4
\$\begingroup\$

Incite Rampage (Recharge 5–6).

One creature the gnoll can see within 30 feet of it can use its reaction to make a melee attack if it can hear the gnoll and has the Rampage trait.

A Gnoll pack lord does have the rampage trait and I'm sure it can see itself, so it could apply this ability to itself even if it's by himself or otherwise isn't with other creatures with the rampage trait?

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Are you trying to see if they can use Incite Rampage as part of their Multiattack to get 3 attacks, using their Reaction? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 21, 2023 at 20:56

2 Answers 2

3
\$\begingroup\$

Like players a monster can target themselves. As an example, for spells players can always target themselves unless a spell says otherwise. I think it makes sense that the Gnoll Pack Lord should be able to, if needed and available, use this ability on itself. I think the ambiguous wording is just because you wouldn’t normally encounter a Pack Lord without a Pack.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

It's ambiguous but unlikely

That it is ambiguous is mostly because it is unclear if "a creature within X feet" of it includes the Gnoll Pack Lord. All the rest of the requirements would be fulfilled - the Pack Lord can see itself, hear itself, and it does have the Rampage trait.

The Pack Lord's Multiattack says:

Multiattack. The gnoll makes two attacks, either with its glaive or its longbow, and uses its Incite Rampage if it can.

Normally, the Pack Lord would always be able to use Incite Rampage if it can target itself with it (unless somehow blinded or deafened or unless it has already used it and it has not recharged yet). So the "if it can" makes it more likely that the Pack Lord can Incite Rampage on a member of its pack, which it only can do if there is a pack member within range. But because there are conceivable circumstances where it could not do that, and because "if it can" might be unhelpful helper text to remind you that it can only do so if it has an unused or reacharged Incite Rampage1 (thanks to @mdrichey), we cannot strictly know if that is what was meant, so it still comes down to the DM.


1 The language used elsewhere in the MM is not consistent. For example, the Chimera uses the language "When its fire breath is available, it can use the breath in place of its bite or horns.", but the Gibbering Mouther uses the same language of "if it can", for spitting a chemical glob to a point it can see. This might indicate that the "if it can" is used if there are other conditions, like being able to see, while "is available" is used for recharging, but we really do not have a lot of data points to establish a pattern here.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think "if it can" refers mainly to the 5-6 recharge. \$\endgroup\$
    – mdrichey
    Commented Nov 21, 2023 at 21:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mdrichey That is another possiblilty, added it, thank you. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 21, 2023 at 21:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why is it ambiguous? Your are less than 30 feet from yourself. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 22, 2023 at 1:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov The linked question explains the rationale for it. Essentially it makes the case that you interpret that "the mathematician's way", but that is not how many people would read it, and there are also several examples in the rules where the rules text implies that "a creature within X feet" is not including the origin creature \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 22, 2023 at 7:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ The “if it can” may also refer to the bonus action already having been used by the Gnoll Pack Lord. Personally I think using that clause as the sole basis to rule it out is too specific. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 22, 2023 at 11:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .