Loading is referring to an actual mechanism and is representing how that mechanism works in the game, and nothing in the wererat statblock suggests that they get to ignore it.

I mean... I can explain it as "wererats have incredible dexterity with their little rat fingers and can load a crossbow more deftly than others", but I'm going out of my way to explain something that isn't in the feature.


Extra Attack is irrelevant. Loading tells us it doesn't matter how many attacks they can make. That would include a Multiattack feature. Loading literally refers to the exact condition that Multiattack confers (more than one attack), and we're supposed to ignore that because Multiattack... is special? How? Why?

Because of a) the knight. It has multiattack too, two greatsword attacks. It also has a heavy crossbow. And because of b) if the wererat was meant to fire only once with a hand crossbow it would say so, like it does for its bite attack. It could've said "the wererat does two melee attacks, one of which can be bite". It doesn't, so I think by RAW it can.

Edit-

I will however say that I do firmly think that the wererat's multiattack is far more specific than the loading property. The loading property is shared by all crossbows and it is in the PHB. The wererat's multiattack is unique to the wererat. Multiattack is not a general ability that monsters have, it is a common name for different and unique attack combos each individual monster (with the feature) can do. The wererat''s multiattack is one-of-a-kind. The hand crossbow's loading property is not.

[NontheistCleric]

Because of a) the knight. It has multiattack too, two greatsword attacks. It also has a heavy crossbow. And because of b) if the wererat was meant to fire only once with a hand crossbow it would say so, like it does for its bite attack. It could've said "the wererat does two melee attacks, one of which can be bite". It doesn't, so I think by RAW it can.
What does that actually prove? It's not unreasonable to think that Multiattack only includes that stipulation for the bite because there isn't already a rule that says bite can only be used once, whereas such a rule already exists for crossbows, making a specific call-out in Multiattack unnecessary.


I will however say that I do firmly think that the wererat's multiattack is far more specific than the loading property. The loading property is shared by all crossbows and it is in the PHB. The wererat's multiattack is unique to the wererat. Multiattack is not a general ability that monsters have, it is a common name for different and unique attack combos each individual monster (with the feature) can do. The wererat''s multiattack is one-of-a-kind. The hand crossbow's loading property is not.
No, but what matters is how generally or specifically the rule can actually be applied, not how rare it is. Rarity has no bearing on generality or specificity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Multiattack applies to all attacks, though. Theoretically, a wererat could pick up any kind of weapon, or make an unarmed strike, and Multiattack would work with it. That seems more general than the Loading property, which applies only to attacks made with crossbows.

Now, if there were an even more specific rule in the wererat statblock, like 'wererats ignore the Loading property of hand crossbows', then I would be convinced, but there isn't.



I'd think that by default, rules concerning hand crossbows would apply to all instances of hand crossbows in the game world, including when they are wielded by wererats. Of course, the DM can rule that they don't, but they would have to do that specially.

A given monster's multiattack is much more specific, because it only applies to that monster's attacks. Loading applies to all crossbows in anyone's hand.

But the most important rule is that monster rules are DM-facing, and there are no rules for DMs, only guidelines! Stat blocks are intentionally condensed, leaving out stuff that players need permission for...because DMs don't need permission. They are the game engine--they can't (by definition) break any mechanical rules. They can only break meta-level rules agreed on between people at the table.

The game rules are not in any way an attempt to simulate the world itself. They're 100% game UI. They may reflect things in the world, but they do not control or define things in the world--the dependency goes the other direction. They only mediate player attempts to interact with the world. They are not the physics of the world.

How does this apply when the party has an NPC along for the ride? Well, by default...the DM is still playing them. Including if the NPC is dominated. The PC gives orders, but the DM executes in his own (privileged) context. And yes, this applies to all NPCs, including simulacrums and other "summoned and 100% obedient" ones. DMs may decide to delegate control, but it's still executing in the privileged context, not the unprivileged player context.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not sure how the Knight is relevant so I don't know how to respond to that.

Is there a creature with multiattack that allows it to make two crossbow attacks explicitly (like "can make two heavy crossbow attacks")?

[Mastikator]

What does that actually prove? It's not unreasonable to think that Multiattack only includes that stipulation for the bite because there isn't already a rule that says bite can only be used once, whereas such a rule already exists for crossbows, making a specific call-out in Multiattack unnecessary.

It's not unnecessary. It's not in the text because it doesn't apply. Monster attack actions are often redundant and overly specific. Some repeat spell entries for cantrips that the monster has. Some has unique grappling or shovel rules. If it was supposed to be applied it would have said so.

[NontheistCleric]

A given monster's multiattack is much more specific, because it only applies to that monster's attacks. Loading applies to all crossbows in anyone's hand.
A wererat's Multiattack applies to all weapons in a wererat's hand, whereas Loading only applies to crossbows. From the wererat's standpoint, Loading is more specific than Multiattack.


But the most important rule is that monster rules are DM-facing, and there are no rules for DMs, only guidelines! Stat blocks are intentionally condensed, leaving out stuff that players need permission for...because DMs don't need permission. They are the game engine--they can't (by definition) break any mechanical rules. They can only break meta-level rules agreed on between people at the table.

The game rules are not in any way an attempt to simulate the world itself. They're 100% game UI. They may reflect things in the world, but they do not control or define things in the world--the dependency goes the other direction. They only mediate player attempts to interact with the world. They are not the physics of the world.

How does this apply when the party has an NPC along for the ride? Well, by default...the DM is still playing them. Including if the NPC is dominated. The PC gives orders, but the DM executes in his own (privileged) context. And yes, this applies to all NPCs, including simulacrums and other "summoned and 100% obedient" ones. DMs may decide to delegate control, but it's still executing in the privileged context, not the unprivileged player context.

If monster statblocks are only guidelines and not rules, there is no point to this entire discussion.


It's not unnecessary. It's not in the text because it doesn't apply. Monster attack actions are often redundant and overly specific. Some repeat spell entries for cantrips that the monster has. Some has unique grappling or shovel rules. If it was supposed to be applied it would have said so.

Abilities only do what they say they do. If the ability doesn't allow the Loading property to be overidden, it doesn't.

[Mastikator]

I'm not sure how the Knight is relevant so I don't know how to respond to that.

Is there a creature with multiattack that allows it to make two crossbow attacks explicitly (like "can make two heavy crossbow attacks")?

Ok I'll dig up some.

Dolgrim (ERFLW) makes 3 attacks, from morningstar, spear, hand crossbow, (is also holding a shield). Any combination

Hadozee warrior (BAM) makes two shortsword attacks, also has light crossbow that it can fire once per turn. Must pick either.

Thug (MM) has two melee attacks, and has a heavy crossbow, again once. Must pick either.

Spy (MM) makes two melee attacks, also has a hand crossbow. Must pick either.

Duergar Kavalrachni (MPMM) makes two warpick attacks, also has a heavy crossbow. Must pick either.

The wereraven (VRGR) makes two weapon attacks, one of which can be with a hand crossbow. <---- This is what it would say on the wererat's multiattack entry if it could only fire once!

Monsters that follow the loading property rule do so explicitly. Always.

Edit- for clarity

2nd edit- to reaffirm my point: most monsters do follow the loading rule, and they follow it explicitly. In every entry that follows the loading rule it says so explicitly in their entry. If that was not on purpose then why would it be the case in all the books over all the years? The books have multiple different authors, people have come and gone. The books' monster entries either explicitly say that crossbows can only be used once, or they can fire multiple times.
Otherwise there would be no need to state it over and over.

[NontheistCleric]

2nd edit- to reaffirm my point: most monsters do follow the loading rule, and they follow it explicitly. In every entry that follows the loading rule it says so explicitly in their entry. If that was not on purpose then why would it be the case in all the books over all the years? The books have multiple different authors, people have come and gone. The books' monster entries either explicitly say that crossbows can only be used once, or they can fire multiple times.
Otherwise there would be no need to state it over and over.

It's great that some monster entries were nice enough to call it out specifically. That still doesn't give the wererat a power to ignore the Loading property it isn't stated to have.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ok I'll dig up some.
Unfortunately, none of the examples given are what I was asking about.

I am asking for a Multiattack sequence that specifically says "can attack twice with a crossbow". Something that might suggest Multiattack is ignoring the Loading property.

Dolgrim (ERFLW) makes 3 attacks, from morningstar, spear, hand crossbow, (is also holding a shield). Any combination

Hadozee warrior (BAM) makes two shortsword attacks, also has light crossbow that it can fire once per turn. Must pick either.

Thug (MM) has two melee attacks, and has a heavy crossbow, again once. Must pick either.

Spy (MM) makes two melee attacks, also has a hand crossbow. Must pick either.

Duergar Kavalrachni (MPMM) makes two warpick attacks, also has a heavy crossbow. Must pick either.
These are examples of implicitly following the Loading property.

But I already gave the example of boulders, which also generally only provide for one attack and do not have the Loading property.

The wereraven (VRGR) makes two weapon attacks, one of which can be with a hand crossbow. <---- This is what it would say on the wererat's multiattack entry if it could only fire once!
You are ascribing a lot of intent to the line not being included in the MM over ten years ago, but another author including it in a setting book a decade later.

EDIT: As an example of why I don't find this sort of comparison helpful... the Veteran's Multiattack mentions that it can make two longsword attacks, and if it has a shortsword drawn, it can make a short sword attack. I could then go through the entire 5E bestiary, pull out every creature that has a shortsword multiattack, and say that they don't have to have their shortsword drawn to make their attacks, because they didn't include that qualifier in their stat block, and if it was intended, it would include it just like the Veteran did.

Monsters that follow the loading property rule do so explicitly. Always.
I haven't seen a single example of this yet.

[Boci]

It's great that some monster entries were nice enough to call it out specifically. That still doesn't give the wererat a power to ignore the Loading property it isn't stated to have.

So if the intention was to allow wererats to double shoot, you would expect their multiattack to read: "The wererat makes two attacks (including crossbows), but only one of which can be a bite."?

[NontheistCleric]

So if the intention was to allow wererats to double shoot, you would expect their multiattack to read: "The wererat makes two attacks (including crossbows), but only one of which can be a bite."?

Well, that still seems a little unclearly worded to me, but essentially, yes. Maybe '(it may ignore the Loading property of crossbows)'.

[Boci]

Well, that still seems a little unclearly worded to me, but essentially, yes. Maybe '(it may ignore the Loading property of crossbows)'.

That seems weirdly involved for 5e statblocks, referencing a specific mechanic. Even versatile, which is referenced every time it comes up in a statblock, is never actually named.

Ultimately, the reasons I lean towards letting them have two attacks is:

1. A monster having 2 attacks is more fun
2. To me it goes against the streamline design of 5e to expect DMs to consult the Player's Handbook to find out highly relevant information the statblock just choose to not reference for, less face it, no good reason.

Now I do feel it's entirely possible there is mistake with the wererat's statblock, specifically not specifying melee attacks in their multiattack. But the idea that "no no, newbie DMs looking up weapon in the playerhandbook is totally how it was intended. Also we totally wanted the wererat to be able to fire two loaded crossbows on their turn, but not load and fire a single one twice" feels pretty weak to me. Though ultimatly either stance here is speculation.

[NontheistCleric]

That seems weirdly involved for 5e statblocks, referencing a specific mechanic. Even versatile, which is referenced every time it comes up in a statblock, is never actually named.

Ultimately, the reasons I lean towards letting them have two attacks is:

1. A monster having 2 attacks is more fun
2. To me it goes against the streamline design of 5e to expect DMs to consult the Player's Handbook to find out highly relevant information the statblock just choose to not reference for, less face it, no good reason.

Now I do feel it's entirely possible there is mistake with the wererat's statblock, specifically not specifying melee attacks in their multiattack. But the idea that "no no, newbie DMs looking up weapon in the playerhandbook is totally how it was intended. Also we totally wanted the wererat to be able to fire two loaded crossbows on their turn, but not load and fire a single one twice" feels pretty weak to me. Though ultimatly either stance here is speculation.
I'm not really trying to speculate on designer intentions, whether or not they made a mistake, or what would be more beneficial to an actual game (but I do think that if we presume the designers to have perfect rules knowledge and perfect clarity and consistency in writing, they would have given the wererat some explicit exemption to the Loading property had they intended for it to be able to bypass it). My point is that going by what was actually written down, and taking the entire body of published rules together...

...wererats cannot bypass the Loading property, because they just aren't stated to have such an ability.

[Boci]

My point is that going by what was actually written down, and taking the entire body of published rules together...

And my point is "taking the entire body of published rules together" goes against the design philosophy of 5th ed, which was suppose to be streamlined and not, you know 3.5.

[gloryblaze]

I am asking for a Multiattack sequence that specifically says "can attack twice with a crossbow". Something that might suggest Multiattack is ignoring the Loading property.



The Thieves' Gallery, which is an official first-party online monster compendium released for free to promote the D&D movie, has this:


Multiattack. Forge makes two Dagger attacks, two Heavy Crossbow attacks, or one of each.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not really trying to speculate on designer intentions, whether or not they made a mistake, or what would be more beneficial to an actual game. My point is that going by what was actually written down, and taking the entire body of published rules together...

...wererats cannot bypass the Loading property, because they just aren't stated to have such an ability.

I agree with you on this point.

However, let's imagine a situation where the Wererat has two loaded hand crossbows. Do you think their statblock let them fire both?

A Knight NPC, for example since it was used as one earlier, cannot use their Multiatrack with heavy crossbows, even if they have a squire next to them handing them an additional loaded crossbow right after the first attack.

[NontheistCleric]

And my point is "taking the entire body of published rules together" goes against the design philosophy of 5th ed, which was suppose to be streamlined and not, you know 3.5.
Look, if you have rules that are ostensibly supposed to be part of the same game, you have to assume that they are going to be taken together. A hand crossbow is a hand crossbow unless stated otherwise, and it has certain rules governing its usage. It's not that complicated.


However, let's imagine a situation where the Wererat has two loaded hand crossbows. Do you think their statblock let them fire both?

Yes.

[Boci]

Look, if you have rules that are ostensibly supposed to be part of the same game, you have to assume that they are going to be taken together.

No you don't. "Monster's use their statblock, outside rules from the players handbook don't necessary apply" is perfectly valid too.

For example an assassin swordsword and light crossbow deals extra poison damage on every attack. If the PCs pick it up, it suddenly becomes a regular swordsword/light crossbow. Monsters follow their statblock. Extra rules can be added by the DM, but to say they must is flawed.


Yes.

So we're going with the one interpretation we 100% know wasn't intended?

[NontheistCleric]

No you don't. "Monster's use their statblock, outside rules from the players handbook don't necessary apply" is perfectly valid too.
It's not an outside rule, it's a rule from the same game, concerning items that are being implemented in the same world.


For example an assassin swordsword and light crossbow deals extra poison damage on every attack. If the PCs pick it up, it suddenly becomes a regular swordsword/light crossbow. Monsters follow their statblock. Extra rules can be added by the DM, but to say they must is flawed.
The assassin has a special shortsword because they are explicitly stated to have one. No such exception is made for the wererat's hand crossbow.


So we're going with the one interpretation we 100% know wasn't intended?
Setting aside that I wasn't talking about designer intention, how do we know that? That's how hand crossbows work for PCs, so why shouldn't they also work that way for wererats?

[Unoriginal]

So we're going with the one interpretation we 100% know wasn't intended?

Are you saying that the devs did not intend for the people-rats to have two loaded crossbows and be able to use both?

Or that they didn't intend for monsters to switch weapons during a Multiattack, assuming two of the same weapons are available?

That is to say, let's imagine a Wererat with a silver shortword and a regular steel shortsword. Are you saying that the Wererat must attack twice with one or twice with the other, f they use Multiattack?

[Boci]

It's not an outside rule

It absolutely is, it's outside the statblock. I'm willing to concede that might be bad design, but either way, it is absolutely an outside rule, because its not in the statblock. Combing through rulebooks is not how 5th ed is suppose to work on something as basic as how many attacks a monster gets. That was 3.5's thing.


Are you saying that the devs did not intend for the people-rats to have two loaded crossbows and be able to use both?

Or that they didn't intend for monsters to switch weapons during a Multiattack, assuming two of the same weapons are available?

Yes. They either intended wererats to be able to attack twice with hand crossbows, or once. I don't know which, but I know it was one of those, not some weird "sometimes one attack sometimes two". That way too complex for a 5e low CR brute, who already has a bunch of other abilities.


That is to say, let's imagine a Wererat with a silver shortword and a regular steel shortsword. Are you saying that the Wererat must attack twice with one or twice with the other, f they use Multiattack?

No? Where the hell would you even get that? They make two attacks, with a restriction that doesn't apply here.

[NontheistCleric]

Listen, 5e is no doubt supposed to be lighter on the rules than 3e/3.5, but to assert that rules concerning things in an ostensibly shared game world found in the Player's Handbook have no bearing on the same things when they are mentioned in the Monster Manual by default is completely inane.

A hand crossbow is a hand crossbow unless it is somehow stated not to be. This is the interpretation that not only makes the most logical sense, but results in the rules in two core books (which is to say, it is assumed that any game of D&D will involve these two books) according with one another and producing a game world with verisilimitude.

Also, there is no 'combing through rulebooks'. It's a single, clearly defined weapon. Just flip to the Weapons section of the PHB and look it up. It's not hard.

[Boci]

Also, there is no 'combing through rulebooks'. It's a single, clearly defined weapon. Just flip to the Weapons section of the PHB and look it up. It's not hard.

See, you know this, so you think its simple and clearly defined, but it isn't, because a person who doesn't know, also doesn't know what they don't know. Ignorance can suck that way.

If a DM doesn't know the rules for equipment, they need to check everything the creature has, in case there are relevant rules the statblock dropped (for no reasons). For wererat that means also needs to check shortsword, annoying but not that terrible, but for hobgoblins they need to check chainmail, shields, longsword and longbow. That's kinda insane to assume this is how its meant to work.

[NontheistCleric]

It is not insane to assume the DM has knowledge of the rules in the Player's Handbook.

[Boci]

It is not insane to assume the DM has knowledge of the rules in the Player's Handbook.

It certainly is for a newbie DM, especially when referencing most of them in the actual stateblock would have a near to 0 opportunity cost.

[NontheistCleric]

It certainly is for a newbie DM, especially when referencing most of them in the actual stateblock would have a near to 0 opportunity cost.

No. If someone is DMing, at minimum they should have a passing familiarity with all the core rules. The requirements for being a competent DM are simply higher than the ones for being a competent player.

This is not an unrealistic or unreasonable expectation.

[Boci]

No. If someone is DMing, at minimum they should have at least a passing familiarity with all the core rules. The requirements for being a competent DM are simply higher than the ones for being a competent player.

This is not an unrealistic expectation.

Gatekeeping and untrue. Some DMs never learn the rules, but players still love their games because they are wonderful storytellers, actors, ect.

D&D 5th ed is absolutely meant to accommodate such people, and I find it hard to believe there would have been such an egregious design oversight concerning this, when the opportunities to help them, and any newbie DM, is so low.

[NontheistCleric]

Gatekeeping and untrue. Some DMs never learn the rules, but players still love their games because they are wonderful storytellers, actors, ect.

D&D 5th ed is absolutely meant to accommodate such people, and I find it hard to believe there would have been such an egregious design oversight concerning this, when the opportunities to help them, and any newbie DM, is so low.

If a group is okay with a DM who does not know the rules, that is fine, but the rulebooks are written with the assumption that people are intending to actually, you know, use the rules in them. All the rules that are not explicitly called out as variants. If someone is intending to adjudicate the entirety of this game-with-rules, they should know all the rules, or at least be prepared to look them up.

This is just the reality of any game with rules. It's not gatekeeping to say this.

Personally, I don't find the idea that there were egregious design oversights unlikely at all.

I mean, seriously, just take a look at what you are saying: 'Some people are not going to learn the rules before playing this game where the whole point is that there are rules to lend structure to roleplaying, so clearly this part of the rules is not supposed to interact with this other part of the rules?'

If you can't see how that statement is obviously flawed, I don't know what to tell you.

[KorvinStarmast]

They have their own unique multiattack feature. Yes.
IIRC, Scout and Archer NPC have multiple longbow attacks as but one example.

Monsters have their own set of features which is unbound by player character limitations. They have some features taht are similar. Example being the Gladiator's parry, which is a little bit like a battle master feature, but it isn't the battle master feature. The Knight has a feature that is similar to the bless spell, but it isn't the bless spell.

Is there a creature with multiattack that allows it to make two crossbow attacks explicitly (like "can make two heavy crossbow attacks")?
Check the assassin's stat block. (NPC) I am AFB, but I think it can shoot its crossbow twice. I'll get back to you when I can consult book.
EDIT: Nope, one attack with light crossbow, short sword two.

[JackPhoenix]

Gatekeeping and untrue. Some DMs never learn the rules, but players still love their games because they are wonderful storytellers, actors, ect.

That's great, but being a wonderful storyteller doesn't mean they aren't an incompetent DM.

[Boci]

I mean, seriously, just take a look at what you are saying:

Ah yes, the "This is what I say you're saying, doesn't it sound redicolous" portion of an online debate. Always a classic. It's just impossible I am actually saying:

"Statblocks that don't reference a highly relevant rule they easily could have, strong implies the rule was not meant to apply in this case, which gels with the streamlined design philosophy of the system".


That's great, but being a wonderful storyteller doesn't mean they aren't an incompetent DM.

