Due to the insane arguments about non-weapon "weapon attacks," I figure it's probably a good idea to use 1D&D as an opportunity to fix this with natural language. By adding "natural attacks" to describe using a part of the body to attack (including most monster attacks), this separates them from those with weapons. Anything that is intentionally only usable unarmed or with a weapon can be described as such without confusion.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) Attack Types Suggestion
- Thread starter Shiroiken
- Start date
I like this, but does their really need to be a distinction? Why not just let all physical attacks be weapon attacks? Is sneak attacking or smiting on a punch really that bad?
If it is that bad, how about just a quick note saying "unarmed attacks do not count as weapon attacks for the purpose of sneaks or smites, unless you have a special rule from a feat or class feature that says otherwise"?
If it is that bad, how about just a quick note saying "unarmed attacks do not count as weapon attacks for the purpose of sneaks or smites, unless you have a special rule from a feat or class feature that says otherwise"?
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
All physical attacks (or to be precise, all attacks that aren’t spell attacks) are weapon attacks. The point of confusion is the fact that unarmed strikes are not weapons, despite being “weapon attacks.”
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Really, I don’t think it’s terribly complicated. There are two types of attacks: those that are spells, and those that are not spells. The fact that unarmed strikes aren’t weapons makes sense because they literally aren’t. The fact that unarmed strikes fall under the type of attack that aren’t spells also makes sense because of course they aren’t spells. The real problem is that the type of attacks that aren’t spells was poorly named, since there are attacks that are not spells and are also not made with weapons. You don’t need a third category of attack to fix this problem, you just need to re-name “weapon attacks” to “physical attacks” or something like that.
Last edited:
Agreed. Unarmed is a simple weapon that does 1 damage, plain and simple.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I don’t know if there’s an interaction that makes it important, but it does kinda fly in the face of natural language. An unarmed strike is not a weapon - in fact, “unarmed” literally means without a weapon.
Some people don't seem to have an issue with it, but it can create baffling situations, especially when we really don't know RAI. For example, Crawford has stated that your paladin cannot use Smite with an unarmed attack, since it's not an "attack with a weapon," but the original PHB had unarmed as a simple weapon. Since this was later errated, this I would assume this meant that RAI was to allowed unarmed Smites. Unless they want to move to using keywords, which they seem loathe to do, adding in "Natural Attack" to weapon and spell attacks allows them to specify what they intend. This would also allow them the extra option of different effects based on natural attacks vs weapon attacks (such as against a fire elemental).
Similar Threads
