Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 07, 2015 0:01:36	Now guys, this is really meant for summary for me and a little bit of ease since I have a few other questions along with it. I feel I should ask some of these, as I saw two threads today about these matters, and they both expanded beyond the point of a universal answer, but I’d like to hear what everyone more or less decided on as far as RAW/RAI. 1. For spells such as Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast (L5) where the caster can choose separate targets for each Ray/Beam, are the targets chosen when the spell is cast, or can a caster can wait to see the result of one ray/beam before deciding who to target with the next? 2. What happens if the caster is incapacitated/killed after one of his rays/beams hits an enemy, do the rest disappear? 3. If a Ray/Beam kills the target after one hit, and he directed multiple ones towards them, are they still inflicted upon their corpse, or do they go to the next target? 4. Can a Warlock of 5th level or higher casting Eldritch Blast, or someone casting the spell Scorching Ray, move in between spell attacks that are part of the same action? 5. Where does the confusion arise with shoving and grappling in the thread entitled "Move and Attack"? 6. Are unarmed strikes simply melee weapon attacks (not a weapon, but still a melee weapon attack)? 7. Which is a little unrelated but I felt I might as well include it, does the warlock's Eldritch Invocation 'Agonizing Blast' only apply its damage once to a single casting of Eldritch Blast or does it apply to every ranged spell hit from it? And again a little unrelated but it’s more for clarification as I already think we have the hang of it, 9. When making a damage roll, it says to add the same modifier used for the attack roll. So if a character uses a weapon that makes him add his Strength modifier to the attack roll, he adds his Strength modifier as well to the damage roll?  I greatly appreciate the help, I’m still just starting out, and working with a lot of players who are very new to this as well, and so it can get quite overwhelming to scour the internet for clarity so much.
#2 Macv12 Jul 07, 2015 0:36:30	All my own interpretations. tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#3 jaelis Jul 07, 2015 5:07:26	I think I mostly agree with MacV   tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#4 OoftaMeg Jul 07, 2015 7:24:46	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#5 Razintarr Jul 07, 2015 7:32:33	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#6 mrpopstar Jul 07, 2015 8:02:13	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #6) OoftaMeg	mrpopstar wrote:
#8 mrpopstar Jul 07, 2015 8:07:50	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #8) OoftaMeg	mrpopstar wrote:
#10 mrpopstar Jul 07, 2015 8:57:44	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #10) OoftaMeg	mrpopstar wrote:
#12 mrpopstar Jul 07, 2015 9:23:19	OoftaMeg wrote:
#13 SilentSin Jul 07, 2015 9:26:19	Enforcing strength only for a throwing attack seems dumb to me so I'd probably go with page 9 and allow you to choose either.
(Reply to #12) SilentSin	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #11) Yunru	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #14) Yunru	SilentSin wrote:
#17 mrpopstar Jul 07, 2015 9:44:59	Yunru wrote:
#18 Greenstone.Walker Jul 07, 2015 13:45:50	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #16) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #19) Yunru	SilentSin wrote:
#21 lawrencehoy Jul 07, 2015 20:51:51	Greenstone.Walker wrote:
(Reply to #20) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#23 lawrencehoy Jul 07, 2015 20:54:34	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #23) SilentSin	lawrencehoy wrote:
#25 sim-h Jul 08, 2015 3:24:06	As per the weapons table, there are no "Thrown Ranged Weapons". You've just made them up. All Thrown weapons are melee weapons. If they also have the finesse property you can choose DEX or STR, otherwise you use STR.   Player basic rules page 9, building Bruenor:   "When throwing a handaxe, Bruenor has the same attack bonus (handaxes, as thrown weapons, use Strength for attacks and damage)"
#26 lawrencehoy Jul 08, 2015 3:35:47	SilentSin wrote:
#27 SilentSin Jul 08, 2015 4:41:47	I didn't realise the thrown property had more relevant rules. That changes things.   One rule applies to all thrown weapons.   The other applies to all thrown weapons.   Neither has any kind of condition that would restrict it circumstantially or give any indication of which rule to use.   This isn't a case of specific vs. general. Neither rule is more specific. That makes them contradictory, meaning you have to pick which one to use, and both choices are "equally" correct with regard to the rules as written.
#28 Yunru Jul 08, 2015 4:49:34	That's only because you're wrong equating "A" with "Any". "Any" applies to all weapons, "A" refers to one weapon. "A" weapon can use Dex. If it has the Finesse property.
(Reply to #26) SilentSin	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #28) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#31 Yunru Jul 08, 2015 5:06:52	Yes it can. Not it always can it can, based on an undpecified condition. And oh look, that condition's if it's a thrown weapon. And as you noted, it's instead. So they can because the first bit says so. They do because the second bit says so, and finesse can choose because that says so. I've added nothing.
#32 jaelis Jul 08, 2015 5:12:10	People can run marathons. That is a true statement, but it doesn't mean I can run a marathon.   Thrown weapons can use Dex. That is a true statement, but it doesn't mean a hand axe can use Dex.
(Reply to #31) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#34 SilentSin Jul 08, 2015 5:20:37	Hey, I just noticed that both rules specifically mention hand axes.   Ranged attacks say "...[handaxes] can use Str instead [of dex]".   And the Thrown property says "...[handaxes] use your Str".   I don't see how you can believe those rules to be anything but contradictory.
