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.

 

[JohnLynch]

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.

Fair enough. As someone who won't be introducing any rules into the game without careful vetting, I don't need that "future proofing" because future material won't be entering into my game without being balanced with prior material. That level of unnecessary caution is why these Sage Advice documents are of so little worth to me. I'd rather not twist myself into a pretzel to avoid making unarmed strikes count as weapons and instead not introduce material that blows up the game when used with unarmed strike.

That's also probably one of 5e's strengths. The rules are simple enough that broken combinations can be observed with minimal play testing.

 

[GobiWon]

Unarmed strike is not a weapon. It has never been a weapon. The designers have repeatedly stated this.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm intrigued by the ruling confirming you can Dash more than once in a round. This allows for otherwise particularly fast characters to get a bit out of hand, IMO.

That's the only way for the spell expeditious retreat to make you actually move faster.

If you couldn't double-dash you would never move triple-speed, and any "bonus dash" would in practice only mean "you can move, dash and do something else too".

AFAIC, that's a problem with the spell, not dash. An arcane trickster gets no benefit from it (something that's bothered me since the PHB was released).

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.

What, then, were you talking about?

As you can see from the complete "sub-thread" you'll forgive me for thinking "double dashes" was news to you and that you then realized this makes the spell useless to rogues since they already have the exact same ability.

Or, in other words, stacking issues.

What "problem with the spell" are you having if it isn't related to how it is implemented or its interaction with Cunning Action?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Unarmed strike is not a weapon. It has never been a weapon. The designers have repeatedly stated this.

But it is a melee weapon attack. That is what is throwing people for a loop. Unarmed strike is a melee attack, and a melee weapon attack, but not a weapon (melee or otherwise).

Which leaves me to wonder what they'll do if they ever try having handheld, offensive magic items that improve/modify the damage dealt by unarmed strikes, e.g. cestus, bagh naka/tiger claw, brass knuckle, himantes, myrmex, nyepel, etc. All of which, in genuine "natural language" terms, are absolutely weapons, but clearly are made specifically for modifying how fists do damage, which 5e calls "unarmed strikes."

 

[brehobit]

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.

Kind of. But let's try this again. I say "I shoot my bow". The DM calls for initiative. I roll badly. I still need to shoot my bow? I don't realize I don't have a good shot?

I assume I can otherwise act with an understanding of the initiative order (for example I might use a power to move an ally because I know the bad guy is going to act before the ally does). Why not here?

I'd argue that anything which leads to discussions like this is sub-optimal. I think the best way to go is to handle the attack as what triggers the initiative roll. Nothing else really makes sense. And no, I don't play an assassin--I play a fighter in one game and DM another (with an assassin PC).

 

[GobiWon]

But it is a melee weapon attack. That is what is throwing people for a loop. Unarmed strike is a melee attack, and a melee weapon attack, but not a weapon (melee or otherwise).

Which leaves me to wonder what they'll do if they ever try having handheld, offensive magic items that improve/modify the damage dealt by unarmed strikes, e.g. cestus, bagh naka/tiger claw, brass knuckle, himantes, myrmex, nyepel, etc. All of which, in genuine "natural language" terms, are absolutely weapons, but clearly are made specifically for modifying how fists do damage, which 5e calls "unarmed strikes."

They are melee weapon attacks made with weapons and are not unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes do not include weapons.

 

[GobiWon]

Kind of. But let's try this again. I say "I shoot my bow". The DM calls for initiative. I roll badly. I still need to shoot my bow? I don't realize I don't have a good shot?

I assume I can otherwise act with an understanding of the initiative order (for example I might use a power to move an ally because I know the bad guy is going to act before the ally does). Why not here?

I'd argue that anything which leads to discussions like this is sub-optimal. I think the best way to go is to handle the attack as what triggers the initiative roll. Nothing else really makes sense. And no, I don't play an assassin--I play a fighter in one game and DM another (with an assassin PC).

Some of these weapons may become monk weapons but they will never be additions to unarmed strikes.