And? Knowing the rules doesn't mean they aren't an incompetent DM either.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ah yes, the "This is what I say you're saying, doesn't it sound redicolous" portion of an online debate. Always a classic. It's just impossible I am actually saying:

"Statblocks that don't reference a highly relevant rule they easily could have, strong implies the rule was not meant to apply in this case".
Wererats may be a unique case. Is this an actual problem?
(And FWIW: is this likely an editing oversight? I'll bet the over on that).

Is the intention that they cannot make two bites OR two crossbow attacks and they didn't reference the later because it was already covered by the crossbow rules? Probably, or just a bit of clunky rules prose that an editor was asleep at the wheel for.
One cannot bite at range, right?

Or are they suppose to ignore that aspect of the weapon?
I don't see why. If the assassin only gets one light crossbow attack, I see no reason to give the wererat two. Do you see a reason to give the wererat two hand crossbow attacks?

Can hobgoblins use a shield with their longbow? No.
I think a fair ruling for the were rat is that it gets one hand crossbow attack, unless it has equipped itself with two. In that case, on round 1 it can shoot twice.
(And I note that someone further up took this position as well).

[NontheistCleric]

Ah yes, the "This is what I say you're saying, doesn't it sound redicolous" portion of an online debate.
I mean, that is the logical implication of everything you have said.


Always a classic. It's just impossible I am actually saying:

"Statblocks that don't reference a highly relevant rule they easily could have, strong implies the rule was not meant to apply in this case".
It doesn't matter whether or not the designers meant it to apply. In the game, there is something called a hand crossbow. The wererat wields a hand crossbow. By any reasonable measure, the hand crossbow wielded by the wererat should follow the rules given for hand crossbows (unless there is a rule that specfically says it doesn't have to).

[Boci]

Wererats appear to be a unique case. Is this an actual problem?

Yes.

Not a huge problem obviously, but if the intention was you wouldn't need to go checking monsters equipment in the PH, and I can't think of a reason to have this be the intention, then yes, it is a (small) problem that wererats are an unlabeld exception.


(And is this likely an editing oversight? I'll bet the over on that).

Entirely possible they missed "melee" for the multiattack ability yes.

[JackPhoenix]

And? Knowing the rules doesn't mean they aren't an incompetent DM either.

Sure. A DM who knows the rules MAY still be incompetent in other ways. A DM who doesn't know the rules IS incompetent as a DM, no matter how good is he at anything else.

[Dr.Samurai]

All of the disagreeing aside, this was very likely a mistake to not include the word "melee".

So my answer remains the same; do monsters get to ignore weapon properties? No, unless they have a feature that says they can.

[Boci]

Sure. A DM who knows the rules MAY still be incompetent in other ways. A DM who doesn't know the rules IS incompetent as a DM, no matter how good is he at anything else.

Nope, that's just untrue. Its a game. If the players are having fun, then you're not an incompetent DM. There's no test or technical qualification, it really does just come down to "Did your players enjoy D&D with you". At BEST, you can argue it doesn't count as D&D because the rules weren't followed properly, but that's likely not a path you want to go down.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure. A DM who knows the rules MAY still be incompetent in other ways. A DM who doesn't know the rules IS incompetent as a DM, no matter how good is he at anything else.
I left a D&D 5e game over something like that.
(The Basic Rules in Chapter 9 can take a little work to get, at first, but they work well enough).

[NontheistCleric]

Boci, if you are so insistent on designer intent mattering more than what the rules actually say, why did you come here and ask us a question about what the rules actually say, then proceed to tell us that we are wrong because our answer contradicts what you think the designers intended?

[Boci]

Boci, if you are so insistent on designer intent mattering more than what the rules actually say, why did you come here and ask us a question about what the rules actually say, then proceed to tell us that we are wrong because our answer contradicts what you think the designers intended?

Actually, I literally said I DON'T know what the designer's intentions were here:


Yes. They either intended wererats to be able to attack twice with hand crossbows, or once. I don't know which

[JNAProductions]

I agree with the general gist of "Nothing says they ignore Loading, so they don't."

The argument of "How are people expected to know the rules?" seems a pretty silly one. Yes, you can run a fun game without being a rules expert, or even being competent in the rules... But I'd expect your typical DM to actually read the books and know what they say. I would not expect rules to be based on forgetting/ignoring other rules unsaid.

[NontheistCleric]

Actually, I literally said I DON'T know what the designer's intentions were here:

But no one else knows either. Not a single person here has access to 'what the designers intended' when they were writing the wererat.

The only meaningful answers we can give you are ones concerning what the rules say.

And what they say is that a hand crossbow is a hand crossbow and follows the rules that govern hand crossbows.

[JNAProductions]

I should add, a DM who has them ignore Loading (whether intentionally or by accident) would be fine with me.
Some rules mistakes are a big deal. Some rules changes are big enough or important enough to be stated upfront. One specific monster having two attacks at range versus one? Not that big a deal.

[Chronos]

Why is everyone assuming that wererats use weapons? Using weapons is a PC rule, and as everyone knows, monsters and PCs are different and follow different rules. A wererat doesn't use a weapon called "hand crossbow", it just has an action option named "hand crossbow" that causes 1d6+2 piercing damage to anyone within 120', on a successful attack roll. How? I don't know; it's never specified. It just does. But there's no reason to assume it's using a weapon, because it's not a PC.

[Boci]

The argument of "How are people expected to know the rules?" seems a pretty silly one. Yes, you can run a fun game without being a rules expert, or even being competent in the rules... But I'd expect your typical DM to actually read the books and know what they say. I would not expect rules to be based on forgetting/ignoring other rules unsaid.

Sure, but to me, the same applies to versatile. You don't NEED to spell out in every monster's statblock that a longsword can be wielded in two hands to increase the damage. You could just have the one handed damage, and then a DM who reads the rules will know that the monsters wield in two hands to increase that damage size. But the didn't do that, the spelt it out. Why would theyy do that with versatile, but not with loading?


But no one else knows either. Not a single person here has access to 'what the designers intended' when they were writing the wererat.

The only meaningful answers we can give you are ones concerning what the rules say.

And what they say is that a hand crossbow is a hand crossbow and follows the rules that govern hand crossbows.

That's what you think yes, but other posters, like Mastikator and PhoenixPhyre, have read the same rules and reached a different conclusion.

[NontheistCleric]

That's what you think yes, but other posters, like Mastikator and PhoenixPhyre, have read the same rules and reached a different conclusion.

Yes, and they, at least, have attempted to couch their arguments in terms of rules and principles governing rules, not unknowable designer intent and the possibility that some people may decline to learn the rules before playing the game.

Actually, looking back, only Mastikator did. PhoenixPhyre's argument was that the rules are not actually rules, to which I can only shrug.

[Boci]

Yes, and they, at least, have attempted to couch their arguments in terms of rules and principles governing rules

As have I. You not liking my conclusion doesn't change the fact that "statblock govern a monster and choosing to reference versatile but not loading may well mean something" is a valid stance that fits within the rules and design philosophy.


Actually, looking back, only Mastikator did. PhoenixPhyre's argument was that the rules are not actually rules, to which I can only shrug.

I mean, that's literally the first rule of the DMG, so yeah, spot on.

[NontheistCleric]

As have I. You not liking my conclusion doesn't change the fact that "statblock govern a monster and choosing to reference versatile but not loading may well mean something" is a valid chance that fits within the rules and design philosophy.
It may imply something about the design philosophy and how well or not the designers managed to follow it (that doesn't mean it necessarily does), but it doesn't imply anything about what the rules actually say.


I mean, that's literally the first rule of the DMG, so yeah, spot on.
And yet, it has no place in discussions of what the rules allow or don't allow, since it just renders the entire discussion meaningless.

[Dr.Samurai]

Monsters with longbow and shortbow attacks can usually use them with Multiattack. And that tracks because that's how the weapon works.

Crossbows have the Loading property. By some sort of magic coincidence, almost every monster with a crossbow attack can't use it with Multiattack. The one exception is the wererat.

It's an oversight. No big deal. No need to justify using it. Do what you will at your table. But this was just an error.

I don't know that for certain, but I'm 100% positive :smallwink:

[Boci]

It may imply something about the design philosophy and how well or not the designers managed to follow it, but it doesn't imply anything about what the rules actually say.

My OP literally says "Is the intention", which could be considered clue number 1 that my thread might focus a little more on speculation on what the design intention was or wasn't rather than strictly what the rules actually say.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And yet, it has no place in discussions of what the rules allow or don't allow, since it just renders the entire discussion meaningless.

No, it's the most critical rule of them all. The rules say that the DM is not bound by any other rules unless he choses to be. Some debates are meaningless. This is one of them. The "rules" (guidelines) that govern monsters are completely disconnected from those that govern PCs except where explicitly included. There is no rule inclusion by implication.

So the answer to "do monsters ignore (certain) weapon rules" is "those rules don't apply to monsters at all unless specifically provided for in the MM or the monster block." That is, the question presupposes something and cannot be answered either affirmatively or negatively--it excludes the middle.

[Unoriginal]

And yet, it has no place in discussions of what the rules allow or don't allow, since it just renders the entire discussion meaningless.

Well, tbf, the entire discussion is meaningless, kind of.

Rules can't allow or not allow anything, they're not the game master or even an active agent.

All we can talk about is how we read the rules, and if we're going to follow that reading or not.


Of course I expect a DM to know the general rules, but if they want to do something else it's their prerogative entirely.

[NontheistCleric]

My OP literally says "Is the intention", which could be considered clue number 1 that my thread might focus a little more on speculation on what the design intention was or wasn't rather than strictly what the rules actually say.
Again, there is just no way to know what the designers were really thinking. However, considering that they wrote a game with rules, a likely answer is that they intended people to follow those rules, and when an answer was not obvious, to try looking for a rule that would tell them.

That is the whole point of having rules.


No, it's the most critical rule of them all. The rules say that the DM is not bound by any other rules unless he choses to be. Some debates are meaningless. This is one of them. The "rules" (guidelines) that govern monsters are completely disconnected from those that govern PCs except where explicitly included. There is no rule inclusion by implication.

So the answer to "do monsters ignore (certain) weapon rules" is "those rules don't apply to monsters at all unless specifically provided for in the MM or the monster block." That is, the question presupposes something and cannot be answered either affirmatively or negatively--it excludes the middle.
I think it's reasonable to assume certain things, though, like that when actually used in a game world, the hand crossbow of a wererat is, in fact, the same as other hand crossbows in that world which will be bound by certain rules–and so it will also be bound by those rules. There is just no reason to assume, by default, that it is not.


Well, tbf, the entire discussion is meaningless, kind of.

Rules can't allow or not allow anything, they're not the game master or even an active agent.

All we can talk about is how we read the rules, and if we're going to follow that reading or not.

Of course I expect a DM to know the general rules, but if they want to do something else it's their prerogative entirely.
Yeah, I don't disagree that a DM can do whatever they want.

[JNAProductions]

No, it's the most critical rule of them all. The rules say that the DM is not bound by any other rules unless he choses to be. Some debates are meaningless. This is one of them. The "rules" (guidelines) that govern monsters are completely disconnected from those that govern PCs except where explicitly included. There is no rule inclusion by implication.

So the answer to "do monsters ignore (certain) weapon rules" is "those rules don't apply to monsters at all unless specifically provided for in the MM or the monster block." That is, the question presupposes something and cannot be answered either affirmatively or negatively--it excludes the middle.

I don't think I would enjoy playing at your table, if that's your attitude.

The DM has much greater latitude than the PC's players do with rules futzing. But the way you talk, it sounds like the kind of DMs who won't let a monster die until they feel like it's been long enough, regardless of HP. The kind of DM who'll fudge rolls to pass saves that'll make the game "less fun" if they failed.

For me, once the DM has committed a monster or other NPC to the table, they should stick to the statblock and reasonable extrapolations. An example of a reasonable extrapolation from a game I ran, the party turned a teleporting foe into an ally. The statblock only had tactical teleportations-nothing past 120', I think. But, outside combat, I did allow this NPC to perform longer teleportations.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think I would enjoy playing at your table, if that's your attitude. I've played in his campaigns. We are on our third. First campaign was 1-20. Second one was 3-17. This one started at 3 and we are at level 10, going into a new area in the game world.
Good DM: I've seen good, bad, and in between over the years.
PP is in the good class.

internet arguments often/sometimes don't reflect how people actually play the game ~ you might even say that they are their own kind of game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think I would enjoy playing at your table, if that's your attitude.

The DM has much greater latitude than the PC's players do with rules futzing. But the way you talk, it sounds like the kind of DMs who won't let a monster die until they feel like it's been long enough, regardless of HP. The kind of DM who'll fudge rolls to pass saves that'll make the game "less fun" if they failed.

For me, once the DM has committed a monster or other NPC to the table, they should stick to the statblock and reasonable extrapolations. An example of a reasonable extrapolation from a game I ran, the party turned a teleporting foe into an ally. The statblock only had tactical teleportations-nothing past 120', I think. But, outside combat, I did allow this NPC to perform longer teleportations.

Those are meta-rules, which are agreed on outside of the printed rules. Those, I agree, are binding on the DM. But nothing in the printed rules is binding on the DM unless he chooses to be so bound! That's inherent in Rule 0--if someone has plenary power to change the rules for any reason at any time...they're not bound by those rules except by their own will.

Now, I should stress that DMs should bind themselves to many of the rules. But purely for operational reasons (because it makes the game run smoother). Not out of necessity. Not because he's bound by some external force, but because most of the rules are good ideas! And a DM should never use the power he has to change the rules arbitrarily or to "gotcha" the players or other such reasons. But I recognize the truth that the DM cannot cheat with respect to the printed rules.

And in this particular case, there is no rule saying that monster stat blocks use the weapon rules at all except where explicitly included. Monster weapons don't have weapon properties by default--they're entirely sui generis--you get exactly and only what's in the stat block. At least until the DM makes an affirmative, intentional choice to include something else. Which is their call.

[Unoriginal]

The kind of DM who'll fudge rolls to pass saves that'll make the game "less fun" if they failed.

The problem with fudging is that the DM is lying.

A DM who goes "yeah, this monster just succeed that save" without rolling when that monster statblock wasn't prepared with Legendary Resistances is not a DM I'd enjoy playing with, but it's 100% within their power.

My point of view is that you either decide the outcome, or you leave it up to the die. If you're *pretending* to let it up to the die, then you're lying to me and thinking I'm too dumb to realize, which means I'm just going to stop playing with you.

[GloatingSwine]

No, it's the most critical rule of them all. The rules say that the DM is not bound by any other rules unless he choses to be. Some debates are meaningless. This is one of them. The "rules" (guidelines) that govern monsters are completely disconnected from those that govern PCs except where explicitly included. There is no rule inclusion by implication.


There is, however, the unwritten rule -1, which is "don't be an ass about rule 0".

Rule 0 is to give the DM leeway make the game more fun for everyone, and I suspect that for most players "equipment works the same in the monsters' hands as it works in yours" is ultimately more fun because they can translate their knowledge of the world better into predicting what's going to happen and what their character might do about it, which is the essence of play.

[Unoriginal]

This discussion makes me re-open my old question about if D&Done is going to give weapon mastery perks to monster statblocks.

My guess is still "a big no underlined seven to nine times".

[NontheistCleric]

And in this particular case, there is no rule saying that monster stat blocks use the weapon rules at all except where explicitly included. Monster weapons don't have weapon properties by default--they're entirely sui generis--you get exactly and only what's in the stat block. At least until the DM makes an affirmative, intentional choice to include something else. Which is their call.
I don't think this is correct. There isn't actually a rule that says they are sui generis, either. If something in a monster statblock is called a hand crossbow, I see no reason not to assume it is the same kind of hand crossbow as defined elsewhere by the rules unless it is said not to be.

[Dr.Samurai]

Even PP’s remarks only go so far though. The DM and monsters don’t follow rules.

Yeah sure. Until you see that they do in fact happen to follow all the same rules that everyone else does.

We would basically have to all agree that their attacks and spell modifiers and AC and saving throws and skills and etc etc all work the same way but wink wink nod nod not because they follow the same rules.

Like, sure the argument is technically valid. Except when it isn’t. Which happens to be often.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is, however, the unwritten rule -1, which is "don't be an ass about rule 0".

Rule 0 is to give the DM leeway make the game more fun for everyone, and I suspect that for most players "equipment works the same in the monsters' hands as it works in yours" is ultimately more fun because they can translate their knowledge of the world better into predicting what's going to happen and what their character might do about it, which is the essence of play.

Except...equipment doesn't work the same in their hands. Their entire action economy is different, from the get go. Some of them have infinite poison...which stops working as soon as the players get their hands on it. Etc.

Monster rules are already a mostly orthogonal set to player rules across the board. I'd say that this is something that the table should agree on (or not) at session 0. Make it a meta rule, after which the DM is bound (by his own integrity at least). As a free-floating player expectation...yeah, no. People differ way too strongly for this to be useful.

Explicit agreement is better than implicit assumptions that the DM will read everyone's mind.


Even PP’s remarks only go so far though. The DM and monsters don’t follow rules.

Yeah sure. Until you see that they do in fact happen to follow all the same rules that everyone else does.

We would basically have to all agree that their attacks and spell modifiers and AC and saving throws and skills and etc etc all work the same way but wink wink nod nod not because they follow the same rules.

Like, sure the argument is technically valid. Except when it isn’t. Which happens to be often.

They have the same values as they would if they followed the rules, in many (but not all) cases. Sure. But that's purely for convenience in creating the stat blocks, not for some deeper reason. Correlation is not causation.

And there are buckets of cases where all those things you mentioned...don't follow any particular set of rules. Especially saving throws, skills, and DCs. They have unmarked bonuses and penalties all over the place. Their saving throw DCs are rarely (especially outside of the pure NPC section) related to some kind of ability score--they're set for entirely other reasons.

And the monster creation section of the DMG is explicit about this--the numbers on a monster stat block, including # of attacks is entirely arbitrary. You can (and are even encouraged to!) choose them to meet the targets you want to hit, rather than starting with any kind of rule and working forward. Multiattack is the biggest one here--it doesn't correlate with breakpoints where PCs get extra attacks at all. It's entirely arbitrary on the part of the designer.

[Dr.Samurai]

PP, I’m on my phone but I don’t think that’s the case. When I have time I’ll follow up on this after doing some digging. I’m not saying it’s exactly 1:1. But it’s enough where I don’t think you can just say “yeah obviously hand crossbows work different for monsters, we should all just assume this as a default position”.

[PhoenixPhyre]

PP, I’m on my phone but I don’t think that’s the case. When I have time I’ll follow up on this after doing some digging. I’m not saying it’s exactly 1:1. But it’s enough where I don’t think you can just say “yeah obviously hand crossbows work different for monsters, we should all just assume this as a default position”.

I've actually done lots of work on this. Monster stat blocks often deviate from the PC rules in many ways. And the DMG is very explicit about that fact, as is the MM. So "things do what they say they do in the stat block" is the safest assumption. Trying to import other rules by (unstated) implication is the path to 3e-style madness. Especially for those monsters outside the NPC section. Effectively, each monster should be read only in context of the rules in the MM and the stat block itself. Referring to other monster stat blocks or non-explicitly-included rules increases the chances of bad things happening, rather than reducing them.

Will the results differ? Meh, sometimes. But I have to ask this question--what is gained by doing all the cross-referencing? IMO, nothing. We already agree that monster stat blocks can override the general rules--that's simply Specific beating General.

What introspection do players expect to have into monster stat blocks? In my long experience, none. They fully accept that PCs are not monsters. The sole exception are people who can't leave 3e behind. Remember, 3e was the only edition to try for transparency. And it failed, miserably. And was respected only in the breach, most of the time. Monster/PC transparency is a failed model. Not something that people expect by default, at least in my experience.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the convo is getting a little wide in scope here. We’re talking about a single monster that might be bypassing Loading. In the context of weapons, I don’t think this major discrepancy exists. Much much simpler to agree this is an oversight instead of dying on the hill of some principle. This has nothing to do with 3E and everything to do with the fact that monster weapons happen to work exactly like PC weapons most of the time, so this claim that we can just assume Loading doesn’t matter because the rules don’t matter doesn’t really have a lot of weight.

[Boci]

I've actually done lots of work on this. Monster stat blocks often deviate from the PC rules in many ways. And the DMG is very explicit about that fact, as is the MM. So "things do what they say they do in the stat block" is the safest assumption. Trying to import other rules by (unstated) implication is the path to 3e-style madness. Especially for those monsters outside the NPC section. Effectively, each monster should be read only in context of the rules in the MM and the stat block itself. Referring to other monster stat blocks or non-explicitly-included rules increases the chances of bad things happening, rather than reducing them.

Will the results differ? Meh, sometimes. But I have to ask this question--what is gained by doing all the cross-referencing? IMO, nothing. We already agree that monster stat blocks can override the general rules--that's simply Specific beating General.

What introspection do players expect to have into monster stat blocks? In my long experience, none. They fully accept that PCs are not monsters. The sole exception are people who can't leave 3e behind. Remember, 3e was the only edition to try for transparency. And it failed, miserably. And was respected only in the breach, most of the time. Monster/PC transparency is a failed model. Not something that people expect by default, at least in my experience.

So what do you think about shields on monsters then? I brought it up as a curiosity but also a limitation of my own argument, because whilst I felt "wererats can doubleshoot" was a totally valid read, I was less convinced it was valid to allow a gladiator to versatile damage attack with a shield, and I wasn't entirely sure why those two things felt different to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

The sole exception are people who can't leave 3e behind. Remember, 3e was the only edition to try for transparency. And it failed, miserably. And was respected only in the breach, most of the time. Monster/PC transparency is a failed model. Not something that people expect by default, at least in my experience. Amen.
AD&D certainly did not try for transparency of the sort that you are alluding to. I am not sure if I'd characterize BECMI that way, though.
AD&D and BECMI/BX are the two systems that fed into 3e's unification of the brand name.