#35 mrpopstar Jul 08, 2015 5:20:56	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #34) Yunru	SilentSin wrote:
#37 mrpopstar Jul 08, 2015 5:23:20	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #33) Yunru	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #37) Yunru	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #36) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #39) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#42 Radaceus Jul 08, 2015 5:58:22	Thrown weapons are not Ranged weapons, they are thrown weapons. This is why the hand axe, a thrown weapon, does not appear in the Ranged Weapons category Ranged weapons use DEX for modifiers One can make ranged attacks with Thrown weapons, thus the verbatim in the rules regarding thrown weapons. From here we revert to the ruling on making a ranged attack with a Thrown weapon, which state a  Thrown Melee Weapon uses STR for modifiers. And since the handaxe does not have the finesse distinction, it is can only use strength for modifiers. A Net for instance, is a Thrown weapon, without the finesse quality, but apears in the Ranged Weapon category, and therefore uses DEX modifiers to attack Elementary And BTW, for yoru clarity, the actual PHB, pg 194 under ATTACK ROLLS; Modifers to Rolls , words it differently. Elinimating the OP confusion altogether.
(Reply to #42) SilentSin	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #41) Yunru	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #44) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#46 Yunru Jul 08, 2015 6:45:27	No. The inclusion of the word "Instead" prohibits not having to. It uses Dex, or it uses Str. Finesse is a special case.
(Reply to #46) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#48 Yunru Jul 08, 2015 7:01:40	**** it, agree to disagree. We're not covering any new ground here (either of us).
(Reply to #48) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#50 OoftaMeg Jul 08, 2015 7:26:52	To the OP, sorry for derailing your thread.     This is one of those areas where I whish they would have just copied/pasted the paragraph from the equipment to the weapons section.   After looking at both pieces of text the paragraph under Weapons should probably read something like   For attacks with ranged weapons, use your Dexterity modifier for attack and damage rolls. [In some cases ] A weapon that has the thrown property, such as a handaxe, can [only] use your Strength modifier instead [of dexterity. See the equipment section for details].
#51 SilentSin Jul 08, 2015 7:58:13	Really it should either say nothing or the exact same thing as the thrown property, or just tell you to look up the property.   Anything else can (and will) lead to ambiguity.
#52 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 08, 2015 13:46:44	So simply going off the PHB for the debate about thrown weapons solves this, as the confusion only arises from the basic rules? But thank you all, I've really appreciated how responsive and helpful everyone has been in my experience with this forum. I have a few more questions based off the information, so improved divine smite is a “always on” feature, and that if you use divine smite, you add the 1d8 extra radiant damage improved divine smite adds to your extra damage of divine smite, so it look like: melee weapon + extra damage of divine smite + damage of improved dine smite? And this would not be applicable for unarmed strikes, as they only work with Divine Smite, not Improved Divine Smite? And for Eldritch Blast, you make a separate attack roll for each beam, but each beam has the same damage, whatever the result is for 1d10, meaning if I was successful on the first beam’s attack roll, and then rolled a “6” for the damage roll on the first beam, I’d then make an attack roll for the second beam, and if successful it’d do 6 damage as well? Or would it be that each beam gets its own attack and damage roll? Meaning if I was successful with the first beams attack roll, I’d roll 1d10 for the damage and apply the damage of the roll, then for the second beam I’d roll for the attack roll, and for the damage roll I’d roll 1d10, as the damage of the first and second beam are not linked? I feel like it’s the second case, and if so, does the same apply to Scorching Ray: every ray has its own attack roll, and each have a separate damage roll as well, 2d6 fire damage per ray? What about the case of Magic Missile, the same?
(Reply to #52) Macv12	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#54 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 08, 2015 19:26:07	Thank you, I was really hoping that was how you handled the spells, it just makes more sense to me. So by that, when you know the Agonizing Blast Envocation (and envocations are sort of an "always on" thing once you know them, correct?), Eldritch Blast looks like 1d10 force damage + charisma modifier for each beams damage roll? And according to the Errata, the Wizard's Empowered Evocation for spells would work different as it only lets the damage bonus apply to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls, so an example would be Magic Missile, where with Empowered Envocation it would look like 1d4 + 1 force damage + Intelligence modifier for the first missile, and any missiles after that would lack the added Intelligence modifier? And finally, is the confusion over thrown weapons only arisen from the basic rules? If I were to just go of the PHB would I encounter this problem, and if so what is the decided solution?
#55 jaelis Jul 08, 2015 19:29:31	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#56 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 08, 2015 19:35:57	Thanks!
(Reply to #53) Coredump00	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #54) Coredump00	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
(Reply to #58) Macv12	Coredump00 wrote:
#60 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 08, 2015 22:10:27	It would be weird if that were the case then Coredump, as that means you'd still have to keep track of the damage rolls seperately with Empowered Evocation, and I personally felt the rule in the PHB on pg. 196 that referenced spells or other effects dealing damage to more then one target at the same time, was for things such as Fireball, compared to spells like Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray, and Magic Missile. Are you saying however, that all missiles share the same attack and damage roll?
#61 lawrencehoy Jul 08, 2015 22:59:50	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #61) SilentSin	lawrencehoy wrote:
#63 sim-h Jul 09, 2015 2:18:00	SilentSin, the rule is clear to everyone except you it seems - all thrown weapons use STR not DEX unless they have the finesse property. A 'thrown weapon' is a melee weapon with the property 'thrown' and abides by all the same rules as melee weapons, except it has a ranged attack option.   The use of the word 'can' is, I expect, in answer to a STR-based warrior asking - 'Can I use STR if I throw my hand axe, even though it is a ranged attack'? A: Yes you can. The sentence is phrased in a way that has allowed you to interpret it differently but it's pretty clear to everyone else. I agree the wording should be changed to remove the potential for misunderstanding.
(Reply to #63) SilentSin	sim-h wrote:
#65 lawrencehoy Jul 09, 2015 3:57:07	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #65) SilentSin	lawrencehoy wrote:
#67 OoftaMeg Jul 09, 2015 7:29:03	When I originally read the book I read the first section on thrown weapons as "handaxe can use strength [or dexterity] modifier".   However, in the weapons section it clearly states that handaxes only use strength so it should be read as "handaxe can use strength modifier [only]"   Page 47 basic rules is very clear.   Thrown. If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property.   In addition on page 9 of the basic rules when showing the build for Breunor they state it again   When throwing a handaxe, Bruenor has the same attack bonus (handaxes, as thrown weapons, use Strength for attacks and damage),   I agree that the section on weapons should be worded differently and I was also confused by it.
#68 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 09, 2015 16:42:06	SIlentSin, I would just simply follow the PHB. Upon looking through it, there is no vagueness or contradiction on this issue. The basic rules should be worded differently perhaps, but in the PHB where it discusses Bruenor's weapons on page 15, it clearly says "handaxes, as thrown weapons, use Strength for attacks and damage" and on page 147 it says "If you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property."  I agree with what was said above, in a situation where it's PHB vs. basic rules, go with the PHB. Anyways, if anyone has any information they'd like to give to clear up the Magic Missile confusion I'd really appreciate it.
(Reply to #68) SilentSin	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#70 lawrencehoy Jul 10, 2015 2:48:30	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #70) SilentSin	lawrencehoy wrote:
#72 Yunru Jul 10, 2015 4:24:15	Even then, specific beats general. So whatever the weapon says beats whatever is applied to weapons in general.
(Reply to #72) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#74 CraggleRock Jul 10, 2015 4:56:24	SilentSin wrote:
#75 mrpopstar Jul 10, 2015 5:00:09	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #74) SilentSin	CraggleRock wrote:
(Reply to #75) SilentSin	mrpopstar wrote:
#78 mrpopstar Jul 10, 2015 5:19:41	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #78) SilentSin	mrpopstar wrote:
#80 jaelis Jul 10, 2015 5:30:37	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #80) SilentSin	jaelis wrote:
#82 jaelis Jul 10, 2015 6:05:48	FWIW, it's nothing to do with "can." "A weapon that has the thrown property, such as a handaxe, can use your Strength modifier instead."   It's reasonable to me that "such as a hand axe" is an example of "A weapon with the throw property" and not an example of  "A weapon with the thrown property (that) can use your Str mod."   Just like "Ultra-rich people, such as Bill Gates, are often Republicans" is using Bill Gates to pin down what ultra-rich people are, without claiming Bill Gates is often a Republican.
(Reply to #82) SilentSin	jaelis wrote:
#84 jaelis Jul 10, 2015 6:42:40	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #84) SilentSin	jaelis wrote:
#86 Yunru Jul 10, 2015 6:57:38	"Can use Str instead of Dex" is generic dammit. It means there are weapons that use Dex, and there are weapons that use Str instead. It does not, has not, and will not mean there are weapons and you get to choose which stat they use.
(Reply to #86) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#88 jaelis Jul 10, 2015 7:36:02	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #88) SilentSin	jaelis wrote:
#90 mrpopstar Jul 10, 2015 7:44:19	SilentSin wrote:
#91 CraggleRock Jul 10, 2015 7:44:50	SilentSin wrote:
#92 OoftaMeg Jul 10, 2015 7:47:41	There's one line of text that could be read multiple ways.  There are at least two other lines that are crystal clear.     I'll take the clear and concise rule that a handaxe always uses strength mod whether thrown or in melee, thanks.  Even if I was initially mistaken.
(Reply to #90) SilentSin	mrpopstar wrote:
#94 jaelis Jul 10, 2015 7:56:11	SilentSin wrote:
#95 mrpopstar Jul 10, 2015 8:09:50	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #94) SilentSin	jaelis wrote:
#97 CraggleRock Jul 10, 2015 8:15:08	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #95) SilentSin	mrpopstar wrote:
#99 jaelis Jul 10, 2015 8:20:54	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #98) mrpopstar	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #97) SilentSin	CraggleRock wrote:
(Reply to #99) SilentSin	jaelis wrote:
#103 jaelis Jul 10, 2015 9:23:13	"Here's a quick overview of how weapons work. For more details read the rest of the rules." That is honestly how I read it.   In any case you seem to agree that it COULD be read that way, even if you don't find it logical. But in that cast the contradiction is only with what you find logical, not with the actual rules text, no?
