November's SAGE ADVICE Is Here!

Kobold Stew · Nov 16, 2015

JohnLynch said:
Already excluded because they're not a finesse weapon.

Already excluded by not being a finesse weapon.

I don't think we're disagreeing -- but there's a reason why they have worded unarmed strikes the way they have (monks can use dexterity for their unarmed strikes) rather with one of the alternatives (e.g. for monks, unarmed strikes are considered to have the finesse quality).

Greenstone.Walker · Nov 17, 2015

I think the separation of weapon attacks makes sense, because there are different modifiers applying to the rolls.

Weapon	Attack Roll	Damage Roll
Unarmed strike	Proficiency mod + STR mod	STR mod
Improvised weapon (includes shield)	STR mod only¹	STR mod
Actual weapon, proficient	Proficiency mod + STR or DEX mod	STR or DEX mod

¹ Tavern Brawler lets you add your Proficiency mod.

As for whether sneak attack works with unarmed strikes, I note that there aren't any bludgeoning finesse weapons, so you could make the argument that unarmed strikes might be a weapon, but it isn't a finesse weapon, so it doesn't work with sneak attack. On the other hand, sneak attack works with a sling, which does do bludgeoning damage. You could argue that the skill needed to aim a sling stone into a vulnerable point of a target is more than the skill needed to aim a knuckle into the same point, so sneak attack should apply to unarmed strikes.

Allowing sneak attack with unarmed strikes does make a disarmed rogue much more dangerous than a disarmed fighter.

GobiWon · Nov 17, 2015

AverageCitizen said:
It isn't a weapon at all, so it doesn't even work with it. The ruling is really just for hitting people with a shield when you don't have a weapon.

It can be a weapon - an improvised weapon. You just don't get your proficiency bonus. You can make it a proficient weapon with the weapon master feat, but now we are talking three feats to give you both shield AC bonus and an effective 1d4 weapon in your off-hand.

GobiWon · Nov 17, 2015

Tazawa said:
I don't think it will work that way. A shield, even if used as an improvised weapon, does not have the "light" weapon property. I would rule that it doesn't even work with the Dual Wielder feat, as a shield is not a "melee weapon" either. The only time that this is really useful is when you lose your weapon for some reason and have no other choice.

Happy gaming!

It can be a weapon - an improvised weapon. You just don't get your proficiency bonus. You can make it a proficient weapon with the weapon master feat. We are now talking three feats to give you both shield AC bonus and an effective 1d4 weapon in your off-hand.

Flamestrike · Nov 17, 2015

Kobold Stew said:
I wish they'd been a little more chatty on the shield-as-a-weapon ruling.

The decision to allow the AC bonus to stay if you make a shield attack isn't the call I'd make, but that's fine. There are spillover effects, though:

e.g. how does it interact with the Dual Wielder feat? Is an improvised weapon (shield) a melee weapon? PHB 147-48 isn't clear either way, I think, but potentially, the feat would allow a shield to grant a +3 and still let you make a 1d4 (or more?) attack with the off hand. (I am presuming that a shield isn't "light").

I'm sure there are other loopholes.

Not sure I'd call it a loophole.

Spending a feat on Taven brawler (to gain proficiency in the shield) a feat on Dual weilder (to allow an attack with the shield and weapon in the same turn) and a Fighting style for +Str to off hand damage is an awfully large investment.

You could instead grab Polearm master, GWF and protection style for a 2 point lower AC, higher damage, a bonus opportunity attack, and reach.

Pauper · Nov 17, 2015

Kobold Stew said:
I agree that this should be the case for the cantrip Magic Stone, but it isn't:

"You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the stones..."

DMs could of course rule differently.

A DM could rule however she chooses, but ruling that you can Sneak Attack with a Magic Stone fired from a sling is not against the rules:

"The attack must use a finesse or ranged weapon." (Basic Rules, p.27)

"You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling." (EEPC, p.20)

If you throw a Magic Stone pebble with a sling, you are making a ranged spell attack, but with a ranged weapon. Sneak Attack doesn't say it must be made with a weapon attack, it simply says the attack (melee, ranged, or spell) must use a finesse or ranged weapon. This is significant, because the type of attack (melee, ranged, or spell) does not have to match the means of delivering the attack -- for example, you can deliver a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike, despite the unarmed strike not being a weapon.

Note, though, that the pebble isn't a weapon, so simply throwing the Magic Stone doesn't qualify you to use Sneak Attack, just as making a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike (which isn't a weapon) doesn't allow you to add Sneak Attack to your unarmed strike damage. Getting to use Sneak Attack with a sling-delivered Magic Stone is simply the logical extension of not getting to use it with a monk's unarmed strike.

--
Pauper

Leatherhead · Nov 17, 2015

Remathilis said:
Yeah, the terminology could've been clearer.

This is one of the most headache inducing things about 5e, and it's not just attacks, making sense of the actions in a turn is a Gordian knot. They really should have avoided giving the same technical term multiple meanings. Changing "Melee Weapon Attack" to "Melee Strike Attack" would have helped

Tia Nadiezja · Nov 17, 2015

Lightfoot/Wood Elf rule - Good, what I've been doing all along.
Quicken Spell rule - Good, what I've been doing since I actually bothered to read the section on bonus action spells about two sessions after the PHB came out.
Extra Attack rule - I'm not sure where this one was vague to begin with.
Backgrounds - Again... not sure where the vagueness comes from.
Shields - Never had someone attack with a shield. This is the most useful clarification here, though, since having seen it here I now know if someone does.
Surprise Round - Doesn't really clarify much in a practical sense, but it works.
Knockout rules - Seems fiddly, a bit. I can KO someone with lightning if the spell I'm casting only works when I'm right near them, but not if it's a spell I can zorch people with from 10 feet away?
Dash/Cunning Action - I hadn't really thought about this, but the rule seems clear.
Unarmed Sneak Attack - I hate this rule. I really, really, really do. I'm not sure it'll ever come up, but if it does it's getting house ruled in my games, because it cuts off a course of action that isn't unbalanced and helps precisely nothing while devastating some corner-case character concepts rather utterly.
Unarmed Savage Attacker - I like this one for the same reason I hate the sneak attack one.
Planar Binding - Yeah. That's how it works.
Hail of Thorns - Spell's like a smite.

Some direct clarifications of things that seemed obvious to me, some great stuff with dashing, and the ruling on sneak attacking with unarmed strikes is lousy 'cause it makes the game more restrictive without making it better. Mixed bag.

CapnZapp · Nov 17, 2015

Mercule said:
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 said:
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.

Could someone direct me to a comprehensive overview WHY the designers have decided these byzantine measures were needed?

I am having trouble motivating myself to bother with the errata since I don't see why all the headache-inducing complexity is needed.

I'm sure it's discussed in many places, but I beg of you, please don't just link to a 100 page thread.

I'm asking if there is a single article or post that intellegibly and concisely explains why all this "my fists aren't weapons except when they are" malarkey is needed, including a list of all the supposed loophole abuse that we're spared.

Thanks muchly in advance,
Zapp

CapnZapp · Nov 17, 2015

Lidgar said:
Nice to see an explanation on surprise. Only took about 10,000 pages of debate here to catch their attention that it needed some treatment.

I can understand their ruling for "no surprise once combat has started" since that is simple.

OTOH, to me it's trivial to add "you can still be surprised during combat, making you unable to act against your surpriser. You can still take actions you would have taken otherwise, actions directed at those foes that haven't surprised you."

If you're fighting goblins, and my Orc surprisingly jumps out to swing an axe in your face in round 3, to me it isn't difficult to tell you that in round 4, you can keep fighting the goblins, but you can't take any action against the Orc, since he surprised you.

Effectively, you lose your action, but against the Orc only.

So if you tell me you attack the Orc, I say no. If you tell me you run away, I ask you "is it because of the Orc?". If you say yes, I tell you you can't. If you say "no it's honestly because there's too many goblins" I might believe you and allow it. This works because you the player and I the DM aren't competing against each other.

If, on the other hand, you say "I keep zapping goblins" that's perfectly okay and not something the Orc can stop. The fact the Orc surprises you does not prevent you from taking that action, since it was something you would do if the Orc weren't there.

Again, writing down a rule to cover this is something I accept the designers don't want to do.