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.

 

[RangerWickett]

I would think the fact that unarmed strike isn't a finesse weapon, regardless of any confusion between a weapon and a weapon attack, should be clear enough that Sneak Attack doesn't work with it.

My question is why is an unarmed strike not treated as a weapon? Sure, you can't get disarmed (barring amputation), but it is a thing that you use physical force to move in order to cause a wound on an enemy. A fist is a weapon. A claw is a weapon. They're just natural weapons, not manufactured ones.

Is there a game design or narrative justification for penalizing them by making them not be weapons?

Likewise, what's the harm in combining spells with sneak attack? Yes, as the rules are written a spell isn't a weapon, but if you're aiming a ray of frost, and you hit, what is the justification for why that ray of frost cannot be precisely aimed as a sneak attack, but an arrow or even a boomerang can be?

 

[JohnLynch]

I have a Strength-based rogue, basically a THUG, using Finesse weapons and am quite happy with it so, I agree, Sneak Attacks do not have to be associated with Dexterity.

Nice. I hadn't picked up on this. It's technically true (although I very much doubt is rules as intended). Is there any reason to not allow this? Are there any bonuses that apply to only strength? or any bonuses that only apply to dexterity?

It was clarified before that "weapon" and "weapon attack" are not the same thing. So you can make a weapon attack with something that isn't a weapon, if such something tells you so.

In the instance of unarmed attack this seems like a really, really nitpicky difference that does nothing to contribute to either the balance or fun of the game. It's the sort of distinction I'd expect in earlier editions of the game, not in the rules light (in comparison to the last 15 years of editions) game. This really highlights why gaming groups should not blindly apply errata or "official FAQs" to their games (and another limitation of organised play).

Aww, mine wasn't answered this time, oh well.

If you're looking for practical advise to use at the table as a DM you'd arguably be better off asking other DMs on a forum like this one. Official rulings tend to err on the side of either caution or intent (and intent isn't always the greatest way a rule can be implemented at any given table). If you're a player or play organised play then you need to rely on official rulings (or convince your non-OP DM to make a ruling on their own).

 

[Leugren]

RAW is that the DM decides when to ask for initiative to start combat.
Surprise is determined before rolling initiative.

Yup, that's part of it. What's your point?

 

[Jiggawatts]

I feel like a lot of the Sage Advice stuff has been overly gamey and complex rather than keeping the rulings simple and with verisimilitude in mind.

 

[Lidgar]

What do you mean?.

You are correct. I missed that last bit hinging on the end of the surprised PC's turn. Rather, was focused on the last paragraph that described that surprise is no longer a factor after the first round. My bad.

 

[Koren n'Rhys]

So why is Unarmed Strike is listed on the Weapons Table (PHB 149) as a Simple Melee Weapon if it isn't a weapon then? Granted, it doesn't have the finesse property, so you still couldn't use it for Sneak Attack, but still...

 

[Eric V]

I feel like a lot of the Sage Advice stuff has been overly gamey and complex rather than keeping the rulings simple and with verisimilitude in mind.

Agreed. I thought this was the edition that was supposed to move away from that. If I wanted complex, I'd play 4e.

 

[Kobold Stew]

So why is Unarmed Strike is listed on the Weapons Table (PHB 149) as a Simple Melee Weapon if it isn't a weapon then? Granted, it doesn't have the finesse property, so you still couldn't use it for Sneak Attack, but still...

This is a mistake: Check out the errata for the PHB: "Unarmed strike doesn't belong on the Weapons table."

Nice. I hadn't picked up on this. It's technically true (although I very much doubt is rules as intended). Is there any reason to not allow this? Are there any bonuses that apply to only strength? or any bonuses that only apply to dexterity?

On the contrary, I'd say it is intended -- the play test had the Thug build much more prominent as an option. It was scaled back, and this was left. Various tweets have also shown that part of the reason was to reasonably limit sneak-attackable weapons so as to exclude Versatile, heavy, and two-handed weapons.

In the instance of unarmed attack this seems like a really, really nitpicky difference that does nothing to contribute to either the balance or fun of the game.

It does mean that it excludes ki-powered punches, minotaur horn attacks, and other things that will inevitably be added to the rules as they expand. They are right to be cautious, to avoid unintended power creep.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It should be noted that the same rule disqualifies spells from adding Sneak Attack damage, unless the spell for some reason allows you to use a finesse or ranged weapon. If you're using a finesse weapon (i.e.: a rapier or whip) for Greenflame Blade, or casting Magic Stone (which you then load into a sling), that works. Scorching Ray, not so much.

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.

 

[JohnLynch]

It does mean that it excludes ki-powered punches

Already excluded because they're not a finesse weapon.

minotaur horn attacks

Already excluded by not being a finesse weapon.

and other things that will inevitably be added to the rules as they expand. They are right to be cautious, to avoid unintended power creep.

When a combination of two or more options results in an overpowered ability, WotC has a habit of nerfing the wrong thing. This seems like a preemptive nerf and it's not necessarily a nerf that is on the correct rules element. As I said, I do not see how this is balancing overpowered options in the current rules and none of your examples of proposed rules additions demonstrate why this distinction should exist (that is, unarmed strikes are melee attacks and not melee weapon attacks). It is beholden on future options to make sure they do not interact badly with existing rules. Coming up with extremely minor and complex rules decisions (unarmed strikes are melee attacks but aren't melee weapon attacks) in an effort to preempt such additions doesn't really seem congruous with how the rules are presented (as a rules light edition, at least when compared with prior editions).