(Reply to #59) Coredump00	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #60) Coredump00	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
(Reply to #103) SilentSin	jaelis wrote:
#107 Coredump00 Jul 10, 2015 9:54:58	As for the Thrown weapon issue....  I am unsure what, exactly, is the issue (please don't explain), but why are people referring to a Handaxe as a Ranged Weapon.   It is clearly listed as a melee weapon.  Yes it can be thrown....but that does not suddently make it a ranged weapon. This has been further verified (at least twice) by Crawford.   I can use a banana to write a note, that does not make it a pen. (Unless a Bic Banana #Oldfolksknowstuff)     It is odd that they used a hand axe as an example on p.14, but if you are being that technical, then you have to also admit they never claim the handaxe *is* a ranged weapon, nor that it can to anything but use Str.   More likely, is it is similar to the 'throwing hammer' issue, perhaps at one point it was a ranged weapon, or perhaps there was a 'throwing hammer'....   but either way. A hand axe it a melee weapon that can be thrown, it is not a ranged weapon.
(Reply to #107) SilentSin	Coredump00 wrote:
#109 jaelis Jul 10, 2015 10:51:25	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #108) Coredump00	SilentSin wrote:
#111 Yunru Jul 10, 2015 16:55:53	Exactly one person is arguing one thing. Everyone else is arguing the other. The one also isn't making sense with their argument. I'm sensing a pattern. The rules aren't unclear, you just don't want to be wrong.
(Reply to #110) SilentSin	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #111) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#114 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 10, 2015 17:50:24	Hmm.. That is interesting, thank you for the clarification Coredump. I think what I will do is continue to treat it like Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast in terms of damage rolls, but I will make note of that and offer it as optional play and go upon what my players prefer. Everyones a bit new in my group as well, so for the sake of comprehension, I think it's better in my situation to handle in a way that treats them similarly. I do understand how what youre saying could work now though.
(Reply to #112) Coredump00	SilentSin wrote:
#116 Radaceus Jul 10, 2015 21:04:49	Aside from the fact this argmuent (on the definition and usage of can) has become trivialised and borders on trolling.... You guys could save yourselves about a thousand posts if you just use the PHB.
(Reply to #114) Radaceus	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
(Reply to #115) SilentSin	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #116) SilentSin	Radaceus wrote:
#120 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 10, 2015 21:48:35	Thanks Radaceus! By the way SilentSin, my response to you earlier took into account that you agreed that the PHB was to be taken over the basic rules, and it was an attempt to get things a little more on track again. I feel we have all agreed that while the basic rules could be clearer, as the PHB takes precedent it's a moot point as the answer to the initial question was resolved. What more is there to discuss on that matter? Anyways, Heres a question I've been wondering about: When you have the spell Mage Armor in effect for you, can you use a shield for an AC of 13 + Dex + 2? Or does a shield count as donning armor, which ends the spell?
(Reply to #120) SilentSin	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
(Reply to #120) SilentSin	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
(Reply to #119) Radaceus	SilentSin wrote:
#124 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 10, 2015 22:30:23	I see.. Well I imagine then that the solution is to just disregard the pg. 14 rule, it seems to me like a case of specific vs. general in the sense that while its left a bit confusing there, its made clear what the intent is later on. Perhaps someone should suggest a wording change to the people in charge of errata or sage advice. I'm going to make note of it, and that it should say something like "A melee weapon that has the thrown property, such as a handaxe, uses your Strength modifier instead."  But thank you for the advice! I agree, I'd probably house rule it that way as well.
(Reply to #123) SilentSin	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #124) SilentSin	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#127 Yunru Jul 10, 2015 23:11:47	Shields don't count as armor, confirmed via tweet. Although it's an old one so good searching.
#128 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 10, 2015 23:17:01	Well if I may restate my quotes, right afterwards on pg. 15 it says "handaxes, as thrown weapons, use Strength for attacks and damage." In this situation, there is no ambiguity. While it said "can' on page 14, it simply states as a fact that handaxes use Strength. On the weapon properties page, pg. 147, it states under "Thrown" that "If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack wiith the weapon" giving the example:  "if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property." and finally the evidence on pg. 194 that states "The ability modifier used for a melee weapon is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity." However, the only other discrepancy that is problematic to this information is the following sentence that says "Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule."but judging from the information on pg. 147 about the Thrown property, I believe this is just refering to the fact that since thrown weapons are making a ranged weapon attack, it is an instance where ranged weapon attacks use Strength instead of Dexterity. Thoughts anyone?
#129 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 10, 2015 23:18:32	Haha, I think I'll just take your word for it! But I'm glad, that seemed logical to me.
(Reply to #125) Radaceus	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #120) Radaceus	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
(Reply to #128) SilentSin	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
(Reply to #130) SilentSin	Radaceus wrote:
#134 Radaceus Jul 11, 2015 1:06:25	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #134) SilentSin	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #135) Radaceus	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #117) Coredump00	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #127) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #137) Radaceus	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #139) Coredump00	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #138) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
#142 Yunru Jul 11, 2015 13:28:45	Found it! Both these things say they don't work with armor. They work with shields. Ergo shields are not armor. https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/524716308097560576
(Reply to #142) mrpopstar	Yunru wrote:
#144 Yunru Jul 11, 2015 16:24:48	No "semantics" involved. Mage Armor doesn't work with armour. It works with shields. Therefore shields cannot be armour.
