November's SAGE ADVICE Is Here!

November's Sage Advice column by WotC's Jeremy Crawford is up. This month deals with lightfoot halfing and wood elf hiding racial traits, some class features, backgrounds (you can have only one!), muticlassing, surprise rounds in combat, and more. Check out this month's Sage Advice here. The advice here has been added to the Sage Advice Compendium.

 

[GobiWon]

Deleted. I meant to reply to a post.

 

[GobiWon]

I don't think there actual articles and post on it.
I believe there was a podcast or video somewhere where Mearls said they wanted unarmed strike to be in the domain of the monk and having it contained and confined mostly there, the risks of broken combos are lowered.

But you can see the intent once you make the "unarmed strike is a weapon" judgement, once all those spells, items, class features, race features, how wonky things can get if a new player or power gamer gets ahold of it.

So instead of calling it a melee weapon attack we should call it a melee, non-spell attack or a mundane melee attack to differentiate it from a spell attack but not confuse it with a melee attack made with a weapon.

 

[Minigiant]

So instead of calling it a melee weapon attack we should call it a melee, non-spell attack or a mundane melee attack to differentiate it from a spell attack but not confuse it with a melee attack made with a weapon.

"Non-spell attack" is ugly looking. I rather confusing than defaulting "greataxe 2 da face" as "non-spell attack"

And mundane. What about magic swords? Magic sword slashes aren't mundane. A monk's punch stops being mundane at level 5.

Just trading one problem for another.

 

[GobiWon]

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

A pebble is a weapon, an improvised weapon, but a weapon, and improvised weapons have range. You should be able to use it with a sneak attack. The problem with unarmed strike is the ruling that it is a melee weapon attack but not an attack with a weapon. We should call unarmed strikes mundane melee attacks or non-spell melee attacks to differentiate them from melee attacks made with weapons. It was grouped with weapon attacks for convenience, but the wording causes confusion.

 

[GobiWon]

"Non-spell attack" is ugly looking. I rather confusing than defaulting "greataxe 2 da face" as "non-spell attack"

And mundane. What about magic swords? Magic sword slashes aren't mundane. A monk's punch stops being mundane at level 5.

Just trading one problem for another.

An attack with a weapon would still be a melee weapon attack. This wording would be for unarmed strikes.

 

[Minigiant]

An attack with a weapon would still be a melee weapon attack. This wording would be for unarmed strikes.

Still ugly and/or confusing.
High level monks can punch death in enemies and bypass armor resistant to steel.. Far from mundane

Trading one problem for another.

 

[Pauper]

A pebble is a weapon, an improvised weapon, but a weapon, and improvised weapons have range. You should be able to use it with a sneak attack. The problem with unarmed strike is the ruling that it is a melee weapon attack but not an attack with a weapon. We should call unarmed strikes mundane melee attacks or non-spell melee attacks to differentiate them from melee attacks made with weapons. It was grouped with weapon attacks for convenience, but the wording causes confusion.

The thing I find amusing in this discussion is that defining a new category of attack does nothing to resolve confusion with when you can or can't Sneak Attack, because the definition of Sneak Attack doesn't rely on a specific type of attack (melee, ranged, or spell), but on the type of weapon used to make the attack (finesse or ranged).

Trying to impose a Pathfinder/Fourth Edition level of definition on a system that actively refuses to adopt that level of definition is going to cause more problems than it solves.

--
Pauper

 

[GobiWon]

The thing I find amusing in this discussion is that defining a new category of attack does nothing to resolve confusion with when you can or can't Sneak Attack, because the definition of Sneak Attack doesn't rely on a specific type of attack (melee, ranged, or spell), but on the type of weapon used to make the attack (finesse or ranged).

Trying to impose a Pathfinder/Fourth Edition level of definition on a system that actively refuses to adopt that level of definition is going to cause more problems than it solves.

--
Pauper

Only weapons have weapon properties (finesse or ranged). By eliminating the notion that unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, you eliminate the idea that they could be used for sneak attacks. Unarmed attacks are not weapons thus have no weapon properties. They cannot be used for sneak attacks. 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. How about the term non-weapon melee attacks? They need a new category because too many people are trying to use powers and features only available to attacks made with weapons with unarmed strikes.

 

[Minigiant]

If martial weapons were called military weapons instead, it would free up the words "martial attack" to be the oppposite of "spell attack".

But you know....

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But what kind of damage is a headbutt? A lariat? A knee or elbow? An eye gouge via fingers?

What does the form call for? If you choose to narrate it as a headbutt or an eye-gouge or whatever else, that's your prerogative, as explicitly stated in the book...which I already said.

Most "opening" attacks use Jab damage. They can be any kind of physical motion your DM is willing to accept.
Most "flow" attacks use Punch damage. They can be any kind of physical motion your DM is willing to accept.
Most "finishing" attacks use Kick damage. They can be any kind of physical motion your DM is willing to accept.

You can have a Drunken Master Dwarf Monk who wields a tankard (Frost-enchanted, of course) in one hand and a smithing hammer in the other, or an Earthbender Dragonborn Monk who flings around bits of stone with the power of her kung fu, or a ninja equipped with sais and kamas. Does not matter. They all look at what the specific move they're using tells them to do: 1d6 per level for "Jab" (even if it's a crane kick or an axe slash in the fiction), 1d8 per level for a "Punch" (even if it's a swirl of fire or a dagger's stab in the fiction), or 1d10 for a "Kick" (even if it's a crushing hammer blow or a nasty uppercut in the fiction.

The mechanics for executing the parts of a form don't change: every Monk that uses a particular mystic form generates the same result as long as they use bare hands or the wagons of their monastic tradition (because all Monk abilities are supernatural, even if they don't all rely on exuding poison from the body or slinging hot fire). The fiction is whatever you want it to be. Hence why I call it elegant. Monks have bare hands (or even bear hands, if multiclassed Druid!), but they don't use "unarmed attacks"--especially because they are absolutely allowed to use whatever particular weapons are appropriate to their tradition, which is left up to the player and DM to determine. Their monastic training completely replaces such mundane acts with the power of the Monk's "wisdom" etc., thus allowing the class to do whatever it needs to do to be balanced without creating any potential for abuse whatsoever.