D&D 5E Melee attacks/unarmed strikes?

[CapnZapp]

The distinction lies between "Melee weapon attack", and "Attack with a melee weapon".

"Melee" attack indicates the range: that the attack is taking place in melee, within the reach of the weapon.
"Weapon" attack indicates that it is a physical attack rather than for example a spell attack.
Neither of those prevent an unarmed strike from being used. Only those effects that require a "with a melee weapon" do not allow unarmed strikes to count.

I'm sure you see how this can cause confusion.

Specifically saying "Neither of those prevent an unarmed strike from being used" right after enumerating "'Weapon' attack indicates that it is a physical attack rather than for example a spell attack."

Even more specifically: the word "weapon" is in both your terms. One allows unarmed strikes, the other doesn't.

It stands to reason naming terms compatible with unarmed strikes to something that doesn't include the word "weapon" would be clearer.

 

[Dausuul]

It gets worse. There is also a difference between "attack with a ranged weapon" and "make a ranged weapon attack." Throwing a dagger counts as the latter but not the former.

The problem is the phrase "weapon attack."

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, the game has never really come up with an effective word to use in place of 'weapon' to indicate a "non-spell" attack. You could use probably anything you wanted-- "Melee Combat Attack", "Ranged Armed Attack", "Melee Physical Attack", "Ranged Skirmish Attack" some word to replace 'weapon' so as to distinguish it from an attack via spell and which does not necessarily imply actually using a weapon.

It's the same game terminology issues that have plagued it since the beginning, like using 'Level' for every single thing you had graduating power in.

If they've tried to adapt the game terminology, it's never seemed to stick.

 

[CapnZapp]

The distinction lies between "Melee weapon attack", and "Attack with a melee weapon".

It gets worse. There is also a difference between "attack with a ranged weapon" and "make a ranged weapon attack." Throwing a dagger counts as the latter but not the former.

I don't consider this worse. This is an exact parallell - neither making it worse nor better.

The problem is the phrase "weapon attack."

Well, sort of.

The genesis of the confusion, of course, is that it was only AFTER release they came up with the Monk errata. Before errata - when unarmed was just another weapon - there was nothing awry with the phrase.

It simply means "a physical, as opposed to magical, attack". (There are attacks. They can be weapon attacks and they can be spell attacks. A monk kicking an Ogre in the head is clearly not the latter, and so it is the former)

If they had bothered to fix the Monk issue properly, instead of the present quick and dirty fix, we wouldn't have this conversation.

What I mean is, they could have kept hands and feet as "weapons" and instead made exceptions whenever it doesn't make sense for these limbs to follow a weapon-related rule. For instance, if it really is that important to prevent you from combining a natural weapon with, say, two-weapon fighting then say so for that particular feature. Yes, it's more involved, but a heck of a lot easier to understand: "natural weapons are weapons except where noted". Other cases to be determined include frenzy; various strikes, smites, and styles; retaliation, battle and war magic, disarms; weapon enchantment spells like Magic Weapon or Holy Weapon... just to mention some.

Or, they could have distinguished between "weapon attacks" and "unarmed strikes", and then amended every rule to match this. Whenever the PHB talks about weapon attacks and mean only attacks with weapons, nothing changes. (In many cases, the language already says "melee weapon attack" for instance. In those relatively few passages where it talks about weapon attacks and Monks are included, the language is amended to instead say "weapon attacks and martial strikes". For instance, the rule about moving between attacks (PHB190) says "If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks." It could easily say "If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack or unarmed strike, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks or strikes."

Generally, the fix comes across as sloppy. I am not at all convinced the Monk is so overpowered it needs to be barred from each and every instance of multiclassing synergy. Just as I am convinced some instances are too good, I'm convinced not all of them needed to be shut down.


The situation is entirely one self-inflicted by the designers.

 

[Blue]

Actually, if you check the PHB weapons table, the unarmed strike is listed. This makes your other points moot, apart from improvised weapons.

This was errata'd off the table several years ago.

 

[Harzel]

When a wolf attacks, it uses its bite, it would be weird to say it kicks you.

Well, if you ever played Everquest, you have probably been kicked by a snake.

 

[Tony Vargas]

why can I make a melee attack with something that is not a melee weapon ( Unarmed strikes ?
why are PC's with natural attacks held back in the melee weapon attack category...? but still why 2 sets of rules?
This seems to me to not make sense.
Why does the distinction between melee weapons and unarmed strike exist? why is one concidered a weapon and the other not?

Because: Monk.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because: Monk.

Needlessly complicating the whole game just because of one character class that doesn't even fit western fantasy doesn't make sense to me.

I would have preferred if the rules didn't take Monks into account, and everything Monk-related was then contained in the rules for Monks.

You know, exception-based rules design and all...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Needlessly complicating the whole game just because of one character class that doesn't even fit western fantasy ....

...is part of what makes it 'really D&D.'

 

[Dausuul]

I don't consider this worse. This is an exact parallel - neither making it worse nor better.

It's worse in that a problem which crops up in two places is worse than a problem which crops up in one.

I would prefer to see "weapon attack" changed to, say, "martial attack." That would clear everything up. It's a bit more gamey-sounding, but this is a case where I think it's worth it for clarity. Using "weapon attack" for unarmed strikes will always create confusion, and devising a whole other category of attacks just for unarmed strikes would monstrously complicate the rules.