#145 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 11, 2015 17:08:56	I have to be honest, a lot of the wording or explanations of the stuff in 5e really irritated me with the vagueness. While yes, the game is specifically made that way so it is open for interpretation and doesn't over complicate things, theres a point where I personally feel it starts to take away from the quality of the game when everyone has a different view on a key rule, or atleast one that affects how they play greatly. As contradictory as it may seem, I'm a DM who feels a little weird playing by house rules compared to the actual rules a lot of the time. Its been a hard for me to kind of step out of my comfort zone, and say "this is what I feel this means, the rules may lean one way slightly, but they are not explicit, i'm going with this." because it feels like i'm playing it wrong. Othertimes it has really felt that either through an error in grammar, or conflicting information, I'm stuck in a position where I find myself obsessing over a small rule that really wouldn't change all that much one way or the other, perhaps I'm just a bit OCD. I really do enjoy the rest of it though, besides those problems it's been really fun. I guess in summary, I would've felt better if they were a little clearer in wording, or tried a bit harder to fix discrepancies in several fundamental rules of the game.
#146 jaelis Jul 11, 2015 17:19:03	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #144) mrpopstar	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #144) Radaceus	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #148) mrpopstar	[quote="Radaceus"] Yunru wrote:
#150 Radaceus Jul 11, 2015 19:28:27	Yunru wrote:
#151 Orethalion Jul 11, 2015 19:29:49	[quote="mrpopstar"] Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #150) mrpopstar	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #149) Radaceus	[quote="mrpopstar"] Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #153) mrpopstar	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #152) Radaceus	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #155) mrpopstar	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #136) SilentSin	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #157) Radaceus	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #157) Radaceus	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #141) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #142) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #159) SilentSin	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #162) Radaceus	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #163) SilentSin	Evidently you don't actually know what a strawman argument is, so I'll explain it to you. Its an argument that gives the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. This is in fact what you've been doing.   My argument consists of two main parts: 1a) It is perfectly reasonable to expect a sentence dedicated solely to telling you which stat to use for attacks to actually tell you exactly which stat to use. 1b) If such is not the case, the sentence should direct the reader to the location of such information, or at the very least give some indication that it is not in fact providing a rule. 2) There is no logical interpretation of the sentence in question (while still satisfying part 1 of my argument) which leads to non-finesse thrown weapons being required to use Str. See post #101 for details. To refute this argument, you need to either demonstrate why part 1 is not a reasonable expectation (such as by providing an example of another rule where this is the case, as I requested in my previous post), or you can demonstrate that there is in fact a logical interpretation of the sentence in question which leads to a rule matching the rest of the book (a good starting point would be to find and point out an error in my explanation in post #101).   Repeatedly bringing up other rules that have no relevance to either part of my argument will not disprove it. Your move strawman.
#165 TheCriticalFail Jul 12, 2015 3:40:01	Alright, simply because I'm interested that this debate is still ongoing, I'm chucking in my two cents. There are several locations in the book of particular relevance to this.   Page 14, "For attacks with RANGED WEAPONS, use your dexterity modifier for attack and damage rolls. A weapon that has the thrown property, such as a handaxe, can use your strength modifier instead."   Page 176, "You add your strength modifier to your attack and your damage roll when attacking with a MELEE WEAPON such as a mace, a battleaxe or a javelin. You use melee weapons to make melle attacks in hand-to-hand combat, and some of them can be thrown to make a ranged attack."   Page 177, "You add your dexterity modifier to your attack roll and your damage roll when attacking with a RANGED WEAPON such as a sling or a longbow. You can also add your dexterity modifier to your attack roll and your damage roll when attacking with a MELEE WEAPON that has the finesse property, such as a dagger or rapier."   And Page 147, "If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your strength, but if you throw a dagger you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property."   Now, let's look at what each page tells us.   Page 14 says attacks with RANGED WEAPONS use dexterity. THROWN WEAPONS ARE NOT RANGED WEAPONS. It then states that thrown weapons CAN use your strength modifier instead. This implies that it is POSSIBLE for thrown weapons to use strength. However, there is still NOTHING here which states that it is possible for thrown weapons to use dexterity. Just ranged weapons.   So far, all we know is that thrown weapons CAN use strength.   Page 176 specifically shows that thrown weapons (javelin) are melee weapons (which the weapon table shows as well). It also states that melee weapons (ergo thrown weapons) use Strength, and states that some can be thrown to make a ranged attack.   Now we know that thrown weapons by DEFAULT all use strength.   Page 177 states that you can use dexterity when attacking with a melee weapon with the finesse property, such as a dagger or rapier. THIS means that a weapon with the finesse property can use Dexterity when thrown.   So far we have, thrown weapons are melee weapons. Melee weapons use strength. Finesse melee weapons use your choice of strength of dexterity. Ergo thrown finesse weapons use your choice, normal thrown weapons use strength.   Finally Page 147, SPECIFICALLY states "if you throw a handaxe, you use your strength" and "if you throw a dagger, you can use either your strength or yout dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property". This is COMPLETELY clear. It states, ABSOLUTELY, that by default thrown weapons use strength.   In conclusion, there is NOTHING in the book stating that thrown weapons can use dexterity by default. There are SEVERAL sections, that state that they use strength, unless they have the finesse property.   Say what you like, but considering that there is FAR more evidence that shows that thrown weapons use strength unless they have finesse, including an UTTERLY SPECIFIC RULING in the "thrown property" section, it seems pretty clear to me that non-finesse thrown weapons use strength. SilentSin you're using a single line, from a section of the book dedicated to a brief overview of characteristics, to argue with the ENTIRE REMAINDER OF THE RELEVANT TEXT. And the section you're fixated on doesn't even state that thrown weapons can use dexterity to begin with. It AT BEST implies it, and personally I don't think it does even that. Considering the fact that EVERY OTHER RULE states they use strength, can you see what other people have been getting at?
