are the attack options in a monster's stat block the attack action?

[diplomancer]

Just as the question asks. We know that multiattack is not the Attack Action, but its own action type. But what about a monster's bite, or claw, or weapon attack? Are those special actions, or just the result of a monster taking the Attack Action? Do monsters simply don't have the attack action (note that this seems to contradict the rule "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the Actions available to all creatures")?

This is usually irrelevant, but I found a case where it matters, the Tenser's Transformed Greater Found Steed:
"- You can attack twice, instead of once, when you take the Attack action on your turn. You ignore this benefit if you already have a feature, like Extra Attack, that gives you extra attacks."

Does a saber-tooth tiger, a rhino, a pegasus or a giant elk get to attack twice now? If the answer is yes and it is the giant elk, can it Charge and make a Ram attack, get the creature down, and then use its hooves, or should they take the same action with both attacks?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Just as the question asks. We know that multiattack is not the Attack Action, but its own action type. But what about a monster's bite, or claw, or weapon attack? Are those special actions, or just the result of a monster taking the Attack Action? Do monsters simply don't have the attack action (note that this seems to contradict the rule "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the Actions available to all creatures")?

This is usually irrelevant, but I found a case where it matters, the Tenser's Transformed Greater Found Steed:
"- You can attack twice, instead of once, when you take the Attack action on your turn. You ignore this benefit if you already have a feature, like Extra Attack, that gives you extra attacks."

Does a saber-tooth tiger, a rhino, a pegasus or a giant elk get to attack twice now? If the answer is yes and it is the giant elk, can it Charge and make a Ram attack, get the creature down, and then use its hooves, or should they take the same action with both attacks?

They're "actions" everything under actions takes an action. They're can be certain spells or abilities that can shut down multi-attack. For example the slow spell prevents a creature from making more then one melee/ranged attack on its turn. Or different attacks might have different ranges or effects.

So lets take a dragon(san's legendary abilities), he would usually his action to
A: "multiattack" bite and two claws,
B: Use Frightful Presence
C: Use its breath weapon.
He can do one of those three things.

If he's slowed he can't multiattack so then he has to pick, claw, bite, or tail slap. The attacks also have different ranges, if the dragon is out of movement or otherwise can't reach his enemy tail slapping 15ft away might be his only option.

So in the case of the Giant Elk, he can use his action to Ram a target or Hoof a prone target. If something such as haste let him attack twice, then he could ram and hoof the target in the same round. But normally he couldn't.

[Genoin]

In short, each type of attack that is listed is an option that you can choose from when the monster takes an action to attack. The above answer is good, but to give a simpler example in addition to it, if a monster has a claw and a bite attack, when you take the attack action with that monster, you can choose to use either.

[diplomancer]

Perhaps an easier way to put my question would be: "What happens when a monster takes the Attack Action (i.e an action not listed in its stat block, but available to all creatures)? Is it one of its attack options listed on its stat block? Is it something else entirely that the DM decides?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Perhaps an easier way to put my question would be: "What happens when a monster takes the Attack Action (i.e an action not listed in its stat block, but available to all creatures)? Is it one of its attack options listed on its stat block? Is it something else entirely that the DM decides?"

A non-PC that takes the Attack action can:
* make special attacks, ie grapples/shoves.
* make an unarmed attack dealing 1+STR.
* make an attack with a manufactured or improvised weapon (ie something it's carrying)

It cannot:
* Multiattack (if it has such listed)
* use any non-attack-roll actions on its sheet (such as Frightful Presence or a breath weapon)

It may be able to (the RAW is unclear):
* use any natural weapons (once) in an attack without using the specific stat-block action, despite using all the same numbers. I'd let that happen, but that's identical to just using the appropriate action, so :shrug:

[diplomancer]

snip

It may be able to (the RAW is unclear):
* use any natural weapons (once) in an attack without using the specific stat-block action, despite using all the same numbers. I'd let that happen, but that's identical to just using the appropriate action, so :shrug:

Your general ruling is how I tend to think, too, and it is identical in many cases, but not the one I mentioned of Tenser's Transformation. How would you rule that particular case?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your general ruling is how I tend to think, too, and it is identical in many cases, but not the one I mentioned of Tenser's Transformation. How would you rule that particular case?