What you are referring to was an aspect of "the TTRPG gamer culture" of the time.

For Dr Samurai: yes, this argument has lost the plot.
If it was an editorial oversight, which I suspect it was, then it's easy to revert to standard hand crossbow rules.
If it wasn't, then wererats are a bit higher in Offensive CR, possibly, when equipped with a hand crossbow. Might not change their overall CR.

[JNAProductions]

There's a difference between not following rules in content creation and not following rules in gameplay.

Making NPCs or monsters or what-have-you, has guidelines, but not rules.
But once you get in front of the PCs? They have rules to follow.

[Boci]

IThe sole exception are people who can't leave 3e behind. Remember, 3e was the only edition to try for transparency. And it failed, miserably.

3e and Pathfinder 1E. And this "sole exception" is a fairly sizeable chunk of players. Its hard to know for certain, but all all signs seem to be indicating way more people are playing 3e or PF 1 than 4th edition for example.

[NontheistCleric]

Monster/PC transparency is a failed model. Not something that people expect by default, at least in my experience.

I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that PCs and monsters follow the same rules in terms of how they are constructed, but when a game world contains such things as, say, daggers, and a monster statblock includes a dagger, it seems strange to insist the monster's dagger is a unique object distinct from the kind of daggers PCs use (unless it actually has unique mechanics, in which case, who knows what happens if the PCs get their hands on it?).

[Boci]

I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that PCs and monsters follow the same rules in terms of how they are constructed, but when a game world contains such things as, say, daggers, and a monster statblock includes a dagger, it seems strange to insist the monster's dagger is a unique object distinct from the kind of daggers PCs use (unless it actually has unique mechanics, in which case, who knows what happens if the PCs get their hands on it?).

The assassin's shortsword and light crossbow don't have unique mechanics in the hands of a player. I mean, a DM keep rule they stay eternally poisoned, but that is going to break the game if the players loot even 1 assassin.

[NontheistCleric]

The assassin's shortsword and light crossbow don't have unique mechanics in the hands of a player. I mean, a DM keep rule they stay eternally poisoned, but that is going to break the game if the players loot even 1 assassin.
Maybe. Anyway, I acknowledged that as the edge case. Since there is no appreciable difference between a wererat crossbow and a PC one, it's far from obvious that they are not the same kind of thing.

[Boci]

Maybe. Anyway, I acknowledged that as the edge case. Since there is no appreciable difference between a wererat crossbow and a PC one, it's far from obvious that they are not the same kind of thing.

To be clear though, its not the assassin's blade that's an edge case, its poisoned weapons. Other monsters have them as well, any I don't think any wouldn't break the game if looted by a PC of comparable level.

[OracleofWuffing]

Why is everyone assuming that wererats use weapons? Using weapons is a PC rule, and as everyone knows, monsters and PCs are different and follow different rules. A wererat doesn't use a weapon called "hand crossbow", it just has an action option named "hand crossbow" that causes 1d6+2 piercing damage to anyone within 120', on a successful attack roll. How? I don't know; it's never specified. It just does. But there's no reason to assume it's using a weapon, because it's not a PC.
The wererat attacks with a psionic breath weapon and a +3 flaming dire blue whale, because Multiattack doesn't require the attacks to be listed in the monster's own entry.:smalltongue:

Blue text.

[NontheistCleric]

To be clear though, its not the assassin's blade that's an edge case, its poisoned weapons. Other monsters have them as well, any I don't think any wouldn't break the game if looted by a PC of comparable level.

Yes, I meant monster weapons with nonstandard stats in general, not just assassin ones.

[Boci]

Yes, I meant monster weapons with nonstandard stats in general, not just assassin ones.

Yeah, and by several interpretations on this thread, the wererat crossbow is also nonstandard, because they can make two attacks with them and PCs can't. Others, like you, disagree.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, and by several interpretations on this thread, the wererat crossbow is also nonstandard, because they can make two attacks with them and PCs can't. Others, like you, disagree.

Is that a property of the weapon or the wielder, if you give them two attacks?

We have precedent that skilled wielders of weapons can strike with them faster than someone with less skill. Even for crossbows, with Crossbow Expert.

[NontheistCleric]

Yeah, and by several interpretations on this thread, the wererat crossbow is also nonstandard, because they can make two attacks with them and PCs can't. Others, like you, disagree.

You can't infer that the wererat crossbow is nonstandard from the fact that it has the ability to make two attacks, since the question of this thread is whether or not it actually can make two attacks, and if you say it can because it's not standard, you've only got yourself a circular argument.

[Boci]

Is that a property of the weapon or the wielder, if you give them two attacks?

Does it matter? Do assassins magically poison their swordsword before every attack, or is their shortsword special? It doesn't matter, not really, since the majority of DMs won't let PCs have the assassin's swordsword as written in their profile. Its more a "this is what the assassin needs to be as threatening as their CR".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Does it matter? Do assassins magically poison their swordsword before every attack, or is their shortsword special? It doesn't matter, not really, since the majority of DMs won't let PCs have the assassin's swordsword as written in their profile. Its more a "this is what the assassin needs to be as threatening as their CR".

Yeah. The number of attacks and the strength of each attack is, according to the DMG, arbitrary. You could have their daggers dealing 8d12 without marking it specially. I probably wouldn't, but it wouldn't break any rules. CR first, numbers are made up to match CR. Not, really, the other way around in most cases. Or more precisely, both methods are equally valid according to the MM and DMG.

As for shields...that's one thing I'm reworking. Having the shield in the AC AND having a two-handed option, to me, is confusing and I forget to adjust AC when they use their ranged option. Although I don't have to, I choose to, purely for world-verisimilitude reasons. After all, monster AC is also an arbitrary parameter (that's what natural armor is for!).

My design for my own monsters (5e or NIH) is to have listed variants in the stat block--one variant has a shield and a one-handed weapon and higher AC. The other has ranged weapons and a lower AC. And in either case, I don't call out the "versatile" stuff--either they have both hands full and are using it one handed (with the lower number) or they're using it two-handed and use the bigger number. Each variant only has one.

But those are entirely operational concerns--making it easier for me to run monsters. Not rules concerns.

[Dr.Samurai]

I find these types of sweeping generalizations (about the system and its rules) to be dismissive and slightly irritating. And now insulting to suggest that people are arguing their point because they're obsessed with 3rd edition. It could be the case that other people can't get over their own fears or hate for 3rd edition, and that unresolved trauma that they carry around with them needlessly colors their opinion. I'm not making that argument though, because it would be rude.

When we look at weapons IN FIFTH EDITION, monsters take the proficiency bonus, add it to their attack modifier, have the same reach as anyone else of their size, and deal the same weapon damage (changed for size). The ogre doesn't use a special type of javelin that goes further, or shorter, or can't also be used in melee, or deals a different type of damage. Nothing in the ogre's stat block suggests that the ogre can intrinsically ignore cover when throwing the javelin, or doesn't have Disadvantage when throwing while within 5ft of an enemy. These arguments being made suggest that because nothing in the statblock refers to cover or being engaged in melee or even any penalties for throwing at long range, these things simply don't apply. That's in the PHB, and has no bearing on monsters.

This is a weak argument to make. Everything is arbitrary, but somehow the ogre javelin lines up perfectly with the human javelin. Extremely weak argument, hence the ad hominem about 3rd edition.

Stats can be anything with no rhyme or reason? Ok, then why does the Gladiator have the "Brute" trait? Why not just give the Gladiator an arbitrary 2d6 javelin attack? Why go out of your way to explain why the gladiator's javelin attack does more damage than a typical javelin attack? Because the game is operating under an assumption that monster/NPC weapons work mostly the same way that PC weapons work.

How about another CR 2 monster... the Eye of Gruumsh. Let's see... Spear. MElee and ranged? Yep. Normal Reach? Yep. Same range? Yep. 1d6 piercing damage? Yep. Oh wait... it's dealing an additional 1d8 damage! Is this arbitrary super chaos randomness that proves enemy weapons can do anything? No. The monsters has "Gruumsh's Fury" and it specifically says it deals an extra 1d8 damage on a hit. Versatile? Yep.

Let's jump to the archer at cr 3. Shortsword. Let's see... is it a melee attack? Yep. Normal reach? Yep. A d6? Yep. Proficiency + Dex? Yep. We can infer Finesse but hey... totally arbitrary so who knows right? They have a longbow too. Same to hit, range, damage, damage type, etc etc etc.

Hill Giants at CR 5... Greatclubs. Guess if we're using Strength of Dexterty? Reach is 10ft, normal for a Huge creature. Damage is like a greatclub, but 3 times bigger. Bludgeoning. It all tracks. It can throw a rock, again with Strength. Has a short and long range. Bludgeoning damage.

Let's jump up to Marilith at CR 16. Longsword. Slashing damage, 1d8 damage (x2 for Large). Using Strength because it's not a finesse weapon.

All of these examples are apparently just straight up coincidence, and not meant to suggest at all that monsters generally follow the same weapon stats as PCs do. Now let's take a look at another example:

Wererat. Hand crossbow. Same damage type, same damage die, same range. Multiattack to make two weapon attacks. This example... is not a coincidence. This text here, unlike the other examples I just gave, is actually deliberate according to others. This is an arbitrary choice to allow the wererat to bypass the Loading property in a subtle way. We should definitely see purpose in this text, according to some, but not in all the other examples where the text lines up perfectly with the weapon stats.

And if you think otherwise, you can't get over 3rd edition. Even though all the evidence is right here in 5th edition. Like I said before, not buying it.

[Boci]

When we look at weapons IN FIFTH EDITION, monsters take the proficiency bonus, add it to their attack modifier, have the same reach as anyone else of their size, and deal the same weapon damage (changed for size).

Changes based on whether or not its a monster or PC. Monsters double weapon dice for being large, PCs add 1d4 from the enlarge spell or 1d6 but only 1/turn if its from the runeknight ability.

[Dr.Samurai]

Changes based on whether or not its a monster or PC. Monsters double weapon dice for being large, PCs add 1d4 from the enlarge spell or 1d6 but only 1/turn if its from the runeknight ability.
You're saying that if a wizard cast Enlarge on an ogre, the spell would have a different effect on the ogre because it's a monster?

[Boci]

You're saying that if a wizard cast Enlarge on an ogre, the spell would have a different effect on the ogre because it's a monster?

No, I'm saying being large doesn't have the same effect on PCs and monsters. Monsters double the damage of their weapon dice for wielding large weapons, PC do not.

Edit: Though now that you mention it, arguably yes? An enlarged ogre is huge, their weapons are also huge to. As a monster, that does tend to mean something different than it does on a PC.

On a throwback now to earlier in the thread, the monster manual says "A monster's statistics, sometimes referred to as its stat block, provide the essential information that you need to run the monster.". I would argue "the number of attacks a monster gets to make" is essential information, so "you clearly have to look in the player's handbook" is contradicted by a fairly overt suggestion in the monster manual for how statblocks work.

But yes, we did already discuss the possibility of a typo.

[Witty Username]

Monsters do have rules and guidelines to them, they don't always match players but they are there. for example, monsters are given the general rule that they have weapon proficiency if their stat block is described as using weapons, and in the case of weapons outside the stat bock are expected proficient if they match with Simple or Martial groups (with some further specifics, like how skeletons are described as being proficient with weapons the creature was in life, which a DM can use for effect if they want to limit the capabilities of a particular skeleton or group if that comes up).

Also oversized weapons have a simple formula based on size. And a description of how these weapons function when used by a smaller creature.Which does at least imply the weapons in monster statblocks are sometimes game objects that the player character can interact with.

Also, Monsters have things like HP, AC, universal stats, and proficiency in skills, weapons, saves, and sometimes tools. Why would monsters adhere to universal game structures if they were not intended operate with them in mind?


But all to say, I would run hand crossbows with the loading property, and existing as weapons in the game space. All equipment disappearing with the guard and spiders carrying pocket change when they die are tropes we can do better than.

[Boci]

But all to say, I would run hand crossbows with the loading property, and existing as weapons in the game space. All equipment disappearing with the guard and spiders carrying pocket change when they die are tropes we can do better than.

You don't have to have the loot disappear. It just needs to function differently in the PC's hands. Like the assassin's weapons. You don't have to have their shortsword and crossbow/quarrels dissappear on death, but you cannot give the players around level 8 weapons that deal +7d6 con 15 half extra damage on every attack. Not if you care about balance in the conventional sense at least.

[Dr.Samurai]

Enlarge is a spell. Giant Might is a class feature. I don’t think magic is the be all end all of D&D and I don’t think either of these features is a commentary on some sort of global treatment of making things bigger in the system. In fact, they both do two different things, but would both work the same for a monster. So I feel like the examples refute your point. If you Enlarge an ogre it will deal +1d4 on all attacks. An ogre rune knight will deal +1d8 on one attack. If you hand an ogre greatclub to a human, it will still deal 2d8, but the human might not be able to wield it.

With regards to cross-referencing, only some people are saying this has to happen and also that it’s a bad thing. Neither of these is a compelling argument and they contradict each other. ALL of the combat rules are in the PHB. If you have to check anything you have to cross reference to the PHB.

The idea that they would include the rules for Loading if it was meant to be relevant because the alternative is you’d have to go to another book means they would have to reprint all of the combat rules in the MM. Because, again, do monsters have to deal with cover? Uh oh… where are the rules for that? What happens when I throw that javelin at long range? Are those rules in the MM? Oh, party is stealthing… how do I adjudicate Surprise again?

We say DMs will know the rules. You say no that’s gate keeping. Okay, then they can check the PHB. You say that’s bad to force them to use multiple books.

So… DMs won’t know the rules and can’t use the books to read them? How do we resolve this?

[Boci]

So… DMs won’t know the rules and can’t use the books to read them? How do we resolve this?

Simple: a monster's stateblock contains the essential information, as per the monster manual. "How many attacks does it get to make" = essential. "What happens when a spell an ogre can't cast is cast on an ogre by someone else" = not essential.

D&D 5e is still a complex enough game that statblocks cannot cover everything. A DM who is a great storyteller but not the best at rules will likely get a lot of the non-essential stuff wrong, but there is no reasons, other than a slip up, why they wouldn't be able to know how many attacks a monster gets by looking at the statblock itself.

I never said DMs can't read can't the rulebooks, that you inventing stuff. I said DMs don't have to read the player's handbook (trust me, I played with some who don't. We still enjoyed ourselves even if it could be frustrating at times for me), but statblocks need to contain how many attacks a monster gets. That is as essential as how much damage each attack does.

[Witty Username]

You don't have to have the loot disappear. It just needs to function differently in the PC's hands. Like the assassin's weapons. You don't have to have their shortsword and crossbow/quarrels dissappear on death, but you cannot give the players around level 8 weapons that deal +7d6 con 15 half extra damage on every attack. Not if you care about balance in the conventional sense at least.
I would personally handle stuff like that as ammunition, a monster is assumed to only have something like 2d4 ammo for ranged attacks in their stat block, poisons handling a number of doses like that seems fair since that will end up lasting a session or two.

[Mastikator]

[snipping 3e stuff]
Wererat. Hand crossbow. Same damage type, same damage die, same range. Multiattack to make two weapon attacks. This example... is not a coincidence. This text here, unlike the other examples I just gave, is actually deliberate according to others. This is an arbitrary choice to allow the wererat to bypass the Loading property in a subtle way. We should definitely see purpose in this text, according to some, but not in all the other examples where the text lines up perfectly with the weapon stats.
[snipping 3e stuff]

"We should definitely see purpose in this text" YES. Yes you should.

"but not in all the other examples where the text lines up perfectly with the weapon stats." No. You still should see purpose in the text. The text lines up perfectly with the weapon stats on purpose. They simulate the PHB rules on purpose.

And the wererat, who's text doesn't line up with the text, also does it on purpose. The fact that almost every single monster, in multiple books, written over many years, explicitly and purposefully re-write the rules should tell you something about the few exceptions that don't. If every other monster that follows the loading rules makes the crossbow loading limitation explicit in the bloc, why doesn't wererat?

[Christew]

ALL of the combat rules are in the PHB. If you have to check anything you have to cross reference to the PHB.
To be fair, Chapter 9: Combat is specifically highlighted as applying to both PCs and monsters:
"'You' can also mean the character or monster that you control."
The Loading property instead appears in Chapter 5: Equipment.

Could you extrapolate this universal "you" to the whole PHB? Sure, likely with some edge case dissonance, but you are not explicitly told to. You could as easily say that Part 1: Creating a Character (wherein Chapter 5 appears) applies only to PCs and Part 2: Running the Game (wherein Chapter 9 appears) applies to both PCs and monsters. But again you are not explicitly told to do so.

[Dr.Samurai]

Simple: a monster's stateblock contains the essential information, as per the monster manual. "How many attacks does it get to make" = essential. "What happens when a spell an ogre can't cast is cast on an ogre by someone else" = not essential.
Sorry... but I did not bring up Enlarge and Rune Knight and didn't suggest that they should be in the stat block.

D&D 5e is still a complex enough game that statblocks cannot cover everything. A DM who is a great storyteller but not the best at rules will likely get a lot of the non-essential stuff wrong, but there is no reasons, other than a slip up, why they wouldn't be able to know how many attacks a monster gets by looking at the statblock itself.

They do know. The wererat can make two attacks with Multiattack.

I never said DMs can't read can't the rulebooks, that you inventing stuff. I said DMs don't have to read the player's handbook (trust me, I played with some who don't. We still enjoyed ourselves even if it could be frustrating at times for me), but statblocks need to contain how many attacks a monster gets. That is as essential as how much damage each attack does.
So... to be clear, I am not arguing that Enlarge is essential information, or that stat blocks shouldn't include number of attacks.

I believe the answer to your original question is "No", monsters don't get to ignore certain weapon rules. And I believe all of the explanations given thus far for why they do, are not compelling.

The fact that almost every single monster, in multiple books, written over many years, explicitly and purposefully re-write the rules should tell you something about the few exceptions that don't. If every other monster that follows the loading rules makes the crossbow loading limitation explicit in the bloc, why doesn't wererat?
Because someone made an error. Someone didn't get the memo "if a creature is using a crossbow for ranged attacks, make sure it is not an option if they have multiattack". That's it.

And I don't think "explicit" is the word you want to use here, but I may be wrong.

To be fair, Chapter 9: Combat is specifically highlighted as applying to both PCs and monsters:
"'You' can also mean the character or monster that you control."
The Loading property instead appears in Chapter 5: Equipment.

Could you extrapolate this universal "you" to the whole PHB? Sure, likely with some edge case dissonance, but you are not explicitly told to. You could as easily say that Part 1: Creating a Character (wherein Chapter 5 appears) applies only to PCs and Part 2: Running the Game (wherein Chapter 9 appears) applies to both PCs and monsters. But again you are not explicitly told to do so.
If someone wants to argue that PHB equipment doesn't apply to monsters, they are certainly free to make that argument. My point is that you're going to have to go to the PHB at some point. The idea that we're not meant to refer to the PHB ergo ergo the lack of Loading proves it's intentional is not compelling.

[stoutstien]

NPCs follow the same rules that PCs do when it's convenient but also have explicit expectations just as often also for convenience. A bandit with a dagger? Probably will follow similar rules. A bandit captain? That multi attack is to make sure it lines up with the CR. Same for its reaction. This doesn't mean that if they happen to decide to duel wield daggers they cant use that multi attack because it's "close enough" to be fine.

Sometimes they give the explicit expectations a name like X fury or whatever but sometimes they just add extra damage(common at higher CR). Sometimes they have weird weapons that diverge from the PC options (spike shield, man catcher) and sometimes they act exactly the same.


The actionable outcome is what's important rather than the steps to get there.

[KorvinStarmast]

The vast majority of NPC monsters who use weapons use the same weapons rules as the PCs, if you look at the damage dice rolled.
(Hobgoblin being a good case in point, it has two entries for the long sword depending on whether or not they use their shields.
Yes, it's more DM overhead to decide who is or isn't using a shield during combat. They also use the same Ability mods and Proficiency bonus mods as PCs do. (I have a pet peeve: CR 1/4 and lower monsters ought to have a PB of 1, not 2, but I don't get to change that in the books).

There are some interesting exceptions that are noted in the stat block.

Gladiator adds an additional die to their attacks. If they are using a spear and shield, the spear does 2d6 + str mod, not 1d6 like a normal medium creature does.
The giants all do damage (with die additions based on the MM size rules) consistent with that as well.

That's the general case.

Harping on the exceptions, which is what this thread has wandered off into is a problem with internet arguments.

The OP's question about intent isn't a bad question per se. There are a lot of curious bits in the 5e rules where things can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and trying to divine the intention behind a given bit of the published rules isn't a bad approach. There was a time when the devs' answers were useful, but over time they lost the plot (and Mearles lost his job on the 5e team).

Making a best estimate is as good an approach as any DM can make.


Except...equipment doesn't work the same in their hands. Actually, it mostly does. We are getting into a wrangle over exceptions, not general rules.

Their entire action economy is different, from the get go. Not really.
They have oddball features, though. Warlock of the Archfey has a reaction that looks a lot like a spell, but itsn't.
And speaking of oddball features:

Some of them have infinite poison...which stops working as soon as the players get their hands on it. Etc.
Yea, the Assassin NPC is a standout for "WTF?" on this one.
That's not action economy, that's just weird design (and IMO bad editing).