 

[ad_hoc]

Kind of. But let's try this again. I say "I shoot my bow". The DM calls for initiative. I roll badly. I still need to shoot my bow?

Yes. That is what "I shoot my bow means." You do it and the DM tells you how to resolve that action.

I don't realize I don't have a good shot?

You will still get advantage on the attack for being an unseen attacker. And no you don't, you can't see the future. You can't know that the target will flinch at the last second and you will miss their heart.

I assume I can otherwise act with an understanding of the initiative order (for example I might use a power to move an ally because I know the bad guy is going to act before the ally does). Why not here?

Because you aren't reacting to anything.

Also, there are limits to 'acting with knowing initiative order'. I assume that means that you and your allies are communicating in battle to coordinate your actions. It should be kept in mind that this is a simplification to allow the game to work and be simple and fun. That everything is taking place in the same 6 seconds, so you can't do something ridiculous like chain 6 actions together as though each were its own 6 seconds.

I'd argue that anything which leads to discussions like this is sub-optimal. I think the best way to go is to handle the attack as what triggers the initiative roll. Nothing else really makes sense. And no, I don't play an assassin--I play a fighter in one game and DM another (with an assassin PC).

There are very complex rules systems out there for RPGs which attempt to prevent players from twisting them to ridiculous advantages. People complain that Sage Advice is making everything complicated. I would say that people are making things more complicated than they need to be and Sage Advice is answering their request to make it complicated. I can't think of a ruling in Sage Advice that I didn't feel was already apparent in the rules. The key for me has been to read it simply and to not assume rules that have been in past editions (like a surprise round).

5e is not designed that way. Play should be in the spirit of the game.

You are free to buff the assassin or make any other houserules you want.

Just know that the assassin was designed around the idea that they must surprise and win initiative to get an automatic critical.

 

[Pauln6]

The unarmed damage of a monk scales so it's obvious why they would not want it to stack with sneak attack. The ruling seems to make sense to me.

The ruling that I find irritating is about the Dash action. Rogue's dashing as a bonus action is to replicate the fantasy trope of throwing objects in your pursuer's path (creating difficult terrain to slow them down) or ducking into an alley to hide. As soon as you can dash twice all that becomes irrelevant since you can outrun anybody. It sucks the fun and imagination out of the cunning action. The problem gets even worse when you stack on racial, feat, and class additional movement, which you can now triple every round whether darting in or out of combat. It gets as cheesy as hell.

It's not a sage advice I have any intention of following.

 

[Flamestrike]

But it is a melee weapon attack. That is what is throwing people for a loop. Unarmed strike is a melee attack, and a melee weapon attack, but not a weapon (melee or otherwise).

Read the MM. Claws, slams, tentacles, bites, rakes etc are also melee attacks and melee weapon attacks, but not weapons.

From monster stats in the DMG basic:

Bite ­ Melee Weapon Attack:+6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.Hit: 15 (2d10 + 4) piercing damage.
Claw ­ Melee Weapon Attack:+6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.Hit: 8 (1d8 + 4) slashing damage.

Multiattack. The Armor makes two melee attacks.
Slam ­ Melee Weapon Attack:+4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) bludgeoning damage.

Multiattack. The ape makes two fist attacks.
Fist. Melee Weapon Attack:+5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) bludgeoning damage.

Rake ­ Melee Weapon Attack:+1 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.Hit: 1 (1d4 − 1) slashing damage.

Melee attacks are divided into two subcategories: 'Melee weapon' attacks and 'Melee spell' attacks.

Melee spell attacks (such as shocking grasp) are not eligible for paladin smites, sneak attack, bonus damage from rage etc.

Melee weapon attacks (such as fists, unarmed strikes, improvised weapons, swords etc) are eligible for paladin smites, sneak attacks, bonus rage damage etc.

Calling out an unarmed strike as a 'melee weapon attack' means that Paladin/ Monks can smite with it, Barbarian/Monks can get rage bonus damage with it etc. Saying a 'fist' is not a weapon means that you cant cast magic weapon on a fist (among other things).

See the difference?