D&D 5E "....as if you were concentrating on a spell"

[Flamestrike]

I.e. The intent was always that Smite required a weapon, and WotC screwed up in their wording.

Smite damage (according to the ability) only apples to weapon damage.

Curiously, seeing as unarmed strikes aren't weapon damage, Heavy Armor Mastery provides no protection against unarmed strikes or even from natural attacks.

Which proves my thesis: WotC does not apply their own rules consistently, and RAW is for idiots.

Thats why I was referring to the RAW in light of the RAI (as posted above).

As a Lawyer IRL, when legislation is not clear, I turn to Hansard and Parliamentary debates to determine what legislation was intended to mean.

Im doing the same here. The authors of the the text have clearly stated that if they intend for an ability to be magical, they'll expressly use that term in the text of the ability itself. Otherwise it's an extraordinary or even supernatural ability, but not 'magical' for game purposes.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Smite damage (according to the ability) only apples to weapon damage.

But what does weapon damage mean? Is there a specific ruling that an attack with a natural weapon does not do weapon damage? What about natural weapons that are weapons, and not unarmed strikes, such as the Path of the Beast?

Curiously, seeing as unarmed strikes aren't weapon damage, Heavy Armor Mastery provides no protection against unarmed strikes or even from natural attacks.

Which is patently ridiculous.

As a Lawyer IRL,

That explains a lot.

 

[Flamestrike]

But what does weapon damage mean? Is there a specific ruling that an attack with a natural weapon does not do weapon damage? What about natural weapons that are weapons, and not unarmed strikes>

Actually you're right; natural weapons deal weapon damage (as per the MM).

Pretty sure unarmed strikes are not weapons, as they are not natural weapons. And when the game references 'weapon damage' it specifically refers to the damage of manufactured weapons.

That explains a lot.

No need to be a snark.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Lawyer: someone whose job it is to make sure the letter of the law interferes with the spirit of the law.

Pretty sure unarmed strikes are not weapons, as they are not natural weapons.

Cat's Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes.

-VGTM

The Law is an ass.

 

[Flamestrike]

Lawyer: someone whose job it is to make sure the letter of the law interferes with the spirit of the law.

Utter bull dust. Quit the personal attacks or I'll bite back.

And the claws of the Tabaxi are an exception to the general rule that natural weapons and unarmed strikes are not the same thing (which is why the cats claws rule exists in the first place).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Utter bull dust. Quit the personal attacks or I'll bite back.

It's nothing personal, it applies to the whole profession.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

-William Shakespeare

And the claws of the Tabaxi are an exception to the general rule that natural weapons and unarmed strikes are not the same thing (which is why the cats claws rule exists in the first place).

No, it's so Tabaxi monks can do slashing damage.

Unarmed Strikes are not "attacks with a weapon" but they are "weapon attacks" and do "weapon damage". There is no separate "unarmed strike damage" category.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's nothing personal, it applies to the whole profession.

And by extension me. Its a personal attack, and I politely ask you to retract it.

 

[Flamestrike]

Unarmed Strikes are not "attacks with a weapon" but they are "weapon attacks" and do "weapon damage".

Yes, Yes and No.

You dont deal 'damage with a weapon' when you land an unarmed strike.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think Sage Advice counts as "the rules". It is sometimes useful rules apocrypha.

What they write there seems pretty reasonable. But if I pick up the actual rulebooks, I find the word "supernatural" used all over the place, including within spell descriptions.

I agree that the game has some vague distinction between the magic a wizard uses and other abilities, within the rulebooks it is not clear cut. I think there's a judgement call involved, so that two reasonable GMs may see it quite differently.

In the rules, though, most stuff that is magic is either called magic, as such, is a spell, or is very obvious. Stuff like dragons breath and unicorns are magical in an in-world sense, but aren’t affected by anti-magic, and thus aren’t magical on a game mechanics level.

All sage advice is doing is clarifying that, because the rules aren’t straight forward enough about it to explicitly spell it out, and people had questions as a result.

 

[Umbran]

All sage advice is doing is clarifying that, because the rules aren’t straight forward enough about it to explicitly spell it out, and people had questions as a result.

I don't argue that the Sage Advice version of it isn't a decent take. It is fine.

But, I also think a GM with the PHB and DMG in hands would be entirely okay to say, "No, you can't summon that thing in an anti-magic field, because it is magic." And not be outside the rules in so doing.

It is a "rulings, not rules" thing.