Monster rules are already a mostly orthogonal set to player rules across the board. Sort of. Their HP / HD calcs are way different from a PC, but the Prof bonus aligns OK mostly. Their spell save DCs are calculated the same way, and if you dig into their skills bonuses, you can find when and where expertise is applied by backwards figruing. (With a few rare exceptions).

They often have immunities that PCs don't typically have, though.

Thei AC is usually calculated the same way, particularly for Humanoid NPCs, except for the natural armor cases but that makes sense because they are monsters and have their own kind of AC calculation ... which a monk or barbarian also has. Or a Draconic sorcerer. :smallwink:


And there are buckets of cases where all those things you mentioned...don't follow any particular set of rules. Especially saving throws, skills, and DCs.
They have unmarked bonuses and penalties all over the place. In general that is not what I have found. But in some cases, yes. I think you are engaging in a little hyperbole here, TBH, although I do find your spreadsheets on All Of The Monsters Up To Mord's to be a very valuable resource. Most of the numbers I have investigated in stat blocks align with proficiency and expertise ... at least in the MM case. Some of the volos and mord's monsters, particularly at the high CR end, leave me puzzled.

And then there are legendary saves ... and legendary actions/reactions that are very much not the same kind of Action Economy as players.

Their saving throw DCs are rarely (especially outside of the pure NPC section) related to some kind of ability score--they're set for entirely other reasons. The nunber of proficiencies varies, yes.
Most of those numbers do, however, match up with Ability Plus Proficiency.
But no, monsters are NOT bound by "you only get two save proficiencies" as PCs without feats generally are.
As they increase in CR this gets even more pronounced (for the cases I have looked into). And you get NPCs like the Archmage who have what amounts to an epic boon: advantage on saving throws versus spells/magic.

Note: Tome of Beasts and other 3rd party stuff is not included in my PoV.
I know you use some of that stuff.
I used a Void dragon on my party, for example, after you had laid one on us in Campaign 1 and I had sent my PCs off into the Dark/Void/Far Realm in my salt marshes campaign. Worked out well. But I refer to ToB sparignly, if at all.


And the monster creation section of the DMG is explicit about this--the numbers on a monster stat block, including # of attacks is entirely arbitrary. You can (and are even encouraged to!) choose them to meet the targets you want to hit, rather than starting with any kind of rule and working forward. Multiattack is the biggest one here--it doesn't correlate with breakpoints where PCs get extra attacks at all. It's entirely arbitrary on the part of the designer.
There is a big Yes from me here.
The Star Spawn Mangler is a good example of this.
I think that the aim here is to be able to dial the offensive CR up and down by using "number of attacks" as a variable, which leaves the damage dice to mostly fit the general case.

[JackPhoenix]

So what do you think about shields on monsters then? I brought it up as a curiosity but also a limitation of my own argument, because whilst I felt "wererats can doubleshoot" was a totally valid read, I was less convinced it was valid to allow a gladiator to versatile damage attack with a shield, and I wasn't entirely sure why those two things felt different to me.

DMG explicitly tells you to remember you can't use a shield and a two-handed weapon at the same time, when you're dealing with weapon-using monsters.
"If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace that weapon with a different one. For example, you could replace a hobgoblin's longsword with a halberd. Don't forget to change the damage and the attack's reach where appropriate. Also be aware of the consequences of switching from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon, or vice versa. For example, a hobgoblin wielding a halberd (a two-handed weapon) loses the benefit of its shield, so its AC decreases by 2."

That, by coincidence, also confirms that a weapon x is a weapon x, no matter who wields it.


Yeah, and by several interpretations on this thread, the wererat crossbow is also nonstandard, because they can make two attacks with them and PCs can't. Others, like you, disagree.

You have, so far, failed to demonstrate the wererat has only a single hand crossbow.

[Witty Username]

You have, so far, failed to demonstrate the wererat has only a single hand crossbow.

In theory, they have 2d4 hand crossbows, if we want to get really silly with it.

[Christew]

"If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace that weapon with a different one. For example, you could replace a hobgoblin's longsword with a halberd. Don't forget to change the damage and the attack's reach where appropriate. Also be aware of the consequences of switching from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon, or vice versa. For example, a hobgoblin wielding a halberd (a two-handed weapon) loses the benefit of its shield, so its AC decreases by 2."
To be fair, the above quotation comes from Chapter 9: Dungeon Master's Workshop. That chapter begins with a heading stating, in pertinent part:

This chapter contains optional rules that you can use to customize your campaign, as well as guidelines on creating your own material, such as monsters and magic items.



That, by coincidence, also confirms that a weapon x is a weapon x, no matter who wields it.
The quoted material might be persuasive of this conclusion, but is hardly dispositive. It really only confirms that when modifying a monster via switching weapons pursuant to Chapter 9 of the DMG the weapon properties listed in Chapter 5 of the PHB apply, at least insofar as damage, reach, and handedness.

[Boci]

Something else that occurs to me: monsters like the Drow House Captain from MotM. They have: "Multiattack. The drow makes two Scimitar attacks and one Whip or Hand Crossbow attack ." So clearly they're only getting 1 attack with their crossbow, but, each turn? Turn one they make two attacks with their scimitar and 1 attack with their crossbow. They aren't killed or incapacitated, so on their next turn they make two scimitar attacks...and a handcrossbow attack? Or do they need reload it first, which they can't do with a weapon in each hand?

[Dr.Samurai]

Something else that occurs to me: monsters like the Drow House Captain from MotM. They have: "Multiattack. The drow makes two Scimitar attacks and one Whip or Hand Crossbow attack ." So clearly they're only getting 1 attack with their crossbow, but, each turn? Turn one they make two attacks with their scimitar and 1 attack with their crossbow. They aren't killed or incapacitated, so on their next turn they make two scimitar attacks...and a handcrossbow attack? Or do they need reload it first, which they can't do with a weapon in each hand?
Yeah, there's a similar issue with thrown weapons. Some NPCs can make two ranged weapon attacks with their spear. That means they have to have two spears. And if they throw those two, do they have a third to use next turn?

[Boci]

Yeah, there's a similar issue with thrown weapons. Some NPCs can make two ranged weapon attacks with their spear. That means they have to have two spears. And if they throw those two, do they have a third to use next turn?

If you're asking me as a DM, then yes, they have enough spears, because I value the monsters mechanical performance more than such mundane details. If its really a big deal to a player, the monster has enough to spears to make multiattacks for 5-6 rounds, so 10-12 in this case. Depending on the exact scenario and feel of the game I might reduce it, but as a general rule I'm not too fussed.

[Keltest]

Yeah, there's a similar issue with thrown weapons. Some NPCs can make two ranged weapon attacks with their spear. That means they have to have two spears. And if they throw those two, do they have a third to use next turn?

Theres nothing that specifically stops them from retrieving their spear before making a second attack, assuming the circumstances allow them to reach the spear. As opposed to the hand crossbow where the reloading property would make the specific attack combination disallowed under any circumstances.

[Boci]

Theres nothing that specifically stops them from retrieving their spear before making a second attack, assuming the circumstances allow them to reach the spear. As opposed to the hand crossbow where the reloading property would make the specific attack combination disallowed under any circumstances.

Reloading isn't a property, and loading doesn't mention any such limitation, the drow is only making one crossbow attack with their action. Did I miss something, or is this a common sense rules call that's not explicitly spelt out in RAW?

[Keltest]

Reloading isn't a property, and loading doesn't mention any such limitation, the drow is only making one crossbow attack with their action. Did I miss something, or is this a common sense rules call that's not explicitly spelt out in RAW?

Loading, sorry. And the loading property normally specifically disallows making more than one attack with the weapon regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make, even if you have ammo available. Crossbow Expert allows you to ignore that part of the loading property, and I think a couple other features in various books released.

The Wererat was the given example earlier of a creature whose stat block allows it to use its multiattack on a weapon that normally has the loading property. If we assume that the writers werent just incompetent, that would indicate that wererats just ignore the loading property, like some PCs can do, and they didnt feel the need to spell it out because their multiattack already says you can make multiple attacks.

[gloryblaze]

Yeah, there's a similar issue with thrown weapons. Some NPCs can make two ranged weapon attacks with their spear. That means they have to have two spears. And if they throw those two, do they have a third to use next turn?

The Monster Manual has explicit rules for this:


Ammunition
A monster carries enough ammunition to make its ranged attacks. You can assume that a monster has 2d4 pieces of ammunition for a thrown weapon attack, and 2d10 pieces of ammunition for a projectile weapon such as a bow or crossbow.

So yes, they have at least two spears and potentially a third (or fourth, or fifth, etc., all the way up to a max of 8).

Also, since I'm not sure if you saw it the first time, there is at least one official first-party statblock that explicitly allows Multiattack with a crossbow: Forge Fitzwilliams from the D&D movie statblock compendium, the Thieves' Gallery.


Multiattack. Forge makes two Dagger attacks, two Heavy Crossbow attacks, or one of each.

[Boci]

Loading, sorry. And the loading property normally specifically disallows making more than one attack with the weapon regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make, even if you have ammo available. Crossbow Expert allows you to ignore that part of the loading property, and I think a couple other features in various books released.

The Wererat was the given example earlier of a creature whose stat block allows it to use its multiattack on a weapon that normally has the loading property. If we assume that the writers werent just incompetent, that would indicate that wererats just ignore the loading property, like some PCs can do, and they didnt feel the need to spell it out because their multiattack already says you can make multiple attacks.

Pretty much yes, though the specific reply chain you responded to from Dr.Samurai was actually him and I talking about the Drow House Captain, not the wererat.

[Dr.Samurai]

If you're asking me as a DM, then yes, they have enough spears, because I value the monsters mechanical performance more than such mundane details. If its really a big deal to a player, the monster has enough to spears to make multiattacks for 5-6 rounds, so 10-12 in this case. Depending on the exact scenario and feel of the game I might reduce it, but as a general rule I'm not too fussed.

Theres nothing that specifically stops them from retrieving their spear before making a second attack, assuming the circumstances allow them to reach the spear. As opposed to the hand crossbow where the reloading property would make the specific attack combination disallowed under any circumstances.
I'm not saying that they *can't* have enough spears or anything, just that some of these features require consideration. In the case of a sword and crossbow, I would think the character has to perform some silly sequence of events such as:

Turn 1: Move --> Multiattack --> sheathe sword
Turn 2: Load Crossbow --> draw sword --> Multiattack (not even sure this works as it might be two object interactions)

This is stupid to me, so I would probably have the creature use the crossbow as a single shot item for the encounter and then multiattack with its shortsword. Other people agree that the sequence is stupid as well, but just ignore that the crossbow has to be loaded.

I think treating a crossbow as some sort of automatic pistol is silly, so I don't normally assume that creatures can just use crossbows willy nilly.

Loading, sorry. And the loading property normally specifically disallows making more than one attack with the weapon regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make, even if you have ammo available. Crossbow Expert allows you to ignore that part of the loading property, and I think a couple other features in various books released.

The Wererat was the given example earlier of a creature whose stat block allows it to use its multiattack on a weapon that normally has the loading property. If we assume that the writers werent just incompetent, that would indicate that wererats just ignore the loading property, like some PCs can do, and they didnt feel the need to spell it out because their multiattack already says you can make multiple attacks.
Loading: Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

I don't know how people think Multiattack overrides this clause when it is the exact condition the clause is referring to lol. The reasoning being used here would apply to Extra Attack as well.

DM: Yeah but... Multiattack says it can make two attacks.
Player: So does Extra Attack though.
DM: ...


The Monster Manual has explicit rules for this:



So yes, they have at least two spears and potentially a third (or fourth, or fifth, etc., all the way up to a max of 8).
Excellent.

I think everyone should take note of this. People are treating monsters as these sort of abstract floating blobs of statistics that can conjure infinite poison and ignore how weapons work. The MM doesn't seem to treat them that way, and I don't think DMs are intended to either.

Maybe you do because it's more convenient and all that, which is fine. But doesn't seem the intent.

Also, since I'm not sure if you saw it the first time, there is at least one official first-party statblock that explicitly allows Multiattack with a crossbow: Forge Fitzwilliams from the D&D movie statblock compendium, the Thieves' Gallery.
Oh, I did miss this, thank you!

[Boci]

I think treating a crossbow as some sort of automatic pistol is silly, so I don't normally assume that creatures can just use crossbows willy nilly.

Hardly a semi-automatic if you're making one attack per round with it. I don't think "he reloads it with his pinky finger despite holding something in that hand" is that redicolous for a trained martial in D&D.

Also doesn't your interpretation kill dual wielding hand crossbows with crossbow mastery? I thought that was assumed to work, but it doesn't if you need a free hand to reload them.

[Keltest]

I don't know how people think Multiattack overrides this clause when it is the exact condition the clause is referring to lol. The reasoning being used here would apply to Extra Attack as well.

Because many monster stat blocks, such as the knight, exclude crossbows from their multiattack, and since the whole point of a monster stat block is to be more condensed than a player stat block, having a freaking bibliography explaining why they behave differently than players would be silly. If a weapon has a limitation vis a vis multiattack, the monster's multiattack action calls it out. Wererats lack that limitation for their hand crossbows, so logically it isnt there.

[Mastikator]

Because someone made an error. Someone didn't get the memo "if a creature is using a crossbow for ranged attacks, make sure it is not an option if they have multiattack". That's it.

Ok so from a RAI perspective the wererat should not make two hand crossbow attacks. But from a RAW perspective it should?

If yes then we're in full agreement. If no, then I'd like to know why.

[JackPhoenix]

Also doesn't your interpretation kill dual wielding hand crossbows with crossbow mastery? I thought that was assumed to work, but it doesn't if you need a free hand to reload them.

Yes. There is, and never was supposed to be, any "dual wielding hand crossbows with crossbow mastery". WotC even errata'd Ammunition property to make it clear you need two hands to reload a crossbow, even if it's one-handed. As mentioned before, if you start with two loaded crossbows, you can shoot both, then you need a free hand to reload.


Because many monster stat blocks, such as the knight, exclude crossbows from their multiattack, and since the whole point of a monster stat block is to be more condensed than a player stat block, having a freaking bibliography explaining why they behave differently than players would be silly. If a weapon has a limitation vis a vis multiattack, the monster's multiattack action calls it out. Wererats lack that limitation for their hand crossbows, so logically it isnt there.

I've failed to notice anyone providing any evidence against the simplest solution to the "issue", which is that the wererat may have more than one crossbow, instead of coming up with some convulted reasons why is it able to ignore how crossbows work.

[Boci]

I've failed to notice anyone providing any evidence against the simplest solution to the "issue", which is that the wererat may have more than one crossbow, instead of coming up with some convulted reasons why is it able to ignore how crossbows work.

Can't speak for everyone else, but personally that interpretation is way more convoluted than wererats getting to make 1 or 2 with their crossbow. This is a low CR brute style monster, who already has quite a few rules in their statblock. Adding in weapon juggling is a special flavour of unnecessary.

[Dr.Samurai]

Hardly a semi-automatic if you're making one attack per round with it. I don't think "he reloads it with his pinky finger despite holding something in that hand" is that redicolous for a trained martial in D&D.
Whereas I think reloading a crossbow with your pinky is the height of absurdity and makes a parody of the game.

Also doesn't your interpretation kill dual wielding hand crossbows with crossbow mastery? I thought that was assumed to work, but it doesn't if you need a free hand to reload them.
As JackPhoenix said, that was never a thing.

Because many monster stat blocks, such as the knight, exclude crossbows from their multiattack, and since the whole point of a monster stat block is to be more condensed than a player stat block, having a freaking bibliography explaining why they behave differently than players would be silly. If a weapon has a limitation vis a vis multiattack, the monster's multiattack action calls it out. Wererats lack that limitation for their hand crossbows, so logically it isnt there.
There is only one statblock that I have seen so far that specifically calls out crossbows as not working with Multiattack. I truly feel you are all stretching very thin here trying to find meaning in all the ways the statblocks are written by different people.

Think about it this way... if the wererat didn't have a hand crossbow but instead had a shortbow, I don't think anyone would infer from Multiattack's lack of "melee" that the wererat can shoot twice with a hand crossbow. You wouldn't because crossbows aren't mentioned and there isn't one in the statblock. But because there is one in the statblock, you're now trying to argue that this is a commentary on how the wererat interacts with the Loading property.

Note that a Knight can't mulitattack with ANY ranged weapons. If the knight picks up a longbow, it STILL can only make ONE attack with it. And you are all trying to make this a commentary on crossbows.

With regards to "bibliographies", you are all calling upon every written instance of Multiattack to buttress your position. I am just pointing to the Loading quality.

Ok so from a RAI perspective the wererat should not make two hand crossbow attacks. But from a RAW perspective it should?

If yes then we're in full agreement. If no, then I'd like to know why.
RAI, yes.

RAW, I don't agree with you but I understand your position.

A. Multiattack is specific to each monster, and overrides the general Loading property.
B. Loading is specific to certain weapons, and overrides the general Multiattack trait that monsters have.

I think B makes way more sense. I don't think that an ability that specifically calls out overriding anything that gives you more than one attack, gets overridden by an ability that gives you more than one attack. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. But I recognize that you are privileging Mulitattack over Loading in the specific/general rule dynamic, and supporting that with "melee" being excluded from the wererat's multiattack. For reasons I've already explained in multiple posts, I don't find those arguments compelling, but I understand how you all got there.

Even if we ignore specific vs general, I still don't think it works, because nothing about Multiattack suggests it gets to ignore weapon rules. At all. You are arguing that wererats can multiattack with a net, because, since it doesn't say "melee" in Multiattack, it gets to ignore the special quality of Nets.

[Boci]

Whereas I think reloading a crossbow with your pinky is the height of absurdity and makes a parody of the game.

Eh, never been too impressed with the whole "martials doing something slightly unrealistic is really problematic, a true threat to the game" mindset some people have.

Hell, I'm not even sure if this is unrealistic. I wouldn't be that surprised if there's people who could reload a hand / equivalent with an item in their other hand. It won't be a common skill, but if somebody in real life can do it, you'd better believe a Drow House Captain can do it.

[Mastikator]

RAI, yes.

RAW, I don't agree with you but I understand your position.

A. Multiattack is specific to each monster, and overrides the general Loading property.
B. Loading is specific to certain weapons, and overrides the general Multiattack trait that monsters have.

I think B makes way more sense. I don't think that an ability that specifically calls out overriding anything that gives you more than one attack, gets overridden by an ability that gives you more than one attack. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. But I recognize that you are privileging Mulitattack over Loading in the specific/general rule dynamic, and supporting that with "melee" being excluded from the wererat's multiattack. For reasons I've already explained in multiple posts, I don't find those arguments compelling, but I understand how you all got there.

Even if we ignore specific vs general, I still don't think it works, because nothing about Multiattack suggests it gets to ignore weapon rules. At all. You are arguing that wererats can multiattack with a net, because, since it doesn't say "melee" in Multiattack, it gets to ignore the special quality of Nets.

The reason I think loading is less specific is because in the PHB chapter 5, the weapons table lists "loading" as a property for the crossbows, and then later in the weapon properties subchapter describes what loading does. Making it a generic rule that affects 4 different weapons. Whereas the multiattack entry in the chapter 1 of the monster manual merely states it can only be used on its turn. The multiattack rules are specific and unique for each monster beyond "doesn't count for opportunity attacks".

For the most part I think you're right that multiattack obeys the weapon property rules, it's not a coincidence that the knight, the thug, the spy, etc can only make multiple attacks if they're not using their crossbows. And for that reason I don't think we should treat the wererat's multiattack as a mistake to such a degree that even RAW it can't fire twice with its handcrossbow. Though if you still disagree with that then I am content to agree to disagree, as long as you understand.

[NontheistCleric]

I have located some quotes that support not only the idea that monster attacks are subject to Player's Handbook rules when applicable, but also that the rulebooks assume, by default, that a DM will know the rules or be prepared to look them up:


MELEE AND RANGED ATTACKS
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook.


To referee the rules, you need to know them. You don't have to memorize this book or the Player's Handbook, but you should have a clear idea of their contents so that, when a situation requires a ruling, you know where to find the proper reference.

[Boci]

I have located some quotes that support not only the idea that monster attacks are subject to Player's Handbook rules when applicable, but also that the rulebooks assume, by default, that a DM will know the rules or be prepared to look them up:

Which is contradicted by MM saying monster statblocks contain essential information. Number of attacks is essential information.

[NontheistCleric]

Which is contradicted by MM saying monster statblocks contain essential information. Number of attacks is essential information.

That doesn't mean that it will never be necessary to refer to sources outside the MM when the essential information provided by the designers nonetheless leaves certain matters ambiguous.

In fact, the section I quoted is a section on reading statblocks in particular, and it explicitly refers DMs to the PHB. What more do you want?

[Boci]

That doesn't mean that it will never be necessary to refer to sources outside the MM

For non-essential stuff sure. Or essential information that cannot reasonable be reprinted, like what the spells do, it would add too much bloat. How many attacks a wererat can make with their crossbow is neither of these,


In fact, the section I quoted is a section on reading statblocks in particular, and it explicitly refers DMs to the PHB. What more do you want?

To different kinds of attacks, not weapon properties.

[NontheistCleric]

For non-essential stuff sure. Or essential information that cannot reasonable be reprinted, like what the spells do, it would add too much bloat. How many attacks a wererat can make with their crossbow is neither of these,
And yet it was left out. By mistake or on purpose, it wasn't mentioned how many attacks a wererat could make with a crossbow in particular, only weapons in general.

Therefore, since it would be perfectly consistent with all other crossbows in the game for the wererat's crossbow to have the Loading property, the default rule should be applied.


