Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 7686774" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I went to that depth only because, had I not done so, I would have said little beyond, &quot;Those aren't verbs, they're nouns,&quot; which would have invited a &quot;you're just bickering&quot; or &quot;says who?&quot; retort. I was heading that off at the pass by being thorough, and as I said at the start of the post, it had nothing really to do with my position on whether &quot;unarmed strike&quot; being an &quot;attack,&quot; and a &quot;weapon attack,&quot; but not a &quot;weapon&quot; is confusing.There are really two simple approaches, if you feel a change is necessary. One: As you have done, allow that if something is referred to as a weapon in a specific/modified sense (natural weapon, melee weapon attack), it is a weapon. This has the advantage of requiring effectively no real change, other than broadening the reference of the term &quot;weapon,&quot; but has the disadvantage of potentially allowing unforeseen, and unwanted, synergy now or in the future. The other: Eliminate the terms &quot;melee weapon attack&quot; and &quot;natural weapon,&quot; as they are confusing (because they include, to varying degree, things that aren't weapons), and replace them with terms that do not invite such confusion, like &quot;melee physical attack&quot; or &quot;melee object attack&quot;/&quot;natural offense(s)&quot; or &quot;natural armaments.&quot; This has the advantage of restoring the natural-ness of the language used and avoiding unwanted synergies (potential or actual), but requires post-release jargon changes and the introduction of perhaps-overly-technical-sounding terms.(There is a third option but it's probably beyond the pale for most people: stop using the word &quot;weapon&quot; to refer solely to manufactured implements of violence, and instead define those things to be &quot;arms&quot; or the like, and having &quot;weapon&quot; be a higher order abstraction; then &quot;melee weapon attack&quot; would become &quot;melee armament attack,&quot; and certain non-armament weapons would be allowed to qualify as a &quot;melee armament attack&quot; even though they are not, strictly speaking, &quot;armaments.&quot; But this is so highly technical-sounding as to be possibly worse than the current situation, so I don't really think it's a valid option.)I think &quot;preventing accidental synergies&quot; is a valid reason to want to silo things into their own categories. I just strongly dislike the tortured logic required to make sense of the mandated synergies, when 5e supposedly values &quot;natural language&quot; over precise terms.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 7686774, member: 6790260"] I went to that depth only because, had I not done so, I would have said little beyond, "Those aren't verbs, they're nouns," which would have invited a "you're just bickering" or "says who?" retort. I was heading that off at the pass by being thorough, and as I said at the start of the post, it had nothing really to do with my position on whether "unarmed strike" being an "attack," and a "weapon attack," but [I]not[/I] a "weapon" is confusing. There are really two simple approaches, if you feel a change is necessary. One: As you have done, allow that if something is referred to as a weapon in a specific/modified sense (natural [I]weapon[/I], melee [I]weapon[/I] attack), it is a weapon. This has the advantage of requiring effectively no real change, other than broadening the reference of the term "weapon," but has the disadvantage of potentially allowing unforeseen, and unwanted, synergy now or in the future. The other: Eliminate the terms "melee [I]weapon[/I] attack" and "natural [I]weapon[/I]," as they are confusing (because they include, to varying degree, things that aren't weapons), and replace them with terms that do not invite such confusion, like "melee [I]physical[/I] attack" or "melee [I]object[/I] attack"/"natural [I]offense(s)[/I]" or "natural [I]armaments[/I]." This has the advantage of restoring the natural-ness of the language used and avoiding unwanted synergies (potential or actual), but requires post-release jargon changes and the introduction of perhaps-overly-technical-sounding terms. (There is a third option but it's probably beyond the pale for most people: stop using the word "weapon" to refer solely to manufactured implements of violence, and instead define those things to be "arms" or the like, and having "weapon" be a higher order abstraction; then "melee weapon attack" would become "melee armament attack," and certain non-armament weapons would be allowed to qualify as a "melee armament attack" even though they are not, strictly speaking, "armaments." But this is so highly technical-sounding as to be possibly worse than the current situation, so I don't really think it's a valid option.) I think "preventing accidental synergies" is a valid reason to want to silo things into their own categories. I just strongly dislike the tortured logic required to make sense of the mandated synergies, when 5e [I]supposedly[/I] values "natural language" over precise terms. [/QUOTE]

Verification