November's SAGE ADVICE Is Here!

November's Sage Advice column by WotC's Jeremy Crawford is up. This month deals with lightfoot halfing and wood elf hiding racial traits, some class features, backgrounds (you can have only one!), muticlassing, surprise rounds in combat, and more. Check out this month's Sage Advice here. The advice here has been added to the Sage Advice Compendium.

 

[Mercule]

These two seem to contradict each other:

Can a rogue/monk use Sneak Attack with unarmed strikes? The Sneak Attack feature works with a weapon that has the finesse or ranged property. An unarmed strike isn’t a weapon, so it doesn’t qualify. In contrast, a rogue/monk can use Sneak Attack with a monk weapon, such as a shortsword or a dagger, that has one of the required properties.

Does the Savage Attacker feat work with unarmed strikes? Yes, it does. Savage Attacker benefits melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack.

Personally, I think it makes more sense 9/10 of the time for a Monk's unarmed strike to be considered a melee weapon. In the case of the first question, it totally fits the cinematic feel of the special ops guy who sneaks up behind an enemy and either snaps their neck with his bare hands or puts them in a sleeper hold.

 

[Li Shenron]

It was clarified before that "weapon" and "weapon attack" are not the same thing. So you can make a weapon attack with something that isn't a weapon, if such something tells you so.

 

[Mercule]

Fair enough. I think I'll still go with my interpretation, but at least I know why it's a house rule.

That seems like a very bizarre hair to split, but I'm sure that's been discussed to death.

 

[Minigiant]

Fair enough. I think I'll still go with my interpretation, but at least I know why it's a house rule.

That seems like a very bizarre hair to split, but I'm sure that's been discussed to death.

A lot of items in 5th edition were designed or errataed to be in separate categories so what stacked and didn't stack could be controlled.

Unarmed attacks was specially siloed off to make sure that only things that directly referred to unarmed attacks or affected any weapon attack would affect them. It's a lazy but brilliant way to ensure that they could go crazy with the monk without unintended consequences. By making 90% of the stuff that affects unarmed attacks come from the monk, you don't need to worry about outside interference that you didn't intended.

Individual DMs and groups could later take off these controls if they wished.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

The naming convention used is a bit confusing. Do the terms melee attack and melee weapon attack mean the same thing if unarmed strikes are considered the latter?

 

[Minigiant]

The naming convention used is a bit confusing. Do the terms melee attack and melee weapon attack mean the same thing if unarmed strikes are considered the latter?

No, melee attack and melee weapon attack are not the same.
There are melee weapon attacks (hitting someone with an axe) and melee spell attack (hitting someone with vampire touch).
In the future there might be melee psionic attacks as well.

 

[EternalDungeonMaster]

The term "weapon attack" differentiates an non-spell attack from a "spell attack." But yeah, making a weapon attack with something that is explicitly not a weapon (such as an unarmed strike) can create some confusion. I'm sort of surprised that made it through the supposedly exhaustive play testing that 5e underwent.

My opinion is that, as has always been the case since D&D first crawled out of the womb, DMs should feel free to use whatever rules they wish in their games.

 

[TwoSix]

The naming convention used is a bit confusing. Do the terms melee attack and melee weapon attack mean the same thing if unarmed strikes are considered the latter?

I believe melee weapon attacks are a subset of melee attacks. Same thing for melee spell attacks. It's the "All emus are birds, but not all birds are emus" logic.

 

[Remathilis]

The naming convention used is a bit confusing. Do the terms melee attack and melee weapon attack mean the same thing if unarmed strikes are considered the latter?

This is what I've gathered on the topic, using the Monster Manual as my example guide...

Attacks can be broken into two categories: range (Melee or Ranged) and Type (Weapon or Spell). You can mix and match the two to create different types of attacks.

Melee+Weapon: longsword, dagger, bite, claw, unarmed strike. Uses Strength unless a rule (finesse, monk) says otherwise.
Ranged+Weapon: longbow, crossbow, thrown dagger, blight needles, tail spines. Uses Dexterity unless a rule (thrown property) says otherwise.
Spell+Melee: Flameblade, shocking grasp, intoxicating touch, life drain. Ability score varies based on Caster/Monster (but typically Int/Wis/Cha)
Spell+Ranged: scorching ray, ray of frost, demon/devil hurl fire, empyrian bolt. Ability score varies based on Caster/Monster.

If the rules refer to a "Melee weapon attack" They are only referring to attacks made with a natural (claw/strike) or manufactured weapon (sword, axe). If they refer to a "melee attack", it can be either a Weapon or Spell attack made in melee. If they refer to a Weapon Attack, its a Melee or Ranged natural/manufactured weapon attack. But if they refer to a Weapon (no attack) they are referring only to the list of manufactured weapons (swords, axes) but not natural weapons.

Yeah, the terminology could've been clearer.

This also ties into Damage Resistance; the PHB errata added a touch of MM errata that should read "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons ATTACKS", otherwise a longsword would be resisted but a claw, bite, or unarmed strike would not. Crawford clarified this somewhere.

EDIT: Fixed Important Typo.