To different kinds of attacks, not weapon properties.
An attack with a crossbow is a kind of attack.

[JackPhoenix]

For non-essential stuff sure. Or essential information that cannot reasonable be reprinted, like what the spells do, it would add too much bloat. How many attacks a wererat can make with their crossbow is neither of these

You mean essential information that cannot reasonably be reprinted, like weapon table listing the properties of different weapons and related glossary explaining their meaning?


To different kinds of attacks, not weapon properties.

The weapon property in question is directly related to the attacks you can make with the crossbow.

[Boci]

And yet it was left out. By mistake or on purpose, it wasn't mentioned how many attacks a wererat could make with a crossbow in particular, only weapons in general.

Therefore, since it would be perfectly consistent with all other crossbows in the game for the wererat's crossbow to have the Loading property, the default rule should be applied.

Is one interpretation yes, but not a universal one as this thread shows.


An attack with a crossbow is a kind of attack.

That's not the kinds of attack they were referring to, and I suspect you know this. Its melee, ranged or spell, not one separate kind for every weapon / spell you could have.


You mean essential information that cannot reasonably be reprinted, like weapon table listing the properties of different weapons and related glossary explaining their meaning?

They couldn't have reasonably indicated how many attacks the wererat was suppose to make with their crossbow? Hard disagree from me, they could very reasonable have done that. They reference versatile in every monster entry, number of attacks is no harder to reference, and just as essential as damage.

[JackPhoenix]

They couldn't have reasonably indicated how many attacks the wererat was suppose to make with their crossbow? Hard disagree from me, they could very reasonable have done that. They reference versatile in every monster entry, number of attacks is no harder to reference, and just as essential as damage.

You still assume the wererat has only one crossbow. You have yet failed to provide any evidence for that.

[Boci]

You still assume the wererat has only one crossbow. You have yet failed to provide any evidence for that.

Yeah, super not interesting in this line of discussions. Wererats were meant to be able to make 1 or 2 ranged attacks. I don't know which it was, but I do know it was meant to be one or two, and not "it depends". This is of course my opinion, you are free to have a different one.

[NontheistCleric]

Is one interpretation yes, but not a universal one as this thread shows.
Certainly the one that is most logical and consistent with the actual printed rules and the apparent intention of the rules, though.


That's not the kinds of attack they were referring to, and I suspect you know this. Its melee, ranged or spell, not one separate kind for every weapon / spell you could have.
How do you know that? In the very same paragraph they mention manufactured items and refer the DM to the PHB. No doubt they were indeed talking about ranged, melee and spell attacks, so why not weapon attacks too? Weapon attacks, which, if I must remind you, are a category of attack bound by the rules of whatever weapons they are made with.

[Christew]

I have located some quotes that support not only the idea that monster attacks are subject to Player's Handbook rules when applicable, but also that the rulebooks assume, by default, that a DM will know the rules or be prepared to look them up:
Neither of these quotes preclude the position that stat blocks + Part 2 of the PHB is all that is required to properly run a monster.

[NontheistCleric]

Neither of these quotes preclude the position that stat blocks + Part 2 of the PHB is all that is required to properly run a monster.

I'm not here to give an opinion on what is 'proper' running of a monster, only point out what is required to run it in fullest compliance with RAW.

[Christew]

I'm not here to give an opinion on what is 'proper' running of a monster, only point out what is required to run it in fullest compliance with RAW.
Okay. Neither of the quotes you supplied support the position that "monster stat blocks are subject to both parts of the PHB" is more in compliance with RAW then "monster stat blocks are subject to Part 2 of the PHB."

Especially since, as quoted upthread, Part 2 states that it applies to monsters and Part 1 does not.

[NontheistCleric]

Okay. Neither of the quotes you supplied support the position that "monster stat blocks are subject to both parts of the PHB" is more in compliance with RAW then "monster stat blocks are subject to Part 2 of the PHB."

Especially since, as quoted upthread, Part 2 states that it applies to monsters and Part 1 does not.
No, but Part 1 applies to weapons, and there is no reason to assume weapons wielded by a monster are different from weapons wielded by a PC unless there is a rule saying otherwise.

[Christew]

No, but Part 1 applies to weapons, and there is no reason to assume weapons wielded by a monster are different from weapons wielded by a PC unless there is a rule saying otherwise.
Except that there are stat blocks (RAW) that present weapons that act differently than those presented in Part 1 of the PHB. Given that evidence two perspectives are possible:

(1) Stat blocks are discrete and any consistency with Part 1 of the PHB is incidental; or
(2) Stat blocks are subject to Part 1 of the PHB and every instance of inconsistency is an error.

Your assumptions appear to lead you to prefer perspective 2 -- that doesn't make it RAW.

[NontheistCleric]

Except that there are stat blocks (RAW) that present weapons that act differently than those presented in Part 1 of the PHB. Given that evidence two perspectives are possible:

(1) Stat blocks are discrete and any consistency with Part 1 of the PHB is incidental; or
(2) Stat blocks are subject to Part 1 of the PHB and every instance of inconsistency is an error.

Your assumptions appear to lead you to prefer perspective 2 -- that doesn't make it RAW.
Not errors. Specific trumps general. However, there is no specific rule allowing a wererat to ignore Loading (which in turn is more specific than Multiattack), so it cannot. No assumptions needed.

In a game with rules that purport to describe the game world, that is what the rules do in every instance they might be able to, unless they are stated not to.

[Boci]

In a game with rules that purport to describe the game world, that is what the rules do in every instance they might be able to, unless they are stated not to.

So then why is the wererat the literally only case where a monster's statblock alone doesn't reveal how many attacks it can make with its weapons? If this is such a reasonable thing to be in the game, whyy is there no other example, except for one monster, except even that is based on one interpretation not neccissarily shared by others?

[NontheistCleric]

So then why is the wererat the literally only case where a monster's statblock alone doesn't reveal how many attacks it can make with its weapons? If this is such a reasonable thing to be in the game, whyy is there no other example, except for one monster, except even that is based on one interpretation not neccissarily shared by others?
Maybe because it's an isolated example of an editing oversight? The truth is that I have no definite idea why it's not revealed, but I can tell you how to clarify the limited uncertainty: With a quick reference to rules every DM is assumed to know or have to hand.

[Christew]

Not errors ... No assumptions needed.

Maybe because it's an isolated example of an editing oversight?
So, inconsistencies are not errors ... except that one, that's an error.


In a game with rules that purport to describe the game world, that is what the rules do in every instance they might be able to, unless they are stated not to.
In a game with rules that purport to describe weapons to be used by players during character creation, reading those rules to apply to monster stat blocks, unless they are stated to, is an assumption.

[Boci]

With a quick reference to rules every DM is assumed to know or have to hand.

Which, as you just acknowledged, is not something you need to do for monsters in 5e, so either way the wererat is an exception. Either to the crossbow rules (though there is apparently a first party tie in that can double tap) or the knowing how many attack they get from their statblock.

If we discount the possibility of an error, because we ultimately don't know that, I don't see a good way to decide which exception matters more. Its all going to come down to personal preference.

[Keltest]

Which, as you just acknowledged, is not something you need to do for monsters in 5e, so either way the wererat is an exception. Either to the crossbow rules (though there is apparently a first party tie in that can double tap) or the knowing how many attack they get from their statblock.

If we discount the possibility of an error, because we ultimately don't know that, I don't see a good way to decide which exception matters more. Its all going to come down to personal preference.

The exception that doesnt require a whole different sourcebook to discover strikes me as being the much cleaner and more likely exception. Barring spellcasters, monster stat blocks are pretty self contained.

[Dr.Samurai]

Eh, never been too impressed with the whole "martials doing something slightly unrealistic is really problematic, a true threat to the game" mindset some people have.
Yeah, I'm never impressed with "it's a game" "it's fun" and "everything is magic" to explain away having rules in the game either.

For all of the kvetching people do about 3rd edition and it's great number of rules and "system mastery" and all of that, it at least justified these tropes that people wanted. You can interact with class features, prestige class features, items, item materials, feats, skill tricks, magical enchancements, and spells to become an auto-turret with your crossbow.

Now we get 5th edition, the pinnacle of TTRPGs, a system so streamlined, so devoid of needless rules interactions, that it's brilliant flame has lured millions of new moths into the fire.

But 5E still has some rules of course. Like Loading.

Oh wait... let's ignore that one. The rules are very light in 5E, and yet, people still want to ignore them. And yet, people still believe that you can dual wield crossbows and somehow load them without a free hand. Now you're getting the wacky zany trope by just... ignoring the rules.

This is an inversion by the way. From what I know of early D&D, the players had to be very precise with their gear, their time, and their actions, and how they approached dungeoneeing. The dungeons themselves were weird and wacky funhouse dungeons that had no rhyme or reason but to make for a challenging and rewarding experience.

But in current times, it's very important that DMs pay attention to dungeon "ecology" and make sure that the dungeon "makes sense" and that the monsters there make sense and everything fits. On the flip side, we have funhouse player characters, who can ignore Loading, and Ammunition, and Cover, because the handful of rules that we have are still too much and get in the way of being kewl. No need to track inventory and encumbrance, or spell components. Just do whatever you think will be fun and exciting.

The next edition of D&D will be 7E: Cops and Robbers, but people will still complain. After that we'll get 8E: Bedtime Story Hour, where the DM just narrates the players' great heroics as they tuck them in to sleep.

Hell, I'm not even sure if this is unrealistic. I wouldn't be that surprised if there's people who could reload a hand / equivalent with an item in their other hand. It won't be a common skill, but if somebody in real life can do it, you'd better believe a Drow House Captain can do it.
I think if the game was assuming some olympic level elite reloading, it would just say it. It would be part of the lore, or it would be magical, or some special training that drow have, etc. I think the permissive thinking that permeates these types of discussions is leading people to believe that the rules are telling them something crazy is going on with the reloading, when it really isn't. If a creature can Multiattack with a sword and crossbow, it is going to attack with the crossbow, close in and attack with the sword and then on later turns... multiattack with the sword exclusively. It's not meant to make ranged attacks in melee, or dart in for a melee attack and then dart out for a ranged attack, and reload the weapon by the "power to do kewl things" only with no free hand.

The reason I think loading is less specific is because in the PHB chapter 5, the weapons table lists "loading" as a property for the crossbows, and then later in the weapon properties subchapter describes what loading does. Making it a generic rule that affects 4 different weapons. Whereas the multiattack entry in the chapter 1 of the monster manual merely states it can only be used on its turn. The multiattack rules are specific and unique for each monster beyond "doesn't count for opportunity attacks".

For the most part I think you're right that multiattack obeys the weapon property rules, it's not a coincidence that the knight, the thug, the spy, etc can only make multiple attacks if they're not using their crossbows. And for that reason I don't think we should treat the wererat's multiattack as a mistake to such a degree that even RAW it can't fire twice with its handcrossbow. Though if you still disagree with that then I am content to agree to disagree, as long as you understand.
I think "make two weapon attacks" slams into the brick wall of "can't make more than one attack, even if you can make more than one attack". It's as simple as that for me. You look at the wererat's Multiattack, remember that Loading has a special property, go to the PHB to read it and say "oh, ok, so the wererat can make two attacks, but not with crossbows, because they have the loading property". That to me is the most reasonable resolution.

I have located some quotes that support not only the idea that monster attacks are subject to Player's Handbook rules when applicable, but also that the rulebooks assume, by default, that a DM will know the rules or be prepared to look them up:
Thank you for providing. This undermines the idea that the only relevant information is in the MM, or that it somehow intrinsically overrides the PHB, or that it's a burden to know about the Loading property.

Which is contradicted by MM saying monster statblocks contain essential information. Number of attacks is essential information.
Weapon used is also essential information. One of the weapons used limits number of attacks (also essential information). Can a wererat make two net attacks?

Yeah, super not interesting in this line of discussions. Wererats were meant to be able to make 1 or 2 ranged attacks. I don't know which it was, but I do know it was meant to be one or two, and not "it depends". This is of course my opinion, you are free to have a different one.
I understand the lack of interest in considering two hand crossbows. I agree with JackPhoenix that this would be a RAW way to make two hand crossbow attacks. I don't however believe this was the intent.

That said...

There is precedence for this. Early pistols were one use items as far as combat was concerned. You'd go into combat with a loaded gun, use it, and then switch to your primary weapon because you weren't going to reload that thing anytime soon. Think of the end scene in Last of the Mohicans when Hawkeye is running after his father. He reloads his gun while he is running, which is badass. But after that, he switches to enemy weapons non-stop. He kills an enemy, grabs their loaded gun, and keeps going. Kills another enemy, grabs their loaded gun, and keeps going. (There's even a scene where he fires both guns at the same time to kill two enemies and recover two more loaded guns.)

Except that there are stat blocks (RAW) that present weapons that act differently than those presented in Part 1 of the PHB. Given that evidence two perspectives are possible:

(1) Stat blocks are discrete and any consistency with Part 1 of the PHB is incidental; or
(2) Stat blocks are subject to Part 1 of the PHB and every instance of inconsistency is an error.

Your assumptions appear to lead you to prefer perspective 2 -- that doesn't make it RAW.
The property of the Loading quality that limits number of attacks is 100% RAW. No one has provided a good reason for why it should be ignored by a feature the Loading property specifically says it overrides (anything that gives you more than one attack).

[Boci]

The exception that doesnt require a whole different sourcebook to discover strikes me as being the much cleaner and more likely exception. Barring spellcasters, monster stat blocks are pretty self contained.

I agree, but enough people have side with "loading still applies" that I don't feel comfortable declaring that the winner. I don't think either side has any real winning arguments, there's pieces of evidence to support both.


Yeah, I'm never impressed with "it's a game" "it's fun" and "everything is magic" to explain away having rules in the game either.

I said martial, not magic. Dunno why you jumped to that.


I think if the game was assuming some olympic level elite reloading, it would just say it.

This argument works just as well in reverse though. "If the Drow House Captain was only meant to be able to multiattack with sword and crossbow once it would have mentioned it".

[NontheistCleric]

So, inconsistencies are not errors ... except that one, that's an error.

I said it might be an error on the meta-game level of the writing and editing. However, it still works perfectly if taken within the context of existing rules. In that sense, it is not erroneous, only requiring reference to the aforementioned existing rules to resolve an ambiguity.



In a game with rules that purport to describe weapons to be used by players during character creation, reading those rules to apply to monster stat blocks, unless they are stated to, is an assumption.
Not when the rules for those weapons are said to describe weapons in the world, not just weapons to be used by PCs:

The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess.


Which, as you just acknowledged, is not something you need to do for monsters in 5e, so either way the wererat is an exception. Either to the crossbow rules (though there is apparently a first party tie in that can double tap) or the knowing how many attack they get from their statblock.

If we discount the possibility of an error, because we ultimately don't know that, I don't see a good way to decide which exception matters more. Its all going to come down to personal preference.
The difference is that one interpretation breaks the principle of 'abilities do what they say they do, and not more (unless the DM allows them to)', and the other does not.

[Dr.Samurai]

I said martial, not magic. Dunno why you jumped to that.
I'm including it as an explanation that fails to impress me. I see them as the same sort of excuses to ignore the rules. Not sure what's unclear.

This argument works just as well in reverse though. "If the Drow House Captain was only meant to be able to attack 1 with their handcrossbow it would have mentioned it".
No it doesn't, because "only 1 attack" is already a property of the hand crossbow. It's only you and others that are pretending it somehow isn't when it's in the hands of an NPC.

[Boci]

No it doesn't, because "only 1 attack" is already a property of the hand crossbow. It's only you and others that are pretending it somehow isn't when it's in the hands of an NPC.

The drow captain doesn't break that. This is a separate matter.

[Keltest]

I'm including it as an explanation that fails to impress me. I see them as the same sort of excuses to ignore the rules. Not sure what's unclear.

No it doesn't, because "only 1 attack" is already a property of the hand crossbow. It's only you and others that are pretending it somehow isn't when it's in the hands of an NPC.

Sure, because the NPC says you can make two attacks with it. What exactly is unclear? Its also a rule that short swords only deal 1d6 piercing, and assassins (and sometimes Drow) add poison damage to it without specifically calling out they poisoned the weapon. It just works differently for them.

[NontheistCleric]

Sure, because the NPC says you can make two attacks with it. What exactly is unclear? Its also a rule that short swords only deal 1d6 piercing, and assassins (and sometimes Drow) add poison damage to it without specifically calling out they poisoned the weapon. It just works differently for them.
Specific beats general. Assassin weapons are specifically mentioned to have poison abilities normal versions do not. Wererat crossbows have no specific ability to negate the Loading quality, which specifically restricts weapons with it to one attack a round even if their wielder would generally be able to make more.

[Keltest]

Specific beats general. Assassin weapons are specifically mentioned to have poison abilities normal versions do not. Wererat crossbows have no specific ability to negate the Loading quality, which specifically restricts weapons with it to one attack a round even if their wielder would generally be able to make more.

Sure. General rule: Loading property says one attack. Specific rule: this specific monster says two attacks. The assassin's poison damage is just there, the same as the wererat's second crossbow attack.

[Dr.Samurai]

The drow captain doesn't break that. This is a separate matter.
Oh, got it.

Honestly, I feel like you are taking away a lot of the DM's role here, and treating the game like it's supposed to be adjudicated automatically, as if run by a computer.

The crossbow has certain qualities intrinsic to it; Ammunition and Loading. For my part, I don't think these things go away when NPCs use them, and I think the DM is expected to treat the weapons as if they still have these properties.

The Drow House Captain can deliver poison with the crossbow bolt, so there is incentive to use it. It could potentially knock an enemy out of the fight. But the Captain doesn't have anything to avoid Disadvantage in melee when using the hand crossbow, nor will it have a free hand to load ammunition if it is also wielding a scimitar. It also has an alternative to the crossbow, which is the whip. It also has the option to stow/draw the scimitar every other turn if it wants to apply ammunition and get more poison attempts in.

These are all considerations the DM can take into account when running the Drow House Captain. But it seems like because Multiattack exists and mentions the Hand Crossbow, the Drow House Captain is simply expected to make scimitar attacks and a hand crossbow attack, every round, despite the fact that it can't actually reload the crossbow without a free hand, and is taking disadvantage on those attacks because it is in melee.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sure, because the NPC says you can make two attacks with it. What exactly is unclear?
Nothing is unclear to me.

Loading specifically addresses features that grant more than one attack.

[Boci]

Oh, got it.

Honestly, I feel like you are taking away a lot of the DM's role here, and treating the game like it's supposed to be adjudicated automatically, as if run by a computer.

I disagree. This is monster's statblock, i.e. for the most part combat only. This is exact part that should be streamlined, to let the DM make the world come alive and be interesting and interactive in other areas.

And frankly, a CR 9 martial guy, so fairly elite, from a culture that racially gets handcrossbow proficiency, being able to hold a sword and reload a handcrossbow at the same time, really seems in line with the above.

[NontheistCleric]

Sure. General rule: Loading property says one attack. Specific rule: this specific monster says two attacks.
You're confusing rarity with specificity. Just because the wererat Multiattack rule only appears once doesn't mean it can't be more generally applicable to a situation (in this case, the wererat making an attack) than the Loading rule.


The assassin's poison damage is just there, the same as the wererat's second crossbow attack.
The assassin is explicitly given that extra damage with particular weapons it possesses (or maybe the damage is a property of the weapons. It's not particularly relevant which it is, for the purposes of this discussion). The wererat has no stated ability to ignore Loading.

[Dr.Samurai]

I disagree. This is monster's statblock, i.e. for the most part combat only. This is exact part that should be streamlined, to let the DM make the world come alive and be interesting and interactive in other areas.

And frankly, a CR 9 martial guy, so fairly elite, from a culture that racially gets handcrossbow proficiency, being able to hold a sword and reload a handcrossbow at the same time, really seems in line with the above.
I think you've completely undermined your entire position with this. Because now you're ignoring the Ammunition weapon rule by virtue of the Drow wielding a scimitar and a hand crossbow. This just seems like fiat. Ammunition requires a free hand, the drow doesn't have a free hand, ergo ergo the drow doesn't need a free hand.

Let's say you roll 2d4 for ammunition and roll a 2. The drow has made a crossbow attack on turn 1 and turn 2. It's now turn 3. Can the drow make a crossbow attack?

[Christew]

Not when the rules for those weapons are said to describe weapons in the world, not just weapons to be used by PCs:
But in context, that quote appears in a chapter with the heading:

This chapter details the mundane and exotic merchandise that adventurers commonly find useful in the face of the threats that the world of D&D presents.
Which appears in a part of the PHB titled:

Creating a Character


The property of the Loading quality that limits number of attacks is 100% RAW. No one has provided a good reason for why it should be ignored by a feature the Loading property specifically says it overrides (anything that gives you more than one attack).
I refer again to the explicit direction that "you" as used in Part 2: Running the Game of the PHB applies universally as evidence that "you" as used in Part 1: Creating a Character does not apply universally (including as used in the Loading property). So read Loading as "... anything that gives you (Player) more than one attack."

[Boci]

I think you've completely undermined your entire position with this. Because now you're ignoring the Ammunition weapon rule by virtue of the Drow wielding a scimitar and a hand crossbow. This just seems like fiat. Ammunition requires a free hand, the drow doesn't have a free hand, ergo ergo the drow doesn't need a free hand.

I just explained my thought process, and it wasn't that. If you're going to pretend my thought process is actually different, then, yeah, you might have a different perception of my cal.

You don't have to like it, no single thing in the game is going to appeal to every, but I know a few player at least who would be really engaged if I described a drow captain flipping the grip on his shortsword long enough to reload his hand crossbow with thumb and finger mid attack sequence, especially if they could then ask him about it, and possible even learn it themselves.


Let's say you roll 2d4 for ammunition and roll a 2. The drow has made a crossbow attack on turn 1 and turn 2. It's now turn 3. Can the drow make a crossbow attack?

2d4 is for thrown weapons. Ammunition is 2d10. So whilst I can still can roll 2, it is FAAAAR less likely.

[NontheistCleric]

But in context...

Just because adventurers commonly find that equipment useful doesn't mean it isn't also equipment in the world.


I refer again to the explicit direction that "you" as used in Part 2: Running the Game of the PHB applies universally as evidence that "you" as used in Part 1: Creating a Character does not apply universally (including as used in the Loading property).

Fallacy. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, especially when other sources like the MM refer to the PHB in general, not just Part 2.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah, super not interesting in this line of discussions. Wererats were meant to be able to make 1 or 2 ranged attacks. I don't know which it was, but I do know it was meant to be one or two, and not "it depends". This is of course my opinion, you are free to have a different one.

That much is obvious. You'd have to admit your convulted reasoning why wererat gets to randomly ignore rules that go against your position, despite lack of any evidence it is allowed to ignore those rules, is flawed, and you won't do that.

[Boci]

That much is obvious. You'd have to admit your convulted reasoning why wererat gets to randomly ignore rules that go against your position, despite lack of any evidence it is allowed to ignore those rules, is flawed, and you won't do that.

Dr.Samurai doesn't agree with me on how to handle this, but does agree with me that your interpretation isn't the intended so. So yeah, there might be another reason.

[Christew]

Just because adventurers commonly find that equipment useful doesn't mean it isn't also equipment in the world.
Nor does equipment's existence in the world mean that monster stat blocks are subject to Part 1 of the PHB.


Fallacy. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, especially when other sources like the MM refer to the PHB in general, not just Part 2.
Pithy, but inapposite. Plain language usage. On the basis that only Part 2 of the PHB applies to monster stat blocks, the MM referring to specifically to Part 2 would be redundant.

[Dr.Samurai]

I just explained my thought process, and it wasn't that. If you're going to pretend my thought process is actually different, then, yeah, you might have a different perception of my cal.
Sorry, I'm not pretending. I see a personal justification for ignoring the rule, but nothing in RAW that allows you to ignore it.

As an example, you have a knight. The PCs cast Slow on the knight. It uses its action to make an attack. Can it make one or two attacks?

Slow: Regardless of the creature's abilities or magic items, it can't make more than one melee or ranged attack during its turn.

Loading: Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

You don't have to like it, no single thing in the game is going to appeal to every, but I know a few player at least who would be really engaged if I described a drow captain flipping the grip on his shortsword long enough to reload his hand crossbow with thumb and finger mid attack sequence, especially if they could then ask him about it, and possible even learn it themselves.
You can describe it however you'd like. That does sound cool. But you should stow the sword to do it, or you are ignoring the Ammunition property.

High level martial PCs are also really proficient and really awesome, and they can't do this so...

2d4 is for thrown weapons. Ammunition is 2d10. So whilst I can still can roll 2, it is FAAAAR less likely.
Good point. The question remains though.

[Dr.Samurai]

Dr.Samurai doesn't agree with me on how to handle this, but does agree with me that your interpretation isn't the intended so.
Yes but my interpretation is far more in line with Jack's though, because of adhering to the rules.

What Jack is suggesting is perfectly fine, I just don't think the devs are assuming that, or else I think they would mention "when the drow think combat is imminent, they load multiple crossbows...". That would be pretty cool and make sense.

I think also people are ignoring the way monsters are supposed to be run. Like... letting them make multiple hand crossbow attacks changes the melee/ranged dynamic. Also, if poison is a factor, now you're forcing saves vs poison every turn from a distance. These things change the way encounters go.

[Boci]

Sorry, I'm not pretending. I see a personal justification for ignoring the rule, but nothing in RAW that allows you to ignore it.

One of course, you have a knight. The PCs cast Slow on the knight. It uses its action to make an attack. Can it make one or two attacks?

Of course not. IMO a statblock trumps a weapon property not mention in the statblock, but it doesn't trump a spell.


High level martial PCs are also really proficient and really awesome, and they can't do this so...

I literally just said players could be able to learn this too.


Good point. The question remains though.

Depends on context. Are they freshly equipped from a city/fort? Then I'm ignoring that rule and giving them the whole 20, possible 40. Have they been on the frontlines a while without a chance to resupply? Then sure, 2d10.


Yes but my interpretation is far more in line with Jack's though, because of adhering to the rules.

Never despite it adhered to the rules, just that discussing it didn't interest me.

[Christew]

Slow: Regardless of the creature's abilities or magic items, it can't make more than one melee or ranged attack during its turn.

Loading: Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.
Pretty straightforward: "You" as used in the Character Creation Part of the PHB =/= creature.

[NontheistCleric]

Nor does equipment's existence in the world mean that monster stat blocks are subject to Part 1 of the PHB.
No, the fact that their stat blocks make reference to equipment that exists in the world does.


Pithy, but inapposite. Plain language usage. On the basis that only Part 2 of the PHB applies to monster stat blocks, the MM referring to specifically to Part 2 would be redundant.
Hardly inapposite. As far as plain language goes: The fact that Parts 1 and 3 lack the language explicitly extending 'you' in Part 2 to monsters does not mean that the MM is allowed to only refer to Part 2 even when information in Parts 1 or 3 might be relevant, especially in the absence of language in Part 2 making that extension exclusive to Part 2.

By your logic, monsters with spellcasting ability cannot properly employ spells with 'you' in their text, since 'you' can only ever apply to players outside of Part 2 of the PHB.

[Christew]

By your logic, monsters with spellcasting ability cannot properly employ spells with 'you' in their text, since 'you' can only ever apply to players outside of Part 2 of the PHB.
Inaccurate. Part 2 of the PHB applies to monsters because it says it does. The spellcasting rules apply to monsters with the spellcasting ability because the intro to the MM says they do. Pretty straightforward example of specific vs general, really.

[Dr.Samurai]

Of course not. IMO a statblock trumps a weapon property not mention in the statblock, but it doesn't trump a spell.
I don't see anything in the books to support this. Nor do I disassociate weapons from their weapon properties. The property is in the statblock by virtue of the weapon being in the statblock. I don't see anything to suggest the contrary.

Depends on context. Are they freshly equipped from a city/fort? Then I'm ignoring that rule and giving them the whole 20, possible 40. Have they been on the frontlines a while without a chance to resupply? Then sure, 2d10.
I'm asking can it still use Multiattack after it's run out of ammunition.

Pretty straightforward: "You" as used in the Character Creation Part of the PHB =/= creature.
Here are the weapon traits:

Range: A weapon that can be used to make a ranged attack has a range shown in parentheses after the ammunition or thrown property. The range lists two numbers. The first is the weapon's normal range in feet, and the second indicates the weapon's maximum range. When attacking a target beyond normal range, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. You can't attack a target beyond the weapon's long range.

Ammunition: You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack. Loading a one-handed weapon requires a free hand. At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.

If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon. A sling must be loaded to deal any damage when used in this way.
Light: A light weapon is small and easy to handle, making it ideal for use when fighting with two weapons.

Loading: Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

So, to be clear, you are saying that monsters/NPCs ignore the Range, Ammunition, and Loading properties, because they are in an irrelevant chapter of the PHB, and "you" does not apply to NPCs and monsters.

[NontheistCleric]

Inaccurate. Part 2 of the PHB applies to Monsters because it says it does. The spellcasting rules apply to monsters with the spellcasting ability because the intro to the MM says they do. Pretty straightforward example of specific vs general, really.

Not inaccurate. The issue at hand here is not whether or not monsters can cast spells (as they clearly can), but whether or not your logic surrounding usage of the word 'you' holds.

By all measures, it does not.

[Boci]

I don't see anything in the books to support this. Nor do I disassociate weapons from their weapon properties. The property is in the statblock by virtue of the weapon being in the statblock. I don't see anything to suggest the contrary.

Okay, but multiple people in this thread seem to.


I'm asking can it still use Multiattack after it's run out of ammunition.

Yes it can...

...it just can't use its crossbow attack. But it can still attack twice with its shortsword as per it's Multiattack ability even without ammunition. :P


So, to be clear, you are saying that monsters/NPCs ignore the Range, Ammunition, and Loading properties, because they are in an irrelevant chapter of the PHB, and "you" does not apply to NPCs and monsters.

Range is included in the statblock, so that would apply.

[NontheistCleric]

Yes it can...

...it just can't use its crossbow attack. But it can still attack twice with its shortsword as per it's Multiattack ability even without ammunition. :P

So they have to obey the Ammunition rules but not the Loading ones? This is clearly inconsistent.

[Boci]

So they have to obey the Ammunition rules but not the Loading ones? This is clearly inconsistent.

Not really. They can't fire because I as the DM says they can't. I make rule calls like this all the time independent of what the actual rules say. Sometimes they align, sometimes they don't. Most DMs do it. For example you didn't bother objecting to me giving them 20 or 40 pieces of ammunition if they came straight from the fort, even though there is no rule in MM for that,

[JackPhoenix]

Not really. They can't fire because I as the DM says they can't. I make rule calls like this all the time independent of what the actual rules say. Sometimes they align, sometimes they don't. Most DMs do it. For example you didn't bother objecting to me giving them 20 or 40 pieces of ammunition if they came straight from the fort, even though there is no rule in MM for that,

But that's not the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is if the monsters ignore certain weapon rules, not if GM pulls random, arbitrary bull****. Why are you discussing this when you're clearly not interested in rules-based answer and do whatever arbitrary thing you want anyway?

[NontheistCleric]

Not really. They can't fire because I as the DM says they can't. I make rule calls like this all the time independent of what the actual rules say. Sometimes they align, sometimes they don't. Most DMs do it. For example you didn't bother objecting to me giving them 20 or 40 pieces of ammunition if they came straight from the fort, even though there is no rule in MM for that,

I see, but by default you think the rules allow for infinite ammunitionless ranged monster weapon attacks, right?

[Christew]

So, to be clear, you are saying that monsters/NPCs ignore the Range, Ammunition, and Loading properties, because they are in an irrelevant chapter of the PHB, and "you" does not apply to NPCs and monsters.
I am saying that monsters follow the rules as described in their stat blocks + Part 2 of the PHB + all other explicit instances of rules that apply to monsters.
Player facing chapters of the PHB are hardly irrelevant. They are necessary to how you create characters and characters are necessary to play the game.

Not inaccurate. The issue at hand here is not whether or not monsters can cast spells (as they clearly can), but whether or not your logic surrounding usage of the word 'you' holds.

By all measures, it does not.
You brought up spellcasting as a purportedly confounding exemplar. I pointed out that the intro to the MM provides explicit direction regarding spellcasting and monsters, ergo demonstrating that it is not confounding to my logic as you suggest.

"By all measures" =/= "In my opinion"

[Boci]

But that's not the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is if the monsters ignore certain weapon rules, not if GM pulls random, arbitrary bull****.

Me: The drow forces are elite and freshly equipped, so I'm ignoring the recommended ammunition and giving them all 40 pieces of ammunition.

JackPheonix (apparently): What random arbitrary DM BS is this?!


I see, but by default you think the rules allow for infinite ammunitionless ranged monster weapon attacks, right?

Nope. Wrong on several instances. Going into this threat, my idea was "Monsters have enough ammunition, and 99% of the time they don't live long enough enough for this to matter". And that's largely remained unchanged with the discovery of the 2d10 rule. It a decent rule of thumb, but I've been playing for ears, never knew about it, and never had a problem with monster ammunition count.

[NontheistCleric]

You brought up spellcasting as a purportedly confounding exemplar. I pointed out that the intro to the MM provides explicit direction regarding spellcasting and monsters, ergo demonstrating that it is not confounding to my logic as you suggest.
No, I brought up the presence of 'you' in spells, which is confounding to your logic, and you ignored the preceding paragraph where I explained why your logic was faulty anyway.

"By all measures" =/= "In my opinion"
Yet in this case, they do accord.

Nope. Wrong on several instances. Going into this threat, my idea was "Monsters have enough ammunition, and 99% of the time they don't live long enough enough for this to matter". And that's largely remained unchanged with the discovery of the 2d10 rule. It a decent rule of thumb, but I've been playing for ears, never knew about it, and never had a problem with monster ammunition count.
We're not talking about your ideas for DMing, though. That's not what this thread is about.

[JackPhoenix]

Me: The drow forces are elite and freshly equipped, so I'm ignoring the recommended ammunition and giving them all 40 pieces of ammunition.

JackPheonix (apparently): What random arbitrary DM BS is this?!

Boci: I ignore the rules and do whatever I want.
JackPhoenix: So, you make arbitrary decisions
Boci: *Moves the goalpost to talk about how much ammo a drow has, despite it being completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand*

[Boci]

Boci: I ignore the rules and do whatever I want.
JackPhoenix: So, you make arbitrary decisions
Boci: *Moves the goalpost to talk about how much ammo a drow has, despite it being completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand*

I was literally asked repeated about the Drow's ammo count by another poster, so no, I wasn't moving the goalposts there, I was discussing something with another poster. You quote one of those posts from me, and then got annoying about the topic I was discussing in the post of mine you quoted.


We're not talking about your ideas for DMing, though.

I consider "how would you rule these two monster" (excuse the typos in the OP) to very much be "your ideas for DMing", so yes, to me we are absolutly discussing mine and everyone else's ideas for DMing.

[NontheistCleric]

I consider "how would you rule these two monster" (excuse the typos in the OP) to very much be "your ideas for DMing", so yes, to me we are absolutly discussing mine and everyone else's ideas for DMing.

But what we are clearly talking about now is whether monsters, as written, can ignore certain rules, not what you, as DM, personally like to do.

[Christew]

No, I brought up the presence of 'you' in spells, which is confounding to your logic, and you ignored the preceding paragraph where I explained why your logic was faulty anyway.
Well in the preceding paragraph you attempted to strawman a position that I don't hold and have already clarified upthread, so I politely ignored it.

"You" as used in spells applies to monsters with spellcasting because the specific reference in the introduction to the MM says it does. This beats the general rule that only Part 2 of the PHB applies to monster stat blocks. My logic holds because it is just following the explicit rules and not reading in other ideas because of personal feelings about verisimilitude etc.

Yet in this case, they do accord.
Oh, in your opinion your opinion is correct? Tautological, but neat.

[Boci]

But what we are clearly talking about now is whether monsters, as written, can ignore certain rules, not what you, as DM, personally like to do.

We should be by the parameters I set in the OP. Is clearly says, even through my typos, "how would you", which invites sharing what you personally like to do, doesn't it?

[JackPhoenix]

I was literally asked repeated about the Drow's ammo count by another poster, so no, I wasn't moving the goalposts there, I was discussing something with another poster. You quote one of those posts from me, and then got annoying about the topic I was discussing in the post of mine you quoted.

No, you were asked if the drow can use crossbow once he ran out of ammo, because crossbow has ammunition property, and then it was pointed out it's arbitrary to ignore one weapon property but not other when you said no. Your "but the drow will never run out of ammo in my game" is irrelevant to the original question, and moving the goalposts.

[NontheistCleric]

Well in the preceding paragraph you attempted to strawman a position that I don't hold and have already clarified upthread, so I politely ignored it.
It wasn't a strawman. I was pointing out that you were assuming an exclusivity in Part 2's language that doesn't exist. You never addressed this.


I am saying that monsters follow the rules as described in their stat blocks + Part 2 of the PHB + all other explicit instances of rules that apply to monsters.
Why should a rule pertaining to hand crossbows not apply to a monster wielding hand crossbows (sans your flawed logic regarding 'you')?


"You" as used in spells applies to monsters with spellcasting because the specific reference in the introduction to the MM says it does. This beats the general rule that only Part 2 of the PHB applies to monster stat blocks. My logic holds because it is just following the explicit rules and not reading in other ideas because of
There is no such rule. There would be if Part 2 of the PHB said that its extension of 'you' to monsters was exclusive to itself–but it doesn't say that.

The MM language doesn't have the same statement about 'you' in spells, so your point here is invalid if you are trying to make it support your thinking on 'you'.


personal feelings about verisimilitude etc.
They're not personal feelings; the PHB literally states the equipment is equipment in the world.


We should be by the parameters I set in the OP. Is clearly says, even through my typos, "how would you", which invites sharing what you personally like to do, doesn't it?

Yes, but for the past two pages at least people have been engaging with one another on the grounds of what we think the rules actually say, not what you or anyone else personally likes to rule, so you could at least respond on those same grounds.

[Boci]

No, you were asked if the drow can use crossbow once he ran out of ammo, because crossbow has ammunition property, and then it was pointed out it's arbitrary to ignore one weapon property but not other when you said no. Your "but the drow will never run out of ammo in my game" is irrelevant to the original question, and moving the goalposts.

What? "That scenario has never come up in my games" is HIGHLY relevant to how you would run a scenario. It is very important context, not shifting the goal posts at all. If I've made the same rules call 5 times in my games you can be pretty sure I like it and its staying. But if you ask me a rules call for something that has never happened in my game, the answer is way less firm in my mind. Which I feel is a factor worth bearing in mind.


Yes, but for the past two pages at least people have been engaging with one another on the grounds of what we think the rules actually say, not what you or anyone else personally likes to rule, so you could at least respond on those same grounds.

No I don't. I spelt out the parameters I was interested in, I don't need to change that. If you don't like that, talk to people who are interested in the actual rules, I don't owe you a debate on your preferred topic. Plus RAW is relevant here even to me too, because "How I perceive RAW to work" is a totally valid, and not uncommon, answer to the question "How would you run it". But the specifics of that are less interesting to me in this instances.

[NontheistCleric]

No I don't. I spelt out the parameters I was interested in, I don't need to change that. If you don't like that, talk to people who are interested in the actual rules, I don't owe you a debate on your preferred topic.

You weren't even debating it with me, but the ammunition point was in support of a RAW point someone else was already trying to debate with you, and I thought you could at least keep the discussion on the same grounds, since it is related.

[Boci]

You weren't even debating it with me, but the ammunition point was in support of a RAW point someone else was already trying to debate with you, and I thought you could at least keep the discussion on the same grounds, since it is related.

No, Dr. Samurai was asking how I would run the drow captain, or at least that was how I perceived it. If they were asking me on pure RAW grounds then my answer would be amended to "No. But I'm also not terrible interested in that sole consideration".

[Rukelnikov]

Why is everyone assuming that wererats use weapons? Using weapons is a PC rule, and as everyone knows, monsters and PCs are different and follow different rules. A wererat doesn't use a weapon called "hand crossbow", it just has an action option named "hand crossbow" that causes 1d6+2 piercing damage to anyone within 120', on a successful attack roll. How? I don't know; it's never specified. It just does. But there's no reason to assume it's using a weapon, because it's not a PC.

Sometimes I wish this forum had a likes or upvotes option.

[NontheistCleric]

No, Dr. Samurai was asking how I would run the drow captain, or at least that was how I perceived it. If they were asking me on pure RAW grounds then my answer would be amended to "No. But I'm also not terrible interested in that sole consideration".

Okay, but fundamentally, you would restrict the number of attacks a character with a crossbow could make if they were out of ammunition, right? So they have to obey those rules even if their statblock doesn't explicitly say they do.

Then on what grounds are you saying a monster can ignore Loading when its statblock doesn't explicitly say it can?

[Christew]

It wasn't a strawman. I was pointing out that you were assuming an exclusivity in Part 2's language that doesn't exist. You never addressed this.
And in doing so you advocated a position that I have not (presumably because it is easier to refute, ergo strawman).

The fact that Parts 1 and 3 lack the language explicitly extending 'you' in Part 2 to monsters does not mean that the MM is allowed to only refer to Part 2 even when information in Parts 1 or 3 might be relevant, especially in the absence of language in Part 2 making that extension exclusive to Part 2.
My position is not that "the MM is allowed only to refer to Part 2." My position is that the base state is that Part 2 applies to monsters (because it says it does) and that any reference to the PHB beyond that will be specific (like the reference to monsters with the spellcasting ability in the intro to the MM).


Why should a rule pertaining to hand crossbows not apply to a monster wielding hand crossbows (sans your flawed logic regarding 'you')?
Because monsters follow certain rules and players follow certain rules. If not told to apply a player rule to a monster, then don't.


There is no such rule. There would be if Part 2 of the PHB said that its extension of 'you' to monsters was exclusive to itself–but it doesn't say that.
I'm not going to quote the intro to every chapter of Part 1 of the PHB to you, but I think you'll find that they all make pretty explicit reference to the material therein being player facing and therefore "you" applying to the player.

Furthermore, your use of extension illustrates my point. Part 2's extension of "you" to include monsters along with players, implies by plain language meaning that earlier uses of "you" did not extend, ergo referred to a smaller group, namely players.

[JackPhoenix]

What? "That scenario has never come up in my games" is HIGHLY relevant to how you would run a scenario. It is very important context, not shifting the goal posts at all. If I've made the same rules call 5 times in my games you can be pretty sure I like it and its staying. But if you ask me a rules call for something that has never happened in my game, the answer is way less firm in my mind. Which I feel is a factor worth bearing in mind.

The fact you avoid the question posed to you by going on a tangent and use your game where you arbitrarily ignore rules as an excuse when discussing said rules is indeed worth bearing in mind if I'm ever tempted to have a discussion with you in the future.

[Christew]

Okay, but fundamentally, you would restrict the number of attacks a character with a crossbow could make if they were out of ammunition, right? So they have to obey those rules even if their statblock doesn't explicitly say they do.

Then on what grounds are you saying a monster can ignore Loading when its statblock doesn't explicitly say it can?
Personally, RAW I would restrict the ammo as directed in the intro to the MM. At the table, I would do what I saw fit as DM in the context of my game -- including allowing more ammo in the resupply situation that Boci described supra.

To elaborate, the rules tell you how to apply ammunition to a monster stat block in the intro to the MM. The rules do not do the same thing for the Loading property.

[Boci]

Okay, but fundamentally, you would restrict the number of attacks a character with a crossbow could make if they were out of ammunition, right? So they have to obey those rules even if their statblock doesn't explicitly say they do.

Not because the rules tell me though. It was generally agreed by forumites that dying in 3.5 didn't prevent you from taking action, because the condition listed no such restriction. et in my game, and really anyone I'm guessing, dying did typically prevent you from taking actions (barring a specific ability). So I can pretty provable say that dying prevents taking actions in 5e not because the rules say so, because I've played in a game when the rules didn't so, and yet...

Do you see what I mean? Until this discussion I'm pretty I never checked the rules to see if it even specified you couldn't fire an ammunition weapon without ammo, because it wouldn't have mattered what the rules said, either way you couldn't in my game (and any game I'm assuming). So characterizing that as "following the rules" seems weird to me.


The fact you avoid the question posed to you by going on a tangent and use your game where you arbitrarily ignore rules as an excuse when discussing said rules is indeed worth bearing in mind if I'm ever tempted to have a discussion with you in the future.

Not really, but you do you. I'm sorry you seemed bothered I wasn't interested in discussing wererat wielding 2 handcrossbows, its just not something that typically matters to me when using bogstandard MM monsters.

[NontheistCleric]

And in doing so you advocated a position that I have not (presumably because it is easier to refute, ergo strawman).

My position is not that "the MM is allowed only to refer to Part 2." My position is that the base state is that Part 2 applies to monsters (because it says it does) and that any reference to the PHB beyond that will be specific (like the reference to monsters with the spellcasting ability in the intro to the MM).
If that is your position, then the fact that monsters can use weapons is a reference to the Player's Handbook's weapons, or any weapons in any book. These are things monsters are explicitly said to use. Quotes have been provided earlier in this thread to that effect.


Because monsters follow certain rules and players follow certain rules. If not told to apply a player rule to a monster, then don't.
There is no demarcation between rules for players and rules for monsters in plain language. Some options within the rules are not for players, but that doesn't create categories of 'player rules' and 'monster rules' that are separate by default.


I'm not going to quote the intro to every chapter of Part 1 of the PHB to you, but I think you'll find that they all make pretty explicit reference to the material therein being player facing and therefore "you" applying to the player.
This isn't true for the section on weapons, since they are stated to be weapons in the world, not just for players.


Furthermore, your use of extension illustrates my point. Part 2's extension of "you" to include monsters along with players, implies by plain language meaning that earlier uses of "you" did not extend, ergo referred to a smaller group, namely players.
Except that this is a game, and plain language or not, the rules are rules, so they only mean things they explicitly say, not what some people might interpret them as implying.


Personally, RAW I would restrict the ammo as directed in the intro to the MM. At the table, I would do what I saw fit as DM in the context of my game -- including allowing more ammo in the resupply situation that Boci described supra.

To elaborate, the rules tell you how to apply ammunition to a monster stat block in the intro to the MM. The rules do not do the same thing for the Loading property.
They don't talk about the Ammunition property, though, so by your reading a monster with a weapon with the Ammunition property would not need to apply that to its usage of the weapon.


Not because the rules tell me though. It was generally agreed by forumites that dying in 3.5 didn't prevent you from taking action, because the condition listed no such restriction. et in my game, and really anyone I'm guessing, dying did typically prevent you from taking actions (barring a specific ability). So I can pretty provable say that dying prevents taking actions in 5e not because the rules say so, because I've played in a game when the rules didn't so, and yet...

Do you see what I mean? Until this discussion I'm pretty I never checked the rules to see if it even specified you couldn't fire an ammunition weapon without ammo, because it wouldn't have mattered what the rules said, either way you couldn't in my game (and any game I'm assuming). So characterizing that as "following the rules" seems weird to me.
Okay, I see your point, but in that case, most of the discussion in this thread is useless to you, since most of us are basing our assessments to some degree on what we think the rules are actually telling us to do, whereas you don't care about that at all.

[Christew]

If that is your position, then the fact that monsters can use weapons is a reference to the Player's Handbook's weapons, or any weapons in any book. These are things monsters are explicitly said to use. Quotes have been provided earlier in this thread to that effect.
The monsters can use weapons as specified in their stat blocks. Pretty straightforward.


There is no demarcation between rules for players and rules for monsters in plain language. Some options within the rules are not for players, but that doesn't create categories of 'player rules' and 'monster rules' that are separate by default.
Interesting. Do you roll death saves for all monsters at your table?


This isn't true for the section on weapons, since they are stated to be weapons in the world, not just for players.
Ironically, that one I did already quote to you.


Except that this is a game, and plain language or not, the rules are rules, so they only mean things they explicitly say, not what some people might interpret them as implying.
Agreed. You think the rules imply that monster stat blocks are generally subject to Part 1 of the PHB, I disagree because the rules do not explicitly say that.

[Boci]

Okay, I see your point, but in that case, most of the discussion in this thread is useless to you, since most of us are basing our assessments to some degree on what we think the rules are actually telling us to do, whereas you don't care about that at all.

Pretty, and that's fine, people can have that conversation without me. And as I said "How I perceive RAW" is a valid answer, and I am interested in that, especially with how you can have two opposite answers from that one stance. The minutia of details here interest me less, in this specific case certainly. I care about the design and streamlined philosophy of 5e, which I'm not even sure counts as RAW. Maybe it does?

[Dr.Samurai]

Okay, but multiple people in this thread seem to.
No. You are the only one that has answered the question (in fairness it was directed to you), but no one else has chimed in on whether Multiattack overrides the Slow spell, and if not why this is different to Loading.

And so your response of "it's not just me" doesn't go very far.

Yes it can...

...it just can't use its crossbow attack. But it can still attack twice with its shortsword as per it's Multiattack ability even without ammunition. :P

Player facing chapters of the PHB are hardly irrelevant. They are necessary to how you create characters and characters are necessary to play the game.
Answers are getting cheeky because people are getting backed into corners I see.

@Boci - The point I want to make is that these positions are really just DM fiat. All of the noise about specific vs general and "melee" not being included is being used to support a position of "the monsters do what I want them to do, regardless of the rules". There's nothing wrong with that position, and DMs are free to (and should) use monsters however they want. But this is all just pretending that the rules support doing "whatever you want" when the specific rules are in fact rules that tell you what you can do. This point about the ammunition demonstrates that on the one hand, you might honor the number of ammunition, and needing ammunition to make attacks, but on the other you ignore needing a free hand. This isn't a principle. This isn't a rules interaction. This is just pure fiat, and you parsing a mechanic into parts that you feel like using, and parts that you don't.

That said, given that we were talking about "infinite poison" before someone pointed out that you roll for ammunition, I don't think ammunition is even really regarded in the first place.

@Christew - I thought it would be obvious that my comment about the chapters being irrelevant would be in the context of monsters using weapons, as opposed to some sort of strange position that the PHB in general is irrelevant even to players. I'm wondering if it was a mistake to engage with you.


Range is included in the statblock, so that would apply.
No, it would not. Distances are included in the statblock, not the Range weapon property. Monsters would then ignore Disadvantage on long distance attacks, and actually do not have a limit to the distance at which they can make ranged attacks. Because... "you"... something something... PHB.

Yes, this is ridiculous. Yes, this is why I'm not putting forth this argument.

Not really. They can't fire because I as the DM says they can't. I make rule calls like this all the time independent of what the actual rules say. Sometimes they align, sometimes they don't. Most DMs do it. For example you didn't bother objecting to me giving them 20 or 40 pieces of ammunition if they came straight from the fort, even though there is no rule in MM for that,
So a question about how the rules work has repeatedly turned into "the rules don't matter".

I am saying that monsters follow the rules as described in their stat blocks + Part 2 of the PHB + all other explicit instances of rules that apply to monsters.
You have said, repeatedly, that Loading does not apply to monsters because the word "you" is not meant to apply to them. I am asking you about the other traits that fall within the exact same parameters.

[NontheistCleric]

The monsters can use weapons as specified in their stat blocks. Pretty straightforward.
Sure, and those weapons are, by default, weapons as the game defines weapons in the world.


Interesting. Do you roll death saves for all monsters at your table?
No, because the PHB says DMs don't have to do that for all monsters.


Ironically, that one I did already quote to you.
I thought I quoted that to you. In any case, it does say that weapons are weapons in the world, not just for players.


Agreed. You think the rules imply that monster stat blocks are generally subject to Part 1 of the PHB, I disagree because the rules do not explicitly say that.
Weapons are explicitly subject to rules in Part 1 or wherever else a particular weapon is detailed (unless stated otherwise), and some monsters explicitly wield weapons. This is more than implication, whereas your proposed implication is not.

[Boci]

No. You are the only one that has answered the question (in fairness it was directed to you), but no one else has chimed in on whether Multiattack overrides the Slow spell, and if not why this is different to Loading.

And so your response of "it's not just me" doesn't go very far.

This seems awfully desperate. Multiple people agreed with me about Loading, and until told otherwise, I'm going to assume they likewise think multiattack wouldn't overrule Slow. I'll rescind and admit to misjudging things if any of them want to chime in otherwise.


Answers are getting cheeky because people are getting backed into corners I see.

No, answers are getting cheeking because you made a goof and I found it funny. I did answer the question properly, its not like I was avoiding anything.


So a question about how the rules work has repeatedly turned into "the rules don't matter".

See, this is the problem. As I said to another poster, when in the OP I said "how would you rule" that's not me asking how the rules work. That can be relevant, but its now what I'm asking. So no, ou seem to have mistaken the parameters I set in the OP.

[Christew]

@Christew - I thought it would be obvious that my comment about the chapters being irrelevant would be in the context of monsters using weapons, as opposed to some sort of strange position that the PHB in general is irrelevant even to players. I'm wondering if it was a mistake to engage with you.
I think the constituent parts of the PHB are relevant in the regard they purport to be. Says it on the tin -- Part 1 is relevant to creating characters, Part 2 is relevant to running the game.


You have said, repeatedly, that Loading does not apply to monsters because the word "you" is not meant to apply to them. I am asking you about the other traits that fall within the exact same parameters.
If said trait falls into (a) the monsters stat blocks, (b) Part 2 of the PHB, or (c) other explicit reference (such as those in the intro to the MM), then it applies to monsters, if not then no.


I thought I quoted that to you. In any case, it does say that weapons are weapons in the world, not just for players.
You quoted a section heading, I provided context by quoting the chapter heading under which that section appears. For illustration, if a chapter heading said "Everything is this chapter refers to Germany" and a section within that chapter said "All sausages described in this section are brown" it would not be reasonable to conclude that all French sausages are brown.

[NontheistCleric]

You quoted a section heading, I provided context by quoting the chapter heading under which that section appears. For illustration, if a chapter heading said "Everything is this chapter refers to Germany" and a section within that chapter said "All sausages described in this section are brown" it would not be reasonable to conclude that all French sausages are brown.
The chapter heading says that the chapter details equipment adventurers commonly find useful, and the chapter later goes on to specify that the Weapons table describes weapons found in the worlds of D&D and their properties.

No contradiction, just an elaboration that expands the scope considerably.

Your sausage analogy is a strawman. A better analogy would be the chapter saying 'this chapter details sausages Germans commonly enjoy' and then later provided a table, said 'the Sausages table describes sausages found in the world of earth and their properties' and the table included 'French sausage' with the 'brown' property.

Henceforth, unless informed otherwise by the rules, I would assume all instances of 'French sausage' described a sausage with the 'brown' property.


Pretty, and that's fine, people can have that conversation without me. And as I said "How I perceive RAW" is a valid answer, and I am interested in that, especially with how you can have two opposite answers from that one stance. The minutia of details here interest me less, in this specific case certainly.
If you don't care what RAW says, why do you care what people think RAW says?


I care about the design and streamlined philosophy of 5e, which I'm not even sure counts as RAW. Maybe it does?
Definitely not RAW. Philosophy be damned; if a designer writes a rule that happens to be against the philosophy, it's still RAW unless there is errata for it.

[Boci]

If you don't care what RAW says, why do you care what people think RAW says?

Because I'm interested in how other people play, that's the actual question I asked in the OP after all. I am interest in hearing that people would rule wererats can attack twice because of their reading of RAW, vs. how wererats can attack once because of their reading of RAW. I'm just less interested in the specifics of each stance, because I personally don't think this a good area to deep comb and the meaning of words, but I won't stop other people for doing in whatever depth of detail they'd like to.

[Christew]

The chapter heading says that the chapter details equipment adventurers commonly find useful, and the chapter later goes on to specify that the Weapons table describes weapons found in the worlds of D&D and their properties.

No contradiction, just an elaboration that expands the scope considerably.

Your sausage analogy is a strawman. A better analogy would be the chapter saying 'this chapter details sausages Germans commonly enjoy' and then later provided a table, said 'the Sausages table describes sausages found in the world of earth and their properties' and the table included 'French sausage' with the 'brown' property.

Henceforth, unless informed otherwise by the rules, I would assume all instances of 'French sausage' described a sausage with the 'brown' property.
Not really a strawman, as I was not implying that such was your position, merely illustrating how nested headings provide context from the top down.

Your counter example actually illustrates my point. I would say that the French Sausage entry only provides information on the type of French Sausage that Germans commonly enjoy, not a universal truth that all French Sausages are brown. I would also point to your use of "assume" here.

[NontheistCleric]

Not really a strawman, as I was not implying that such was your position, merely illustrating how nested headings provide context from the top down.

Your counter example actually illustrates my point. I would say that the French Sausage entry only provides information on the type of French Sausage that Germans commonly enjoy, not a universal truth that all French Sausages are brown.
You are acting as though text and information given later in the chapter cannot expand the scope of the chapter, which is just not true. If I start talking about German sausage preferences but later digress into a discussion on properties of sausages in the world, then it should be understood that I am now talking about more than German preferences, insofar as 'the world' contains things (and sausages in particular) beyond the bounds of Germany.


I would also point to your use of "assume" here.
In that case I was using 'assume' in the sense of 'take this as the default in lieu of weapons/sausages with defined unique qualities, as it is presented', not 'baselessly assume'.

[Dr.Samurai]

This seems awfully desperate.
Desperate for what? I am wondering where you and others draw the line? At the very beginning the sentiment was "Multiattack tells you how many attacks the monster makes. Therefore, it makes the number of attacks that it says it does." The unsaid part is "no matter what" because it's being used to ignore Loading, which has similar language in it to the Slow spell.

Multiple people agreed with me about Loading, and until told otherwise, I'm going to assume they likewise think multiattack wouldn't overrule Slow. I'll rescind and admit to misjudging things if any of them want to chime in otherwise.
I'm not asking you to speak for anyone else, to be clear.

No, answers are getting cheeking because you made a goof and I found it funny. I did answer the question properly, its not like I was avoiding anything.
It took three attempts to get the answer lol.

See, this is the problem. As I said to another poster, when in the OP I said "how would you rule" that's not me asking how the rules work. That can be relevant, but its now what I'm asking. So no, ou seem to have mistaken the parameters I set in the OP.
There are multiple questions asked in the OP, including "how would you rule". But also "what is the intent" and "do they get to ignore this".

You seem to have a very strong opinion on this that didn't come through in the OP. Also, you seem to deviate a little between "I think this because of these rules" and "this is how I do it in my games" depending on what people are saying.

I think the constituent parts of the PHB are relevant in the regard they purport to be. Says it on the tin -- Part 1 is relevant to creating characters, Part 2 is relevant to running the game.


If said trait falls into (a) the monsters stat blocks, (b) Part 2 of the PHB, or (c) other explicit reference (such as those in the intro to the MM), then it applies to monsters, if not then no.
Sorry Christew, I'm 4 hours away from my PHB. Can you just let me know if Range and Ammunition meet those conditions? As far as I know, the weapon properties of Range and Ammunition (and Loading) are not in the MM. Are they in Part 2 of the PHB?

[NontheistCleric]

Here, some more quotes, for anyone interested:


If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, it deals damage appropriate to the weapon. For example, a greataxe in the hands of a Medium monster deals 1d12 slashing damage plus the monster's Strength modifier, as is normal for that weapon.

ARMOR, WEAPON, AND TOOL PROFICIENCIES
Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap them out, you decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment. For example, a hill giant typically wears hide armor and wields a greatclub. You could equip a hill giant with chain mail and a greataxe instead, and assume the giant is proficient with both, one or the other, or neither. See the Player's Handbook for rules on using armor or weapons without proficiency.
Now, these quotes are clearly references to monsters being able to use weapons that exist in the world, proof that their existing weapons are also weapons existing in the world, and that the actual weapon entries, whether in the PHB or elsewhere, are what should be referenced if something is not clear, not least because there would otherwise be no source whatsoever.

There is literally nothing else they could be referring to. The conclusion is obvious.

[Boci]

Desperate for what? I am wondering where you and others draw the line? At the very beginning the sentiment was "Multiattack tells you how many attacks the monster makes. Therefore, it makes the number of attacks that it says it does." The unsaid part is "no matter what" because it's being used to ignore Loading, which has similar language in it to the Slow spell.

I'm not asking you to speak for anyone else, to be clear.

Yet you seem to be fairly confidently asserting that others wouldn't allow Slow to shutdown multitattack, which I strongly disagree with you on.


It took three attempts to get the answer lol.

I had no idea what you were trying to do there. I talked about what I found interesting, and Drow equipment was more interesting than saying what happened when a drow runs out of ammunition. You didn't have me backed into a corner, you had me confused. I still don't know why you were asking that, unless me by coincidence following a rule I didn't bother checking until this thread was somehow a gotcha moment.


You seem to have a very strong opinion on this that didn't come through in the OP. Also, you seem to deviate a little between "I think this because of these rules" and "this is how I do it in my games" depending on what people are saying.

Most people do. I follow rules that I like / am neutral on and don't follow the ones I don't, unless fixing them would be more effort than it was worth. Hand crossbows deal 1d6 damage because the rules say so, and on this everyone will agree. Wererats in my will probably be able to make two attacks because that seems more fun for me as a DM, and I don't feel the topic merits anything deeper than that given its tiny, tiny scope. Some people feel this is RAW, other's don't.

[Christew]

You are acting as though text and information given later in the chapter cannot expand the scope of the chapter, which is just not true. If I start talking about German sausage preferences but later digress into a discussion on properties of sausages in the world, then it should be understood that I am now talking about more than German preferences, insofar as 'the world' contains things (and sausages in particular) beyond the bounds of Germany.
I am merely pointing out that a section heading cannot be offered as example if removed from the context of the chapter in which it appears. You presented the section heading in isolation, I contextualized it. People are free to draw what conclusions they will.


In that case I was using 'assume' in the sense of 'take this as the default in lieu of weapons/sausages with defined unique qualities, as it is presented', not 'baselessly assume'.
Okay, but you are still reading an assumption into the text. It does not say "this is the default French Sausage and should be considered outside the context of the chapter in which it appears."


There is literally nothing else they could be referring to. The conclusion is obvious.
Well, a plain language reading would say that those quotes are referring to weapon damage and proficiency, respectively. These are examples of explicit rules statements that modify the base state of monster stat block + PHB Part 2. I don't see how either has any bearing on the Loading property, unless we assume the text means something beyond what is stated.

I'll also again point out that the DMG quote is from the Dungeon Master's Workshop and refers to variant rules and customization. I don't think it is particularly informative outside that context.

Sorry Christew, I'm 4 hours away from my PHB. Can you just let me know if Range and Ammunition meet those conditions? As far as I know, the weapon properties of Range and Ammunition (and Loading) are not in the MM. Are they in Part 2 of the PHB?
No worries. The weapon properties you listed appear in Chapter 5: Equipment of Part 1: Character Creation of the PHB. I apply range insofar as a distance is listed in the monster stat block and combat rules are provided in Part 2 of the PHB. I apply ammunition insofar as directed by the intro to the MM. I do not universally apply weapon properties found in Chapter 5 of the PHB because I do not find a rule that told me to do that.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yet you seem to be fairly confidently asserting that others wouldn't allow Slow to shutdown multitattack, which I strongly disagree with you on.
The contrary, actually. I expect the others to agree with you. What I'm curious about is the reasoning.

I had no idea what you were trying to do there.
Okay.

I talked about what I found interesting, and Drow equipment was more interesting than saying what happened when a drow runs out of ammunition.
You brought up the drow house captain and asked about it. I thought we were continuing the conversation, not suddenly talking about what interests you.

You didn't have me backed into a corner, you had me confused. I still don't know why you were asking that, unless me by coincidence following a rule I didn't bother checking until this thread was somehow a gotcha moment.
I'm not surprised that you also ignore the Ammunition weapon property. I think this is just a preference, as opposed to anything supported by the rules.

Most people do. I follow rules that I like / am neutral on and don't follow the ones I don't, unless fixing them would be more effort than it was worth.
Yeah, of course. But that's a simple conversation.

[Boci]

The contrary, actually. I expect the others to agree with you. What I'm curious about is the reasoning.

Okay...? You say here:


And so your response of "it's not just me" doesn't go very far.

Yet now you're agreeing it isn't just me? As for why, as I said, stat say how many attacks a creature gets, but not if they have a specific spell cast on them. Just like statblocks say how much damage their attacks do, but not necessarily if they've been hit by ray of enfeeblement. Maybe the others have different reasoning.


You brought up the drow house captain and asked about it. I thought we were continuing the conversation, not suddenly talking about what interests you.

You were focusing on a sub 1% encounter with a specific monster. I.e I could run 20 different encounters with a Drow House Captain, and statistically the scenario you are talking about wouldn't happen. That's less "continuing the conversation" and more demanding I indulge a very specific line of thought and getting salty when it takes 3 replies for me to finally our rather contrived way to point. Which I feel is a little rude of you.

[Dr.Samurai]

Okay, I guess this conversation has run its course and now we're really just circling the drain.


Okay...? You say here:

Yet now you're agreeing it isn't just me?
I just went back through real quick and you're right. I took your appeal to everyone else as the response to "I don't see how the rules support this" about your position on Slow, but I see now it was referring to disassociating the weapon properties from the weapons.

As for why, as I said, stat say how many attacks a creature gets, but not if they have a specific spell cast on them. Just like statblocks say how much damage their attacks do, but not necessarily if they've been hit by ray of enfeeblement.
Yeah, picking and choosing when a feature is relevant or not, etc etc.

You were focusing on a sub 1% encounter with a specific monster. I.e I could run 20 different encounters with a Drow House Captain, and statistically the scenario you are talking about wouldn't happen. That's less "continuing the conversation" and more demanding I indulge a very specific line of thought
You are getting fixated on rolling for ammunition. The question is do you fully ignore the Ammunition property or only partially ignore it.

and getting salty when it takes 3 replies for me to finally our rather contrived way to point. Which I feel is a little rude of you.
Lol, no one is salty. Rude could be asking a question and pretending you're not firmly entrenched on one side of the issue when clearly you are :smallamused:.

[Boci]

Yeah, picking and choosing when a feature is relevant or not, etc etc.

More acknowledging the physical reality that statblocks need to be short and can't cover everything.


You are getting fixated on rolling for ammunition. The question is do you fully ignore the Ammunition property or only partially ignore it.

That was your intention, but no, you were fixated on rolling for ammunition in your question. If you had "What happens when they run out of ammunition for whatever reason?" and I would have answered. But you didn't, you asked "What happens if you roll double 1s on 2d10 for ammunition?" And so I factored in the 1% chance component into my answer to you.

[NontheistCleric]

I am merely pointing out that a section heading cannot be offered as example if removed from the context of the chapter in which it appears. You presented the section heading in isolation, I contextualized it. People are free to draw what conclusions they will.
Yes. Your contextualization didn't change the meaning of anything I said or make your position stronger, because elaborations can expand context, but alright, that's certainly what you did.


Okay, but you are still reading an assumption into the text. It does not say "this is the default French Sausage and should be considered outside the context of the chapter in which it appears."
It should be considered in the context of 'the world', just like D&D weapons are considered in the context of 'D&D worlds'.The plain-language meaning is quite clear here.


Well, a plain language reading would say that those quotes are referring to weapon damage and proficiency, respectively. These are examples of explicit rules statements that modify the base state of monster stat block + PHB Part 2. I don't see how either has any bearing on the Loading property, unless we assume the text means something beyond what is stated.
As I said, they show that the weapons monsters wield are weapons in the world (as they can be changed and are discrete items, not inherent to the monsters). Therefore there must be some independent standard for the weapons in the world which monsters may wield, and the only candidate is the PHB table (with a few exceptions in other books). Since there is nothing a wererat's hand crossbow could possibly refer to but the PHB rules, it must refer to them, and indeed all the details that are provided in the wererat statblock accord with this logic.

The alternative that the references to equipment in those quotes are actually referring to nothing defined at all, which is simply not a functional suggestion.


I'll also again point out that the DMG quote is from the Dungeon Master's Workshop and refers to variant rules and customization. I don't think it is particularly informative outside that context.
While custom monsters cannot be taken as examples, the RAW guidelines for modifying them and their equipment do demonstrate how the system relates monster equipment to monsters in general.

[Christew]

Yes. Your contextualization didn't change the meaning of anything I said or make your position stronger, because elaborations can expand context, but alright, that's certainly what you did.
In isolation your quote would appear to be a much stronger piece of evidence for your position than it is in context. Insofar as my position is that your position is wrong, it made my position stronger.


It should be considered in the context of 'the world', just like D&D weapons are considered in the context of 'D&D worlds'.The plain-language meaning is quite clear here.
And in the context of "merchandise that adventurers find useful" and, more broadly, "creating a character" because those are the sections of the PHB under which it appears.


As I said, they show that the weapons monsters wield are weapons in the world (as they can be changed and are discrete items, not inherent to the monsters). Therefore there must be some independent standard for the weapons in the world which monsters may wield, and the only candidate is the PHB table (with a few exceptions in other books). Since there is nothing a wererat's hand crossbow could possibly refer to but the PHB rules, it must refer to them, and indeed all the details that are provided in the wererat statblock accord with this logic.
You have very adequately proven that the rules allow a DM to replace what appears in a published monster stat block with a weapon from Chapter 5 from the PHB. It does not follow that what appears in a published monster stat block is subject to the weapon properties of Chapter 5 of the PHB.


The alternative that the references to equipment in those quotes are actually referring to nothing defined at all, which is simply not a functional suggestion.
The wererat has a hand crossbow. That hand crossbow might function differently if wielded by a PC than it did when wielded by the wererat. Perfectly functional.


While custom monsters cannot be taken as examples, the RAW guidelines for modifying them and their equipment do demonstrate how the system relates monster equipment to monsters in general.
As I granted before, it is persuasive of that conclusion, but not dispositive.

[NontheistCleric]

In isolation your quote would appear to be a much stronger piece of evidence for your position than it is in context. Insofar as my position is that your position is wrong, it made my position stronger.
Let me put it another way; it did nothing to positively advance your position, and my quote still means what it means despite yours.


And in the context of "merchandise that adventurers find useful" and, more broadly, "creating a character" because those are the sections of the PHB under which it appears.
That is the original context of the chapter, but it was expanded by things said within it to include 'D&D worlds' and weapons in those worlds. Disorganized writing, maybe, but the fact remains that the scope of a chapter is not necessarily limited to what was stated in its header.


You have very adequately proven that the rules allow a DM to replace what appears in a published monster stat block with a weapon from Chapter 5 from the PHB. It does not follow that what appears in a published monster stat block is subject to the weapon properties of Chapter 5 of the PHB.
It follows because the quotes I provided prove the weapons in published monster stat blocks are also weapons in the world, and because there are no strict categories of 'PC rules' and 'monster rules', only some rules that PCs do not have access to, there is no reason why monster weapons should not function like PC weapons unless noted not to.


The wererat has a hand crossbow. That hand crossbow might function differently if wielded by a PC than it did when wielded by the wererat. Perfectly functional.
See above for there being no separate rules for monsters and PCs–at least, not in the form of strict categories.


As I granted before, it is persuasive of that conclusion, but not dispositive.
Perhaps not on its own, but the fact that it fits with all the other rules I quoted would seem to make them dispositive when taken together–especially if we are reading everything written in plain language.

[Boci]

I'll also again point out that the DMG quote is from the Dungeon Master's Workshop and refers to variant rules and customization. I don't think it is particularly informative outside that context.

So then out of interest, you think wererat can double tap with their hand crossbow right? So would you say a gladiator can use the two handed damage value for their spear, whilst retaining the shield bonus to their AC, since the spear entry doesn't specif would cause them to lose that?

[Christew]

Let me put it another way; it did nothing to positively advance your position, and my quote still means what it means despite yours.
Let me clearly state my position so that we may move past some portions of this discussion. *If the RAW allows two or more possible interpretations, the interpretation that creates the fewest edge cases is the correct one.* In the instant case, the wererat stat block is not an edge case in my interpretation of the RAW; in your interpretation it must be written off as an error (meta-textual or otherwise) and is therefore an edge case. I believe that discrete monster stat blocks, supplemented by Part 2 of the PHB (as the most obvious explicit RAW affecting monster stat blocks) and all other explicit RAW references, provides a more consistent vision of the RAW than the one you advocate, that requires an assumed applicability of the Creating a Character section of the PHB and subsequently induces unnecessary edge cases.


That is the original context of the chapter, but it was expanded by things said within it to include 'D&D worlds' and weapons in those worlds. Disorganized writing, maybe, but the fact remains that the scope of a chapter is not necessarily limited to what was stated in its header.
I'm going to politely abandon this portion of the discussion. See above.


It follows because the quotes I provided prove the weapons in published monster stat blocks are also weapons in the world, and because there are no strict categories of 'PC rules' and 'monster rules', only some rules that PCs do not have access to, there is no reason why monster weapons should not function like PC weapons unless noted not to.
Implies =/= proves. There are rules that apply to PCs that do not apply to monsters and vice versa. Whether that implies distinct buckets of player rules and monster rules or not is a degree of pedantry that I politely decline to engage in. The main point here is that you are interpreting meaning into the text. You are outside the RAW.


See above for there being no separate rules for monsters and PCs–at least, not in the form of strict categories.
See above.


Perhaps not on its own, but the fact that it fits with all the other rules I quoted would seem to make them dispositive when taken together–especially if we are reading everything written in plain language.
Are you familiar with the concept of dicta? I would argue that you are ascribing much more meaning to the words "used in the worlds of D&D" than is inherent to the text. My interpretation thereof is that (1) we are in the character creation section of the PHB, (2) we are in the merchandise commonly used for adventuring chapter of the PHB, (3) the most likely meaning of "used in the worlds of D&D" is that, whether you are playing in Greyhawk, Faerun, etc., the listed merchandise is commonly available for selection during character creation. It doesn't say anything about monster stat blocks or some kind of keyword universality ascribed to weapon names. Reading that is a perfectly valid interpretation, but it is also outside the RAW.

[JackPhoenix]

Are you familiar with the concept of dicta? I would argue that you are ascribing much more meaning to the words "used in the worlds of D&D" than is inherent to the text. My interpretation thereof is that (1) we are in the character creation section of the PHB, (2) we are in the merchandise commonly used for adventuring chapter of the PHB, (3) the most likely meaning of "used in the worlds of D&D" is that, whether you are playing in Greyhawk, Faerun, etc., the listed merchandise is commonly available for selection during character creation. It doesn't say anything about monster stat blocks or some kind of keyword universality ascribed to weapon names. Reading that is a perfectly valid interpretation, but it is also outside the RAW.

You assume the "section" of the PHB has any weight other than being an aid in keeping the rules in the book organized. That's simply not true: there are no rules that refer to "sections", chapters or paragraphs in the book as something that has any mechanical influence, instead of simply being there for the ease of finding where the relevant rule is located. Assuming otherwise is what's outside RAW (and though I can't read the developers' minds (and thank Gygax for that), I'm almost certain also RAI). Your interpretation that "character creation 'section' is only for character creation and absolutely nothing else in the game" is just wrong.

[Christew]

You assume the "section" of the PHB has any weight other than being an aid in keeping the rules in the book organized. That's simply not true: there are no rules that refer to "sections", chapters or paragraphs in the book as something that has any mechanical influence, instead of simply being there for the ease of finding where the relevant rule is located. Assuming otherwise is what's outside RAW (and though I can't read the developers' minds (and thank Gygax for that), I'm almost certain also RAI). Your interpretation that "character creation 'section' is only for character creation and absolutely nothing else in the game" is just wrong.
I read the rules as they are written. As written, the PHB features a Creating Characters section and a Running the Game section. One of those sections contains mechanically operative text that states that "you" refers to both players and dungeon masters, the other does not. You may not like my interpretation, but literally ignoring words that are written in the rulebook inorder to claim that I am wrong is pretty definitionally outside RAW.

[NontheistCleric]

Let me clearly state my position so that we may move past some portions of this discussion. *If the RAW allows two or more possible interpretations, the interpretation that creates the fewest edge cases is the correct one.* In the instant case, the wererat stat block is not an edge case in my interpretation of the RAW; in your interpretation it must be written off as an error (meta-textual or otherwise) and is therefore an edge case. I believe that discrete monster stat blocks, supplemented by Part 2 of the PHB (as the most obvious explicit RAW affecting monster stat blocks) and all other explicit RAW references, provides a more consistent vision of the RAW than the one you advocate, that requires an assumed applicability of the Creating a Character section of the PHB and subsequently induces unnecessary edge cases.
As others have already demonstrated earlier in the thread, it's a meta-textual edge case no matter what position one takes, as there are numerous quotes showing that the wererat uniquely has a crossbow but not specific language either confining it to one attack or having two (for the crossbow)

Your RAW position forces us to assume the inapplicability of Creating a Character section to monsters, when in fact there is no RAW statement that says this (more on this below). This introduces needless inconsistency. Your position claims that in fact none of the weapons and armor used by monsters are related in any way to the ones listed in the PHB, even though in the vast majority of cases they resemble them exactly and the MM and DMG both make reference to the PHB when describing monster equipment.

Even the PHB mentions the selling of monster equipment in Chapter 4, which indicates that such items do have market value when intact enough, and RAW, the only way something has market value sans DM fiat is by being on one of those equipment tables.

My RAW position only requires that weapons in D&D worlds have mechanics consistent with the weapons they are identified with in a section of the PHB that is not restricted to PCs alone (again, more on this below). That all is required to resolve a slight bit of ambiguity is to refer to a rules resource everyone is assumed to have access to, rather than construct an absurd interpretation of RAW where monster equipment and PC equipment is completely different even though it's completely the same most of the time.

Your RAW interpretation literally has parts of the game being inconsistent with one another, while mine actually asks for consistency (consistency there is no reason not to allow for). Your assumptions are far greater and less consistent than mine.


Implies =/= proves. There are rules that apply to PCs that do not apply to monsters and vice versa. Whether that implies distinct buckets of player rules and monster rules or not is a degree of pedantry that I politely decline to engage in. The main point here is that you are interpreting meaning into the text. You are outside the RAW.
Yes, and all you have on your side to support that the equipment rules apply to PCs and not monsters is an implication of your own.

Implies =/= proves. Whether that implies distinct buckets of player rules and monster rules is the degree of pedantry you dragged me into, when before I was happy to proceed on the premise that something is what it says it is: A hand crossbow.

The main point here is that you are interpreting meaning into the text and are outside RAW.

My quote actually did prove what I said it proved. It proved that monster weapons–be they included in the stat block by default or not–are discrete, separate objects that can be taken away from the monster, in a situation identical to the PHB weapons you have already admitted can be given to them. From there, we only need to apply the sensible principle that a hand crossbow is a hand crossbow, and will function as hand crossbows have been stated to in the rules unless a more specific rule states otherwise. Plain language, remember? That's about as plain as you can get.

Furthermore, there are at least some cases where monsters indisputably have access to all character creation options, as the DMG states NPCs can be built using PC creation processes. This makes your position even more inconsistent, as it means some monsters will have 'PC weapons' and some 'monster weapons', simply for the sake of honoring a rule that doesn't even exist.


Are you familiar with the concept of dicta? I would argue that you are ascribing much more meaning to the words "used in the worlds of D&D" than is inherent to the text. My interpretation thereof is that (1) we are in the character creation section of the PHB, (2) we are in the merchandise commonly used for adventuring chapter of the PHB, (3) the most likely meaning of "used in the worlds of D&D" is that, whether you are playing in Greyhawk, Faerun, etc., the listed merchandise is commonly available for selection during character creation. It doesn't say anything about monster stat blocks or some kind of keyword universality ascribed to weapon names. Reading that is a perfectly valid interpretation, but it is also outside the RAW.
Then I contend that you are assigning much more meaning to 'character creation' and 'commonly used by adventurers' than is inherent in the text. Nowhere does the text say that such things are only to be used for character creation and adventurers. So what is most likely meaning of those words? That they can indeed be used in character creation, but that these items, which are stated to be common in D&D worlds, are not by default precluded from existing in those worlds outside of PC character creation.

[Dr.Samurai]

More acknowledging the physical reality that statblocks need to be short and can't cover everything.
I agree. No need to include Loading when it is implied by the weapon being used.

That was your intention, but no, you were fixated on rolling for ammunition in your question. If you had "What happens when they run out of ammunition for whatever reason?" and I would have answered.
Eh, when ammunition came up you just said that you'd give them a full complement if it made sense or roll if it made sense. So I went with the roll since the full complement won't get me to my point. I think most people would understand what was being asked.

But you didn't, you asked "What happens if you roll double 1s on 2d10 for ammunition?" And so I factored in the 1% chance component into my answer to you.
No. I asked what would happen if you rolled double 1s and used your 2 crossbow bolts; can you still multiattack [with the hand crossbow]?

You tap-danced around this question for 3 posts.

No worries. The weapon properties you listed appear in Chapter 5: Equipment of Part 1: Character Creation of the PHB. I apply range insofar as a distance is listed in the monster stat block and combat rules are provided in Part 2 of the PHB. I apply ammunition insofar as directed by the intro to the MM. I do not universally apply weapon properties found in Chapter 5 of the PHB because I do not find a rule that told me to do that.
This is a very roundabout way to answer the question.

So in other words... you roll for ammunition, but because nothing tells you to assume any weapons actually have the Ammunition trait, you don't actually track or make use of the ammunition. The Range trait is different because it actually gives you those properties again in the Combat section, so your monsters do in fact have a range limit on their attacks, and get Disadvantage at long range.

But two-handed weapons don't actually exist for NPCs and monsters, so they can in fact wield greatswords and halberds alongside a shield with no problem. Small NPCs and monsters don't have Disadvantage for wielding Heavy weapons either because... those don't exist for them. And although the combat chapter does cover Two Weapon Fighting, monsters can't use it because the weapons they use don't have properties that aren't in the statblock, such as the Light property.

I wonder how far into Absurdia we are willing to travel to be right on the internet...

So then out of interest, you think wererat can double tap with their hand crossbow right? So would you say a gladiator can use the two handed damage value for their spear, whilst retaining the shield bonus to their AC, since the spear entry doesn't specif would cause them to lose that?
Is this what you think, Boci?

[Boci]

You tap-danced around this question for 3 posts.

I didn't tap dance around it, you phrased your question poorly and therefor didn't get the answer you wanted the first and second time. But I answered it each time. I pointed out that your math was off by a factor of 10, and that I might not even roll. Both relevant answers when your question involves me rolling as a set up.

But no, you take no responsibility for your poor communication, which doesn't make me think answering any more questions from you is a productive use of my time.

[JackPhoenix]

I read the rules as they are written. As written, the PHB features a Creating Characters section and a Running the Game section. One of those sections contains mechanically operative text that states that "you" refers to both players and dungeon masters, the other does not. You may not like my interpretation, but literally ignoring words that are written in the rulebook inorder to claim that I am wrong is pretty definitionally outside RAW.

Well then, in your dubious interpretation of "RAW", whom does the 'You' everywhere else in the books refers to? Certainly not the player or the DM, as there's no statement saying such anywhere outside that "section", as you call it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Both relevant answers when your question involves me rolling as a set up.
Yeah, sure. The roll is to set up no more ammunition. The question was specifically if you can still use the crossbow without ammunition. You chose to focus on the set up, instead of answering the actual question.

But no, you take no responsibility for your poor communication, which doesn't make me think answering any more questions from you is a productive use of my time.
That's fine. I could have not set it up and just asked you what would happen if the drow was out of ammo and instead of answering that question you'd wonder well why would it be out of ammo, or in what kind of encounter would it run out of ammo, etc etc. (if I didn't set it up you can answer in the same way "it would be very rare for the drow to run out of ammo so quickly"). I admitted I made an error about the Knight and Slow in reading your response, so I think I'm fine with admitting poor communication. I think you're just really sticking on this for whatever reason.

[Boci]

Yeah, sure. The roll is to set up no more ammunition. The question was specifically if you can still use the crossbow without ammunition. You chose to focus on the set up, instead of answering the actual question.

That's fine. I could have not set it up and just asked you what would happen if the drow was out of ammo and instead of answering that question you'd wonder well why would it be out of ammo, or in what kind of encounter would it run out of ammo, etc etc. (if I didn't set it up you can answer in the same way "it would be very rare for the drow to run out of ammo so quickly"). I admitted I made an error about the Knight and Slow in reading your response, so I think I'm fine with admitting poor communication. I think you're just really sticking on this for whatever reason.

You're the one complaining about a question I answered to your satisfaction, because I didn't answer it quick enough, seems like you're the one sticking on it for whatever reason. I mean really, you've complained about needing to to ask the question two extra times over the course of how man posts? More than 3, that's for certain. But for some reason those 2 extra posts with the question REALLY bothered you.

I'm actually kinda insulted (not really) you think the only way I could have dragged out answering that question was to pretend to not get the question twice and then answer it. That's pathetic, I would have done way better if I had been intentionally trying to avoid it.

1. pretend to miss thew question, making you post it again at least once

2. Ask why you're so obsessed with a sub 1% outcome and ask if you regularly spend consider how to rule such scenarios yourself (and then if you say yes ask for examples which will turn will give me more opportunities to asks questions and stall)

3. Say "In my world Drow House Captains are often/always equipped with Bolt Bracelet. Its a magical item that lets them produce ammo as a non-action, so the don't run out of ammo". (This isn't true, but you couldn't have proven that that)

4. Ask for further details about the scenario as if they mattered (what kind of game I am running here? Gritty, more high fantasy?)

5. Hmmm, not sure. Let me think about it and I'll get back to you

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Closed for review