(Reply to #165) Yunru	TheCriticalFail wrote:
#167 Radaceus Jul 12, 2015 4:22:14	jsut had to be sure you were just trolling, SilentSin bait set, trapped
#168 Radaceus Jul 12, 2015 4:26:18	TheCriticalFail wrote:
(Reply to #165) SilentSin	TheCriticalFail wrote:
(Reply to #167) SilentSin	Radaceus wrote:
(Reply to #169) TheCriticalFail	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #171) SilentSin	TheCriticalFail wrote:
#173 Yunru Jul 12, 2015 7:03:15	So... spam then? How else would you describe deliberately prolonging an arguement for four pages where the case you argue isn't even your view.
#174 Orethalion Jul 12, 2015 7:26:18	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #174) Yunru	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #175) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#177 Yunru Jul 12, 2015 8:38:52	Well you know what'd help that? If you didn't word it so it reads that you're arguing that all thrown weapons can use Dex, with the one page as reference. Either way you're still wrong.
#178 Orethalion Jul 12, 2015 8:56:11	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #169) Coredump00	SilentSin wrote:
#180 Orethalion Jul 12, 2015 8:54:52	SilentSin wrote:
(Reply to #176) OoftaMeg	SilentSin wrote:
#182 jaelis Jul 12, 2015 10:44:08	I think that at the end of the day Sin just wants us to agree that sentence is poorly written. Which I'm happy to do... an obvious way to read it would leave the impression that you can use Dex with hand axes.    Sin himself has agreed already that you don't HAVE to read it that way, he just thinks that's the most logical way to read it, given the context   At least that's what it seems like he's saying to me.
(Reply to #182) Yunru	jaelis wrote:
#184 Orethalion Jul 12, 2015 11:20:21	jaelis wrote:
#185 Orethalion Jul 12, 2015 11:23:10	Yunru wrote:
#186 jaelis Jul 12, 2015 11:57:53	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #185) Yunru	Orethalion wrote:
#188 Orethalion Jul 12, 2015 12:34:03	Yunru wrote:
#189 Yunru Jul 12, 2015 12:55:11	Nope. It can, and is, the case that it doesn't refer to choice at all. It refers to a weapons properties.
#190 Orethalion Jul 12, 2015 13:15:59	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #180) SilentSin	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #177) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #183) SilentSin	Yunru wrote:
#194 Bloodscythe Jul 12, 2015 18:19:27	I don't understand the debate.     Given the following information, you use the following stat: Melee weapon without thrown and without finesse property: strength Melee weapon with thrown property but without finesse property: strength Melee weapon without thrown property but with finesse property: strength or dexterity Melee weapon with thrown property and finesse property: strength or dexterity   Ranged weapon without thrown and without finesse property: dexterity Ranged weapon with thrown property but without finesse property: dexterity Ranged weapon without thrown property but with finesse property: strength or dexterity Ranged weapon with thrown property and finesse property: strength or dexterity   Obviously magical effects can create exceptions like Shillelagh has you using your spellcasting stat in place of strength.
#195 Orethalion Jul 12, 2015 18:28:55	SilentSin wrote:
#196 Bloodscythe Jul 12, 2015 18:36:05	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#197 lawrencehoy Jul 12, 2015 19:29:44	SilentSin wrote:
#198 lawrencehoy Jul 12, 2015 19:47:33	SilentSin wrote:
#199 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 12, 2015 19:48:49	Thanks BloodScythe! For question 5. I was trying to understand what the argument was with Grappling/Shoving, and the answer TO the argument (I was a bit slow at understanding that day and needed someone to put into simple terms what it was all about) but you are saying for that you agree Grappling/Shoving can't be used to move between attacks as they are not weapon attacks. yes?
(Reply to #195) SilentSin	Orethalion wrote:
#201 Orethalion Jul 12, 2015 21:46:53	SilentSin wrote:
#202 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 12, 2015 21:53:46	So guys, speaking of semantics and such, I'd like to know how more of you feel on this topic http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4220231 (not the initial question, but the confusion over what the term "round" implies in terms of combat order vs. duration) I think we've got it pretty nailed down in there, but I feel this is a bit bigger then the current argument as it affects more, so i'd like to see if its pretty much agreed upon. If anyone can offer any advice to make the general idea of it more simplified to new players, as i mentioned was my intent in the thread, please let me know!