This would have to be on a bard who Magical Secret'd Find Greater Steed, and the share spells feature only works while mounted. I rule that, while mounted, the rider is in total control (unless it's a dragon or similar independent NPC). Thus, a TT FGS cannot attack in the first place, so it's a moot point.

My basic rule for mounted combat--exactly one person can be in control of the mount. Either the DM is, in which case it does whatever is natural for it and goes wherever it feels like and the player can suggest directions but cannot expect to be obeyed and the creature acts on its own initiative (in all senses of the word), or the PC is, in which case the PC has the options to control movement and take the Dash, Disengage, or Dodge actions with the mount.

Find Steed and Find Greater Steed don't, in my mind, override that. Yes, you can ask it to do things and it will obey. But it is still an NPC with a mind of its own and will interpret things however it feels like. Which means that unless you take direct control, the DM is in control and you don't get the fancy options. Mount or NPC buddy, choose one.

[Chronos]

OK, so you choose a mount that's reasonably intelligent, and you let it make its own decisions, and you politely request that it attack to the best of its ability, and you cast a spell on it that increases "the best of its ability". Unless you're going to run it as the DM that the mount always just goes "No thank you, I would prefer not to", the question still comes up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

OK, so you choose a mount that's reasonably intelligent, and you let it make its own decisions, and you politely request that it attack to the best of its ability, and you cast a spell on it that increases "the best of its ability". Unless you're going to run it as the DM that the mount always just goes "No thank you, I would prefer not to", the question still comes up.

You can tell it to attack, but you don't get to micromanage. So it's running its own initiative (instead of acting on your initiative and getting to choose who goes first), will move and attack targets as it decides is appropriate (based on its intelligence and habits and personality), etc. Sure, it's stronger, but you no longer have control.

My beef is against the "I get to play two characters and micromanage both" perception. Otherwise you're trying to give that one spell (find [greater] steed) way too much power, and it shows.

I take a very narrow view of spells, specifically to avoid the "magic can do anything" issue. Spells need explicit exceptions, and only do what they say they do. Non-magical things are the reverse. Anything that makes sense in context is (potentially) allowed.

[Man_Over_Game]

A non-PC that takes the Attack action can:
* make special attacks, ie grapples/shoves.
* make an unarmed attack dealing 1+STR.
* make an attack with a manufactured or improvised weapon (ie something it's carrying)

It cannot:
* Multiattack (if it has such listed)
* use any non-attack-roll actions on its sheet (such as Frightful Presence or a breath weapon)

It may be able to (the RAW is unclear):
* use any natural weapons (once) in an attack without using the specific stat-block action, despite using all the same numbers. I'd let that happen, but that's identical to just using the appropriate action, so :shrug:

What gets really weird around this is when you're working with a Moon Druid with some kind of Extra Attack feature (like from a War Cleric).

[diplomancer]

This would have to be on a bard who Magical Secret'd Find Greater Steed, and the share spells feature only works while mounted. I rule that, while mounted, the rider is in total control (unless it's a dragon or similar independent NPC). Thus, a TT FGS cannot attack in the first place, so it's a moot point.

My basic rule for mounted combat--exactly one person can be in control of the mount. Either the DM is, in which case it does whatever is natural for it and goes wherever it feels like and the player can suggest directions but cannot expect to be obeyed and the creature acts on its own initiative (in all senses of the word), or the PC is, in which case the PC has the options to control movement and take the Dash, Disengage, or Dodge actions with the mount.

Find Steed and Find Greater Steed don't, in my mind, override that. Yes, you can ask it to do things and it will obey. But it is still an NPC with a mind of its own and will interpret things however it feels like. Which means that unless you take direct control, the DM is in control and you don't get the fancy options. Mount or NPC buddy, choose one.

Just to make clear, in your games, is that a one-time decision, a once per combat decision (i.e, before rolling initiative) or can the PC retake control or let go of control as desired?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just to make clear, in your games, is that a one-time decision, a once per combat decision (i.e, before rolling initiative) or can the PC retake control or let go of control as desired?

Tell me before combat starts, because I'm not messing with initiative later. I also make summoned creatures/familiars/pets go immediately after the owner.

For the spell, I'm assuming you're going to be mounted and controlling it (using it as a mount) unless you tell me otherwise. So if you charge in on your horse, that's your choice. And an unridden mount-trained mount will defend the owner, but not go attack on its own initiative and will generally try to avoid confrontation unless the owner is directly threatened.

Of course, this is somewhat academic for me, since I've never had anyone try mounted combat. We tend to be inside a lot, where mounts just aren't that useful. The number of "wide open terrain" battles I've been in is probably under 2? Total?

[JNAProductions]

My ruling would be pretty simple.

Yes, you can combine Extra Attack with a Bite, or Claw, or Gore, or whatever comprises a singular attack for the monster, so long as your features are not wholly replaced (as with polymorph).

So Find Greater Steed comboed with Tenser's Transformation would let your Rhino or whatever attack twice. Likewise, a [ANY EXTRA ATTACK CLASS] 5/Druid 2+ can Wildshape and attack twice instead of multiattack with their animal forms, should they wish to.

[RSP]

It may be able to (the RAW is unclear):
* use any natural weapons (once) in an attack without using the specific stat-block action, despite using all the same numbers. I'd let that happen, but that's identical to just using the appropriate action, so :shrug:

This is an interesting view of it. I recently had a thread this past week asking about how monster actions interact with Sanctuary.

The specific case my table came across was with a remorhaz, which has a Bite Action and a Swallow Action, each of which entails a single attack roll; and could they switch which Action they were using after failing a Sanctuary save (that is, the remorhaz failed the save to Swallow a creature, can they now switch to the Bite Action to attack a different creature).

You seem to be saying that you’d rule “Yes, the remorhaz can switch between the two because each “action” is just an attack under the Attack Action.”

Just curious if this a correct interpretation of your views. Also, I’m not suggesting this is a RAW discussion, I’m just interested in what your view on it is, given your statement of how you play it.

My ruling would be pretty simple.

Yes, you can combine Extra Attack with a Bite, or Claw, or Gore, or whatever comprises a singular attack for the monster...

Same question as above to you, JNA.

[Rukelnikov]

"ATTACK ACTION:

The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, fiiring an arrow fram a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks."

Basically, taking the Attack action allows you to make a melee or ranged attack.

Consider also, that the wording of the attack action is almost identical to that of Opportunity Attack:

"OPPORTUNITY ATTACKS:

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature"

So if a Wolf's Bite weren't eligible for the Attack action, then it also wouldn't be eligible for making an Opportunity Attack.

[RSP]

So if a Wolf's Bite weren't eligible for the Attack action, then it also wouldn't be eligible for making an Opportunity Attack.

RAW is probably neither are eligible, though I haven’t scoured the MM to see if it provides clarity.

RAI is probably OA’s can use one, but not Attack Action (otherwise why make them their own Actions?).

I think the biggest issue with allowing it would be the Druid multiclass to get Extra Attack, which I think is clearly not RAI, though may not be quite broken.

Other interactions, like the stated one with Sanctuary, would probably come up but not be horribly disruptive.

[Zigludo]

The short answer to your question is "yes". Monsters and NPCs can in fact use Haste to attack and benefit from Extra Attack and Tenser's, and wild-shaped Attacks can trigger Flurry of Blows (although you can't use the monster's attacks for your Flurry attacks, and multi-attacks can't trigger it), and so on and so on.

Rukelnikov's opportunity attack example is accurate; were this not so, monsters could only ever make opportunity attacks with unarmed strikes, as this is an action available to all creatures, whereas the monster's Bite (or what have you) is not.

For what it's worth, Crawford has mentioned (in his usual sideways style) that Extra Attack works with Wild Shape, saying: "The Attack action can deliver a melee or ranged weapon attack of any sort, including a monster's." https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/05...-extra-attack/

Mounted combat is its own weird can of worms.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"ATTACK ACTION:

The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, fiiring an arrow fram a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks."

Basically, taking the Attack action allows you to make a melee or ranged attack.

Consider also, that the wording of the attack action is almost identical to that of Opportunity Attack:

"OPPORTUNITY ATTACKS:

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature"

So if a Wolf's Bite weren't eligible for the Attack action, then it also wouldn't be eligible for making an Opportunity Attack.

I think your logic is a bit back-to-front here. Taking the Attack action lets you make a melee or ranged attack, but taking the Attack action is not the only way you make a melee or ranged attack. So a Bite is still an attack (and thus valid for an OA), even if it doesn't use the Attack action. Just like Eldritch Blast is an attack (or multiple), but it does not use the Attack action.

Taking the Attack action is one way of making attacks. It's something anyone can do, because anyone can make unarmed attacks. Monsters have additional, non-Attack-action options that involve making attack rolls, just like lots of player abilities do. This includes OA. You can make any melee weapon attack against the provoking creature by using your reaction. The Bite is a melee weapon* attack. You can thus make a Bite against a provoking creature even if you can't make a Bite with the Attack action (something that I consider indeterminate at this point).

* weapon attacks (as opposed to spell attacks) use physical modifiers: STR for melee, DEX for ranged (in the absence of an ability or feature that lets you change this, such as Hex Warrior).

[RSP]

The short answer to your question is "yes". Monsters and NPCs can in fact use Haste to attack and benefit from Extra Attack and Tenser's, and wild-shaped Attacks can trigger Flurry of Blows (although you can't use the monster's attacks for your Flurry attacks, and multi-attacks can't trigger it), and so on and so on.

Rukelnikov's opportunity attack example is accurate; were this not so, monsters could only ever make opportunity attacks with unarmed strikes, as this is an action available to all creatures, whereas the monster's Bite (or what have you) is not.

For what it's worth, Crawford has mentioned (in his usual sideways style) that Extra Attack works with Wild Shape, saying: "The Attack action can deliver a melee or ranged weapon attack of any sort, including a monster's." https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/05...-extra-attack/

Mounted combat is its own weird can of worms.

I think the RAW component missed here is that monsters don’t get a list of “Attacks”, they get a list of “Actions.” Unless something I’m missing says otherwise, the RAW doesn’t allow the Attack Action to break out attacks available from other Actions.

So I think the RAW of it is a monster can use the Attack Action to make an Attack with a weapon, or with the Str+1 unarmed strike; or they can use one of the Actions listed on their stat block.

[Zigludo]

So I think the RAW of it is a monster can use the Attack Action to make an Attack with a weapon, or with the Str+1 unarmed strike; or they can use one of the Actions listed on their stat block.

Granted as a valid interpretation. But doesn't that interpretation function identically to the interpretation that they're always using the Attack action? I'm wracking my brains to produce a an instance where "Monsters can choose to use the Bite action, or use the Attack action to Bite" is meaningfully distinct from "Monsters use the Attack action to Bite" and coming up empty.

[Rukelnikov]

I think your logic is a bit back-to-front here. Taking the Attack action lets you make a melee or ranged attack, but taking the Attack action is not the only way you make a melee or ranged attack. So a Bite is still an attack (and thus valid for an OA), even if it doesn't use the Attack action. Just like Eldritch Blast is an attack (or multiple), but it does not use the Attack action.

Taking the Attack action is one way of making attacks. It's something anyone can do, because anyone can make unarmed attacks. Monsters have additional, non-Attack-action options that involve making attack rolls, just like lots of player abilities do. This includes OA. You can make any melee weapon attack against the provoking creature by using your reaction. The Bite is a melee weapon* attack. You can thus make a Bite against a provoking creature even if you can't make a Bite with the Attack action (something that I consider indeterminate at this point).

* weapon attacks (as opposed to spell attacks) use physical modifiers: STR for melee, DEX for ranged (in the absence of an ability or feature that lets you change this, such as Hex Warrior).

But thing is, OAs let you make "a melee attack", they don't say you can take an Action that makes a melee attack, thus, if Bite is good for AO, then it is good for the Attack action.

I think the RAW component missed here is that monsters don’t get a list of “Attacks”, they get a list of “Actions.” Unless something I’m missing says otherwise, the RAW doesn’t allow the Attack Action to break out attacks available from other Actions.

So I think the RAW of it is a monster can use the Attack Action to make an Attack with a weapon, or with the Str+1 unarmed strike; or they can use one of the Actions listed on their stat block.

But that interpretation means they can only do OAs of Str+1, which is a severe nerf to all the monsters in the game.

Not only that, but every monster would only have a threatened area of 5 ft. since actions are not weapons and unarmed has 5 ft reach.

[Man_Over_Game]

Some information I found on the topic:

Multiattack and Attack are two separate actions.

Multiattack states that, when it's taken, a certain series of attacks must be made. Things like Claws or Beak are named as examples for such attacks.

So when a creature has a Claw option, that's not an Action. That's an attack, similar to how someone can attack with Shadow Blade, but not like Flame Blade.

[RSP]

Some information I found on the topic:

Multiattack and Attack are two separate actions.

Multiattack states that, when it's taken, a certain series of attacks must be made. Things like Claws or Beak are named as examples for such attacks.

So when a creature has a Claw option, that's not an Action. That's an attack, similar to how someone can attack with Shadow Blade, but not like Flame Blade.

But that interpretation means they can only do OAs of Str+1, which is a severe nerf to all the monsters in the game.

Not only that, but every monster would only have a threatened area of 5 ft. since actions are not weapons and unarmed has 5 ft reach.

So I think the answer is that monster stat block list Actions they can take, however, some of those Action state they are “Melee Weapon Attack” or “Ranged Weapon Attack”; while others don’t.

I’d imagine the intent is that those stated as Ranged/Melee Weapon Attacks can use the Attack Action or OAs.

The Remorhaz for example:

“Actions
Bite: Melee Weapon Attack: +11 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 40 (6d10 + 7) piercing damage plus 10 (3d6) fire damage. If the target is a creature, it is Grappled (escape DC 17). Until this grapple ends, the target is Restrained, and the remorhaz can't bite another target.

Swallow: The remorhaz makes one bite Attack against a Medium or smaller creature it is Grappling...”

So Bite works for Attack Action and OAs, while Swallow does not.

[Rukelnikov]

So I think the answer is that monster stat block list Actions they can take, however, some of those Action state they are “Melee Weapon Attack” or “Ranged Weapon Attack”; while others don’t.

I’d imagine the intent is that those stated as Ranged/Melee Weapon Attacks can use the Attack Action or OAs.

The Remorhaz for example:

“Actions
Bite: Melee Weapon Attack: +11 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 40 (6d10 + 7) piercing damage plus 10 (3d6) fire damage. If the target is a creature, it is Grappled (escape DC 17). Until this grapple ends, the target is Restrained, and the remorhaz can't bite another target.

Swallow: The remorhaz makes one bite Attack against a Medium or smaller creature it is Grappling...”

So Bite works for Attack Action and OAs, while Swallow does not.

That's how I run them

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's how I run them

I'm fine with that as well. The edge cases are few and far between, at least in my games, so I don't worry so much. It's nice playing with people who don't hunt for power options

[Rukelnikov]

I'm fine with that as well. The edge cases are few and far between, at least in my games, so I don't worry so much. It's nice playing with people who don't hunt for power options

Yeah, most of my players generally go for viable builds, but not broken (no one has ever taken PAM for instance). But there is one player though that given the chance will always try to go for the OP build, fortunately though, she's not much of a min/maxer, but there's another player who is, her husband, and frequently pitches in stuff she could do or take :(

[Tanarii]

This is a straight forward and easily answered question.

The attack action lets you make a melee or ranged attack. More than one if you have Extra Attack.

The monster stat blocks tell you which actions are melee or ranged attacks.