November's SAGE ADVICE Is Here!

JohnLynch · Nov 17, 2015

Minigiant said:
Feats. It's feats and a lesser extent multiclassing. Although optional, many will use them. Once Unarmed strikes are weapon, there's a bunch of rules layering, power gaming junk a DM has to deal with.

Rather that explain and write down every corner case, it's easier and lazier and cheaper to silo it of.

What feats cause problems if unarmed stroke is a weapon?

EzekielRaiden · Nov 17, 2015

JohnLynch said:
What feats cause problems if unarmed stroke is a weapon?

I'm also curious about this. The main offense feats people crow about (PM, SS, GWM) don't apply. TWF might, but I'm really not sure that makes such a big difference. What feats are a problem?

Lord Twig · Nov 17, 2015

CapnZapp said:
Sorry I should have been more clear I adressed Lord Twig only. I wasn't really meaning to stat a general opinion on the mechanics of the ability.

Meaning; IF you think there's something fundamentally flawed, it should be the initiative check, not "that the attack that starts a combat would fail to surprise its target" since the attack that starts the combat DO surprise the target, only not quick enough for the assassin ability to kick in.

Hope that's clearer

Yeah, I've been thinking about this more, and it makes sense. So the surprised target would get a turn first, not be able to do anything, but could then react to the attack as it hits. So I guess it works.

Plus the Assassin really doesn't need a power boost.

Pauper · Nov 17, 2015

GobiWon said:
The confusion occurred because they used the term melee weapon attacks to describe them. They are now melee weapon attacks that do not use weapons.

I don't see that the actual way the attack was described is all that confusing:

"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes." (Basic Rules, p.73)

The confusion only really applies because people insist on conflating a monk's unarmed strike with an attack with a 'monk weapon' that counts for the purpose of the monk's Martial Arts feature. This has much more to do with people bringing in baggage from previous editions and assuming Fifth Edition is intended to work the same way than it does with any lack of clarity in the rules.

--
Pauper

brehobit · Nov 17, 2015

ad_hoc said:
Yes, that is exactly how it works. What is unclear about it?

Say I am hidden. I take a shot. The GM _could_ have that shot happen "outside of initiative order" and _then_ roll initiative.

Or they could have initiative be rolled. When the target wins, I could chose not to take the shot and wait. They still don't know I'm there. So, at some point, we are out of initiative order. I then indicate I'd like to shoot. Repeat until I win initiative.

Seems odd across the board. And how are that "no longer surprised" if nothing has happened yet? Very strange.

ChrisCarlson · Nov 17, 2015

CapnZapp said:
No, I did not mean to single out the spell. Read my post as: "it's how the spell expeditious retreat and related effects work"

That you can't stack two effects that both allow you to take an (extra) dash action as a bonus action is just how the game was intended to work.

You need to blame the decision to execute all these "extra movement" features as using the bonus action, but frankly I don't see a problem. It's just another case of this edition preventing stacking cheese by sticking it on the oh-so-versatile-but-you-ever-only-get-one bonus action.

As I see it, you can't blame any single source of this "bonus dash" for the others not stacking with it. Putting the blame on the spell is to me wonky. In isolation, the spell is perfectly fine.

Had the Arcane Trickster been given a spell list of its own, I would have agreed adding Expeditious Retreat to that list would have been a mistake. But as things stand, I perfectly understand why WotC didn't bother saying "you get the Wizard Spell List, but not this particular spell that you won't be using"

I wasn't talking about stacking issues.

Blackbrrd · Nov 17, 2015

brehobit said:
Say I am hidden. I take a shot. The GM _could_ have that shot happen "outside of initiative order" and _then_ roll initiative.

Or they could have initiative be rolled. When the target wins, I could chose not to take the shot and wait. They still don't know I'm there. So, at some point, we are out of initiative order. I then indicate I'd like to shoot. Repeat until I win initiative.

Seems odd across the board. And how are that "no longer surprised" if nothing has happened yet? Very strange.

If you are hidden, then you have surprised everyone and the only one who can act in the first round.

brehobit · Nov 17, 2015

Blackbrrd said:
If you are hidden, then you have surprised everyone and the only one who can act in the first round.

Right, but if they beat me in initiative, they aren't surprised any more. So they don't act, but they do become "un-surprised"

Minigiant · Nov 17, 2015

JohnLynch said:
What feats cause problems if unarmed stroke is a weapon?

EzekielRaiden said:
I'm also curious about this. The main offense feats people crow about (PM, SS, GWM) don't apply. TWF might, but I'm really not sure that makes such a big difference. What feats are a problem?

It's less of it being a problem and more future proofing.

If Unarmed is a weapon, it counts for every single feat, spell, class feature, or racial trait that doesn't go out of its way to block it. And you have a class that can attack with it 3-4 times a turn at possibly 1d12 damage.

I can count the amount of designers I trust to balance that with one hand.

ad_hoc · Nov 17, 2015

brehobit said:
Say I am hidden. I take a shot. The GM _could_ have that shot happen "outside of initiative order" and _then_ roll initiative.

The DM can do anything they want. Not sure how that makes rules confusing.

Or they could have initiative be rolled. When the target wins, I could chose not to take the shot and wait. They still don't know I'm there. So, at some point, we are out of initiative order. I then indicate I'd like to shoot. Repeat until I win initiative.

But you don't know that. If anyone tried to pull this kind of stuff at the table we would stop the game to talk about.

Seems odd across the board. And how are that "no longer surprised" if nothing has happened yet? Very strange.

Turns happen simultaneously.

Think about it this way, if there are 20 creatures in a combat, does each round now take 2 minutes? It's an abstraction.

So it has happened. It is just that their reflexes are fast enough to react to you because you are too slow. It is kind of like an opposed Dexterity Saving Throw.