(Reply to #196) Macv12	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #202) Macv12	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#205 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 13, 2015 2:04:21	I agree with the rulings as well, I try my best to be a benevolent DM as much I can. Upon rereading the information on breaking up the attack, I was mistaken, and I would agree with you and Bloodscythe (if he meant the same thing) and it makes more sense now. The problem was, I somehow got the idea in my head that moving between attacks required a "melee weapon attack" not  "weapon attack". So what youre basically saying is when you have something that lets you make more then one weapon attack/the general wording "attack", you can replace one or both with a special melee attack such as Grappling or Shuving, (my apologies, could you clarify a bit more why this is able to be done when they are not weapon attacks, while spells do not work this way)? For example: A barbarian with a speed of 40 feet reaches 5th level so he gains the Extra Attack feature, which allows him to attack twice, instead of once, whenever he takes the Attack action on his turn. He can replace one of those attacks with a Grapple, and split it up like "he moves 10 feet, swings an axe, moves 30 more feet, and grapples the orc" alternatively, could it be like "he moves 10 feet, shuvs someone, moves 30 more feet, and grapples the orc", or do you need atleast one weapon attack to move between attacks with Grappling/Shuving? think it is also reinforced by the fact under the Grapple section and the Shoving section in the PHB, it says "If you're able to make multiple attacks in with the Attack action, this replaces one of them". If this is correct however, are you able to shuv or grapple twice in one turn using extra attack? Also, is extra attack the only thing that allows you to take an action that includes more then one weapon attack? And finally, if grappling and shuving are not melee weapon attacks, thus things like divine smite, stunning strike, and others do not activate when you use them, they would also not work with things like Improved divine smite, as it specifys its for melee weapons, not "special melee attacks"? As for your response regarding rounds, I think that was very helpful. Its just weird on how parts of this game function, theres things that once you know it, you know it, but trying to explain to others is a bit more difficult. You put in a very easy to understand way, and I appreciate that.
#206 ORC_Nashira Jul 13, 2015 7:21:00	I've removed content from this thread because flaming/baiting and trolling are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here.
(Reply to #205) Bloodscythe	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
(Reply to #203) Bloodscythe	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #199) Bloodscythe	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#210 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 13, 2015 12:38:51	So basically since all of these are made with the Attack Action, they are all considered "weapon attacks" : - Melee weapon attack. - Ranged weapon attack. - Unarmed attack. <---- (these bullet points are from the "move and attack" post #148, and am wondering if the person meant "Unarmed strike attack" or are they seperate things?) - Natural weapons attack. - Shove or shove aside. - Grapple. - Commander's Strike. - etc.  They are able to be used interchangeably with eachother when something tells you or allows you to make a "weapon attack" or uses the general wording "attack". Spells do not work with this, because they are not made with the Attack Action, they are made witth the Cast a Spell action. Also,  since grappling and shuving are not "melee weapon attacks", thus things like divine smite, stunning strike, and others do not activate when you use them, they would also not work with things like Improved divine smite, as it specifys its for melee weapons, not "weapon attacks", correct? Now the action when you move between attacks does not take up one of the attacks, it just provides them? Meaning it's not like you move 10 feet, take the Attack action, move 10 feet, hit with an unarmed strike, and move 10 feet and Grapple. The Attack action provides the weapon attack, so if you have the Extra Attack feature you would move 10 feet, hit with an unarmed strike provided by taking the Attack action, and move 10 feet and Grapple provided by  the same Attack action since Extra Attack lets you attack twice when you take the Attack action on your turn? Am I missing anything?
(Reply to #210) Bloodscythe	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
(Reply to #205) Macv12	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#213 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 13, 2015 18:17:02	Bloodscythe, are you referring to my wording, or the wording of the rules?  I agree that it would make sense to allow magic stone to be used in that way, but before I start making any house rules about it, I'm just trying to make sure I know how the regular rule works, and it seems that my response met all the criteria, as the rules and others imply you are not allowed to use spells to move between attacks. Besides the house rule, I think the way I put it matches up with how you said you regularly rule your table? And Macv12, i was asking both haha, so thank you for answering both of them. The only part I don't quite understand, is the second answer you gave in your response "The rules for moving in combat let you move before and after your action, not during. So if you take an action that involves multiple attacks, like the Attack action with Extra Attack, or high-level Eldritch Blast, you can't move between each attack. They're all one action. But, there's a specific rule under "Moving Between Attacks," which says you can move during your action, if the action is a bunch of weapon attacks. So you can move between Extra Attack attacks. (PHB 190.)". How come  you're saying the rules mean if you take the Attack action with Extra Attack, you can't move between each attack, but in the next sentence say that you can? I understand the spell part not being able to work however.
(Reply to #213) Macv12	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#215 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 13, 2015 23:00:17	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#216 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 14, 2015 17:31:22	It just seems to match up with everything thats been said, besides the spell thing which is more of a house rule as the ability to move and attack if for things made with the attack action, but I just want to make sure I've got a firm grasp of it, and that makes sense as it explains exactly whats allowed for move and attack. Bloodscythe, if you were refering to what I said has bad wording, could you help me to clear it up?
(Reply to #210) Macv12	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#218 tyrionlannister2113 Jul 15, 2015 20:04:28	I just want to start off by saying I thoroughly enjoyed your response haha. But thank you, I get it much better now.
