Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7821525" data-attributes="member: 6802765">So the end result is that the definition of &quot;melee weapon attack&quot; is a melee attack with a weapon (1), or without a weapon (2), but not with a spell (3), unless the spell says otherwise (4).Citations(1) Crawford tweet(2) PHB errata and MM(3) Inference from Crawford tweet and PHB 194(4) E.g. Booming Blade (requiring a &quot;melee attack with a weapon&quot;, which is defined to be a melee weapon attack per the first part of the definition)I understand how specific-beats-general works, and I can appreciate how that concept helps by permitting broad functional rules with specific exceptions (such as the Clear Path to the Target as the general rule for spells, with exceptions for spells like Sending). But I think the &quot;melee weapon attack&quot; debacle nicely shows the chaos that can result when the designers use specific-beats-general to create exceptions to a defined game term rather than to a functional rule.Also, with regards to the &quot;wording minutiae&quot; comment at the end of Crawford's tweet: he's correct under the (oft-ignored) rules for hyphenating compound adjectives. However, I think it was unwise to make the scope of every ability that requires a &quot;melee weapon attack&quot; hinge on the lack of a hyphen. Many readers won't know the rules for compound adjectives, and even those that do can't be sure whether the text was written precisely enough that the lack of a hyphen was purposeful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 7821525, member: 6802765"] So the end result is that the definition of "melee weapon attack" is a melee attack [I]with a weapon (1), or without a weapon (2), but not with a spell (3), unless the spell says otherwise (4)[/I]. Citations (1) Crawford tweet (2) PHB errata and MM (3) Inference from Crawford tweet and PHB 194 (4) E.g. [i]Booming Blade[/I] (requiring a "melee attack with a weapon", which is defined to be a melee weapon attack per the first part of the definition) I understand how specific-beats-general works, and I can appreciate how that concept helps by permitting broad functional rules with specific exceptions (such as the Clear Path to the Target as the general rule for spells, with exceptions for spells like [I]Sending[/I]). But I think the "melee weapon attack" debacle nicely shows the chaos that can result when the designers use specific-beats-general to create exceptions to a defined game term rather than to a functional rule. Also, with regards to the "wording minutiae" comment at the end of Crawford's tweet: he's correct under the (oft-ignored) rules for hyphenating compound adjectives. However, I think it was unwise to make the scope of every ability that requires a "melee weapon attack" hinge on the lack of a hyphen. Many readers won't know the rules for compound adjectives, and even those that do can't be sure whether the text was written precisely enough that the lack of a hyphen was purposeful. [/QUOTE]

Verification