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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Unarmed attacks was specially siloed off to make sure that only things that directly referred to unarmed attacks or affected any weapon attack would affect them. It's a lazy but brilliant way to ensure that they could go crazy with the monk without unintended consequences.

Eh. I'm not sure about "brilliant," though I'll grant you lazy. 13A, IMO, did find a "brilliant" solution. Monks just don't do weapon damage, even if they carry a weapon. Instead, their features let them do Jab, Punch, and Kick damage, depending on what the feature is--every Monk form specifies which to use. Jabs are d6 per level, Punches are d8, and Kicks are d10. The terms are just to be simple and clear, and don't actually need to be represented as any specific physical movement (or even a physical attack at all). That way, instead of resorting to the painful logic* of 5e, 13A Monks are just Special when they fight barehanded or using a weapon appropriate to their Monk tradition.

I personally think the 13A Monk is a fantastically well-designed class, and actually manages to outdo the 4e Monk for encouraging the "high-flying mobile action," wuxia-inspired behavior in the player. At least, so it seems on paper; I haven't actually played 13A yet.

*Seriously. Unarmed strikes are not weapons. However, they are both "melee attacks" and "melee weapon attacks." So things can be "weapon attacks" without having any weapons involved whatsoever!

 

[CapnZapp]

The ability is clearly balanced around that caveat.

You sneak up on a foe unobserved, all you have to do is beat his passive perception DC with your (likely) insane stealth check result. He's almost certainly not searching for you.

Once that's done, you launch your attack, and the inititive check (a test of his reflexes v yours) is the only thing that saves him from double damage attack (although he is still gonna cop a sneak attack no matter what).

Think of the initative check as an opposed dex check to see if you can react quickly enough before you get stabbed in the heart.

It makes Assasinate not a simple case of auto trigger as long as you can beat a triflingly low passive perception. You also have to strike quicker than your foe can react.

Sorry I should have been more clear I adressed Lord Twig only. I wasn't really meaning to stat a general opinion on the mechanics of the ability.

Meaning; IF you think there's something fundamentally flawed, it should be the initiative check, not "that the attack that starts a combat would fail to surprise its target" since the attack that starts the combat DO surprise the target, only not quick enough for the assassin ability to kick in.

Hope that's clearer

 

[Minigiant]

The devil is in the details. It is the specifics of "all those" effects I'm after.

And it doesn't have to be a WotC-sanctioned piece just because I used the word "article".

In fact, it could be a regular forum post, much like Garnuk's

That's the thing. I don't think it's a singular post, especially with the infrequency of the designers posts, the difficulty of searching audio, etc.

But once you make Unarmed strikes weapons, you have junk like silvered hand, two hands strikes for great weapon master, magic hands on fire, free hands with weapons in them. Basically you'd add a whole extra page of writing.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's the thing. I don't think it's a singular post, especially with the infrequency of the designers posts, the difficulty of searching audio, etc.

But once you make Unarmed strikes weapons, you have junk like silvered hand, two hands strikes for great weapon master, magic hands on fire, free hands with weapons in them. Basically you'd add a whole extra page of writing.

All right, perhaps I was unclear.

I am asking if anyone - designer, forumite or general D&D blogger - have comprehensively summarized the pros and cons, ups and downs, and ins and outs of the entire unarmed attack business anywhere, well enough for y'all to recommend and link to it?

Thank you

 

[Remathilis]

*Seriously. Unarmed strikes are not weapons. However, they are both "melee attacks" and "melee weapon attacks." So things can be "weapon attacks" without having any weapons involved whatsoever!

The problem is we need a word that fills in "Melee [natural or manufactured item that is not a spell or magical effect] Attack"

 

[garnuk]

I don't get how using Dex on a non-finesse weapon is more confusing then making melee attacks with a weapon that isn't a weapon.

A monk-rogue is not going to be able to use sneak attack because unarmed strikes aren't finesse weapons. why aren't unarmed strikes weapons? Because we have 3 editions of "screw you unarmed strike" worth of tradition to uphold.

seriously. Unarmed strikes deal 1 point of damage unless you take a feat, then you get to deal d4 damage. This is as bad as a dagger but it costs you a feat to make it that bad.

The only cogent argument seems to be the schroedinger's empty hand issue. Except taking a fighting style that gives you your offhand damage to your bonus attack would almost always be better.

I'm sure an optimiser could find some really weird edge case that makes unarmed strikes as good as a short sword or maybe (with enough investment) a one handed Longsword. But I'm sure they could find a lot of stuff that's equally broken but doesn't require we contort ourselves into a pretzel to try to disallow.

I wasn't stating my view, I was reporting things I've seen. So, its not surprising that some people might find some are valid issues, and others are meaningless, and not valid issues, and some might even be contradictory.

However, the issue with "shroedinger's empty hand" as you put it, is not the case of somebody using the "unarmed attack" as a broken attack, but rather using the "unarmed attack" as a weapon requirement for some other feature. For example, taking the +1 AC from both Duelist style (only one weapon in your hand), and the +1 AC from Duel Wielding Feat (Your empty hand is really a non-light weapon), getting a +2 AC when you should only be getting a +1. Filling the rules with exceptions of when a weapon counts as being a weapon in your hand and when it doesn't, would IMO be more confusing than just saying that when you make an attack which doesn't use arms, i.e. an Unarmed attack, it isn't a weapon.

The real question is why they didn't want to replace all instance of "melee weapon attack" with "melee non-spell attack", instead of saying that an unarmed attack is not a weapon, but can be used in place of a "melee weapon attack".

And Just as a reminder for others, the official errata does not say that an "unarmed attack IS a melee weapon attack", it says that "When you make an melee weapon attack, you can instead choose to make an unarmed attack in its place." (Or something similar)

 

[garnuk]

The problem is we need a word that fills in "Melee [natural or manufactured item that is not a spell or magical effect] Attack"

If they put up a survey, I'll be happy to vote for the "Melee NOMITINASOME attack"

 

[JohnLynch]

However, the issue with "shroedinger's empty hand" as you put it, is not the case of somebody using the "unarmed attack" as a broken attack, but rather using the "unarmed attack" as a weapon requirement for some other feature. For example, taking the +1 AC from both Duelist style (only one weapon in your hand),

The only fighting Styles I'm seeing that boosts AC is Defense (+1 AC regardless of what's happening in your hand). Dueling fighting style requires an empty hand but gives you +2 damage. It has nothing to do with AC. You can dual wield two Shortswords, take defense fighting style and the feat and get +2 to AC.

 

[garnuk]

The only fighting Styles I'm seeing that boosts AC is Defense (+1 AC regardless of what's happening in your hand). Dueling fighting style requires an empty hand but gives you +2 damage. It has nothing to do with AC. You can dual wield two Shortswords, take defense fighting style and the feat and get +2 to AC.

Yes, Sorry, I meant gain the Damage and the extra AC by both not having a weapon and having a weapon at the same time. You can dual wield two shortswords, but then you don't have a free hand for casting spells.

 

[Minigiant]

Eh. I'm not sure about "brilliant," though I'll grant you lazy. 13A, IMO, did find a "brilliant" solution. Monks just don't do weapon damage, even if they carry a weapon. Instead, their features let them do Jab, Punch, and Kick damage, depending on what the feature is--every Monk form specifies which to use. Jabs are d6 per level, Punches are d8, and Kicks are d10. The terms are just to be simple and clear, and don't actually need to be represented as any specific physical movement (or even a physical attack at all). That way, instead of resorting to the painful logic* of 5e, 13A Monks are just Special when they fight barehanded or using a weapon appropriate to their Monk tradition.

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