#219 UlgarrRedsplee Jul 15, 2015 22:17:47	I recently started this game, and I'm at this same section right now, so I'm glad I came across this! I guess the thing I'm wondering now to fit this all together, is what inherently are weapon attacks? Is the term to be taken literally and mean "attacks with a weapon" so then a "weapon attack" refers to either "ranged weapon attacks" or "melee weapon attacks"? And this is why, unarmed strikes can work with this, because its to be treated like a melee weapon attack (even though it's not a weapon). With natural weapons though, aren't they seperate from unarmed strikes, so in their case they are not to be treated like "melee weapon attacks" or "weapon attacks" they are weapon attacks, so they fall into either "ranged weapon attacks" or "melee weapon attacks"? I was looking at Jeremy Crawford's twitter today at someones suggestion for other rules to make note of, and he put out a tweet a few hours ago adressing a question someone had about a paladin and shoving, and his response was "The shove option (PH, 195) isn't a weapon attack." so i take it Grappling isn't either. So I think by RAW  that the "Move and Attack" were only supposed to be used with "weapon attacks" such as "melee weapon attacks", "ranged weapon attacks", natural weapons (as long as the natural weapon in question states that it's either a "melee weapon attack" or a "ranged weapon attack". I haven't found any natural weapon a creature has so far in the Monster Manual that has a natural weapon that makes spell attack, so maybe there is none) and unarmed strikes (since again unarmed strikes are treated like melee weapon attacks). However, I don't agree with Macv12 on oppurtunity attacks, as it says they can only be made with "melee attacks" and shoving and grappling are considered "special melee attacks" hence the melee attack in there. In fact theres a note about contests in combat midway through the section on oppurtunity attacks which talks about grappling and shuving before theyre even introduced. Melee attacks for the player are also things like melee weapon attacks, unarmed strikes, and spells that involve making a melee attack (though I'm not sure spells that involve making a melee attack work for reactions, oppurtunity attacks, and moving between attacks, but as said before it really wouldn't change THAT much, so you might as well house rule them to be okay). For a monster things like striking with their claws, horns, teeth, tentacles and other body parts are melee attacks as well: Theyre the natural weapons I referred to above, and can be used for oppurtunity attacks as long as the natural weapon used makes melee weapon attacks. So I believe that with the Commander's Strike maneuver of a fighter, as it gives a friendly creature a reaction to use one weapon attack, the creature would not by the rules be able to use grapples and shove for the weapon attack they gain, as grapples and shoves arent weapon attacks. That is why there is the inconsistency with what Macv12 said about how they believe oppurtunity attacks don't work with grapple and shove as it requires a "weapon attack" but they allow grapple and shove to work with moving between attacks, which also specifys it only works for a "weapon attack", they are explaining a house rule they made. I agree on what they said about how if a feature or other requires an "attack" you can use grapple or shove, but since grapple and shove they dont have a "hit" roll, if the feature or other requires a "hit" it will not work. Either way, I agree with Macv12 and Bloodscythe that grappling and shoveing should be allowed to be used when moving and attacking, as well as cases like Magic stone (i couldnt seem to find Magic Stone in the PHB directory so I can't see exactly what it says). I don't quite see what Macv12 meant in post #214 where they said "According to the more general rule, you can't move during an action" which I believe was refering to the paragraph directly under "Breaking Up Your Move" (pg.190). That first general rule says that you can break up some of your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action, which could be any action, such as the attack action. Then directly after, where it says "Moving Between Attacks" the second more specific rule says that you can break up your movement even further then the first instance, by taking an action that includes more then one weapon attack and moving in between those attacks. It goes onto give an example of a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature, and explains how he could move, attack, move, and attack again. If they were referring to these rules, I don't quite see how the second overrides the first, if the first is simply saying that you could  move, take an action for instance the attack action and bash someone with a warhammer or the like, and move again, and the second rule  says you can break it up even further when the player takes an action that includes more then one weapon attack? Granted, I'm still learning on how to word things Mechanically vs. Narratively, which I'm still getting around to which I mentioned in my other post, meaning I'm not quite sure if you'd announce to everyone "I walk 10 ft, bash the orc with my hammer, walk 10 more feet, and strike at the camel with my sword, since I have the extra attack option which allows you to move, attack, move, and attack again by the rule on pg. 190", but I think that would be right. I also don't know why it refers to taking "an action that includes more then one weapon attack" instead of simply saying "the attack action" as I have no idea what other action would allow you to do succh a thing. But the first rule: Says you can move, take any action you want, and move again. The second rule: Says if you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can move between them all to break up your movement more.
#220 Yunru Jul 16, 2015 2:15:18	A weapon attack is an attack that you can use a weapon for. It's not always required, and in most cases can be made without (Unarmed Strike). Except for ranged. Not sure how you'd make a ranged unarmed strike.
#221 lawrencehoy Jul 16, 2015 4:26:30	UlgarrRedsplee wrote:
(Reply to #219) Macv12	UlgarrRedsplee wrote:
(Reply to #221) UlgarrRedsplee	lawrencehoy wrote:
#224 lawrencehoy Jul 16, 2015 22:45:29	UlgarrRedsplee wrote:
#225 UlgarrRedsplee Jul 16, 2015 23:56:25	Another thing that is rather odd, is the spell "Alter Self" where you can choose a series of options to benefit from. One choice is "Natural Weapons" and it states "You grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose, and you are proficient with unarmed strikes. Finally, the natural weapon is magic and you have a + 1 bonus to the attack and damage rolls you make using it." It's very weird to me how in this scenario, they treat natural weapons like unarmed strikes, albeit improved ones. Going off topic, I believe this damage replaces what your regular unarmed strike would do, not stack, but I wonder if you still add your strength modifier? But anyways, to me this just feels very inconsistent.
#226 lawrencehoy Jul 17, 2015 0:39:39	UlgarrRedsplee wrote:
#227 UlgarrRedsplee Jul 17, 2015 1:06:29	Thanks for being so helpful! Perhaps I'm wrong, but I meant I just feel like they treat natural weapons for monsters differently then natural weapons for those the spell affects. In the first scenario they're more like actual weapons, and in the second they're improved unarmed strikes.
#228 lawrencehoy Jul 17, 2015 3:41:55	UlgarrRedsplee wrote: