| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1SorsohkaJun 15, 2015 12:28:27 | Did I miss something or does the new errata is preventing monk from using there own stunning fist with there unarmed attack?
The new errata says that unarmed attack are not weapon attack. and Stunning fist says that when you use a weapon attack you can spend 1ki point to stun the target.
From what I'm seeing stunnign fist is the only monk ability affected by the new errata (the open hand technics already specify a flurry of blow attack or unarmed attack)
So stunnign fist is an oversight by the WotC and it should be fixed? or monk, even the open hand are suppose to walk around with a dagger for stunning fist? and why is it call stunning FIST if the attack cannto be deliver by your FIST? |
| #2durntaurJun 15, 2015 15:13:22 | It's actually called "Stunning Strike", but that is neither here nor there.
It's an oversight. |
| #3Macv12Jun 15, 2015 15:34:49 |
|
| #4guachiJun 15, 2015 19:27:10 | What Macv12 said. Unarmed attacks are not weapons. But they are weapon attacks similar to an animals claws or bite being a weapon attack. |
| #5Coredump00Jun 15, 2015 23:07:01 | Um..... mostly..
technically.... an unarmed strike is not a "weapon attack" since it is not a weapon. However, in column 3 of the errata, you are given permission to use an Unarmed Strike instead of using a weapon when making a Melee Weapon Attack.
It is a very fine line... and likely of no relevance....but at some point it might be.
|
| (Reply to #5)Macv12 |
|
| #7SorsohkaJun 16, 2015 4:45:35 | So a monk fighting unarmed only (no weapon) can still use battle maneuvers if he multiclass battle master? He can still use sneak attack?
So if unarmed attack = melee weapon attack, then what was the point of saying that unarmed is not a weapon? I though the errata was suppsoe to clarify the rules, and if this was not clarifying limitation on unarmed attacks, i don't see what it was clarifying? |
| #8melloredJun 16, 2015 5:18:44 |
|
| #9jaelisJun 16, 2015 5:23:06 |
|
| #10Byakugan01Jun 16, 2015 5:21:05 | To stop the Paladin from making the monks fists his bonded weapon and teleporting the monk to him at will. |
| #11melloredJun 16, 2015 6:07:46 | @jaelis, you are correct on both counts. My mistake. Spiritual weapon is a "melee" attack, but not a "weapon" attack. |
| #12KalaniJun 16, 2015 10:30:50 | There are only four kinds of attacks in 5E... These are:
All attacks fall into one of the four categories without exception.
Weapon =/= Weapon Attack All Weapons make Weapon Attacks. Not all Weapon Attacks are made by Weapons (those that aren't are made by natural weapons, such as claws, bites, and yes - even unarmed strikes).
Weapon = Manufactured Weapon
By removing Unarmed Strike from the weapon table, it removes any confusion surrounding natural weapon attacks (eg. bites/claws) and whether they too are considered "weapons". |
| #13jaelisJun 16, 2015 11:26:30 |
|
| #14KalaniJun 16, 2015 12:09:53 | I stand corrected and rephrase:
|
| #15UndrhilJun 16, 2015 18:57:24 | With the errata changing it so that everyone is automatically proficient with Unarmed Strikes, this means the Tavern Brawler feat now has a useless bullet point. |
| (Reply to #15)OoftaMeg |
|
| #17KalaniJun 17, 2015 0:16:57 | Not exactly Oof.... Pre-Errata, most characters had the following Unarmed Strike
Unarmed Strike: Melee Weapon Attack (Weapon)
Post-Errata, most characters unarmed strike has now become:
Unarmed Strike: Melee Weapon Attack (not a weapon, but still a melee weapon attack)
|
| #18FarBeyondCJun 17, 2015 2:14:17 |
|
| #19FarBeyondCJun 17, 2015 2:20:30 |
|
| (Reply to #17)OoftaMeg |
|
| #21Kithas48Jun 17, 2015 15:37:26 | They also removed that part of the bullet point for tavern brawler... And if you were proficient with Simple weapons you were proficient with unarmed strikes as they used to be simple weapons. |
| #22jaelisJun 17, 2015 17:07:02 |
|
| #23VivaldiJun 21, 2015 10:46:10 | is errata something that must be used when playing the game or can you decide not to use it? What about a game at a store? |
| #24FarBeyondCJun 21, 2015 11:50:20 |
|
| (Reply to #14)Bloodscythe |
|
| #26Macv12Jun 23, 2015 17:53:49 | It probably doesn't matter. It would if something said "when you use a melee weapon attack," or just "weapon attack," but I'm not sure that anything does.
But, just for the sake of argument. The contrast you're drawing between "melee attack" and "melee weapon attack" doesn't make sense to me. A melee weapon attack is a subcategory of melee attacks. They're not separate categories. The thing that does make grapple and shove "special," regardless of whether they're weapon attacks or not, is that they don't use an attack roll. AFAIK they are the only "attacks" of any kind that do that.
Given that they don't use an attack roll and have no way of incorporating any weapon's stats into their rolls, I don't see how they can be classified as "weapon attacks." And I'm still unclear on why all attacks must be classified as Weapon or Spell attacks.
It seems more sensible to me that "weapon attack" describes a kind of attack roll with certain characteristics - damage die is drawn from the weapon table, adds STR modifier to attack and damage unless otherwise stated, adds proficiency bonus if you're proficient with the weapon you plugged in, etc. etc. - and spell attacks also have certain characteristics. Unarmed strike shares all the characteristics of weapon attacks, but is the designated option for when you don't have an actual "weapon." Grapple and shove share characteristics of neither, so are of neither category. |
| #27mrpopstarJun 23, 2015 23:56:42 |
|
| #28ArialBlackJun 24, 2015 8:50:38 | Grapples and shoves are not 'attacks' in game terms (ie 'attack rolls'); they are contested ability checks. But there is a rule that allows an attack to be replaced by a grapple or shove ability check. |
| (Reply to #28)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #27)Bloodscythe |
|
| #31Slagger_the_ChuulJun 24, 2015 10:21:59 | For the reasoning separating weapon attacks and spell attacks, it's probably something to do with how you're performing the attack. Weapon attacks involve just the basic physical act that delivers the force of the attack, while spell attacks could involve some kind of magical gesture or mental effort. For example, when firing a bow as a ranged weapon attack, you draw and release, while a ranged spell attack with chill touch might involve pointing or willing the floating hand towards its target.
So, although an unarmed strike isn't a weapon, you attack with it like a weapon attack because it's just direct physical delivery, likewise with shillelagh; it's magically empowered by the spell, but it remains a weapon attack because all you do to attack with it is take a swing. Same for lightning arrow; it's charged with electricity, but hitting the target involves pulling back a bowstring and pointing the bow the right way to propel it, so it's a melee weapon attack.
That's my interpretation of the way it's set up, anyway. |
| (Reply to #31)Bloodscythe |
|
| #33Slagger_the_ChuulJun 24, 2015 11:31:51 |
|
| (Reply to #33)Bloodscythe |
|
| #35Slagger_the_ChuulJun 24, 2015 12:37:27 |
|
| (Reply to #30)Macv12 |
|
| (Reply to #36)Bloodscythe |
|
| #38KalaniJun 30, 2015 13:27:30 | You people are missing the main point. Shove and grapple are attacks, but they don't have Attack Rolls (nor do they deal damage).
Any ability which triggers on an attack roll will not trigger on a grapple/shove because these are ability checks.
Always remember the 3 d20 rolls: Attack, Ability Check (inc skill checks, initiative and grapple/shove), and Saving Throw.
Grapple/shove are listed as special attacks so that they can be used on the Attack Action (not to be confused with making an Attack roll). By extension, they work with Extra Attacks and other features (eg. tWF or Martial arts) which trigger on the Attack action.
If this wasn't the case - they would have been listed as their own separate action.
Don't be confused however, these attacks are treated as Attack (Contested Ability check) while most other attacks are Attack (Melee/Ranged Weapon/Spell attack roll) |
| (Reply to #37)Macv12 |
|
| #40Slagger_the_ChuulJul 01, 2015 0:34:54 |
|
| (Reply to #39)Yunru |
|
| (Reply to #40)Bloodscythe |
|
| #43jaelisJul 01, 2015 7:03:33 |
|
| (Reply to #43)Yunru |
|
| (Reply to #43)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #44)Bloodscythe |
|
| #47jaelisJul 01, 2015 8:23:18 |
|
| #48KalaniJul 01, 2015 8:47:07 | Think of it like a nested flow chart.
Did you make an attack or get hit before the end of your last turn?
All Weapons make (Melee/Ranged Weapon Attacks). The reverse is not true as only some (Weapon attacks) are made with weapons.
Some weapon attacks are made with natural weapons (inc. unarmed strike).
Don't believe me? Look up the stats for any beast in the MM/PHB/Basic rules. You will see entries like:
Claw (Melee Weapon Attack)
|
| (Reply to #47)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #47)ArialBlack |
|
| #51jaelisJul 01, 2015 10:02:50 |
|
| (Reply to #51)Bloodscythe |
|
| #53Slagger_the_ChuulJul 01, 2015 11:47:19 | Is it possible for the ring of the ram to just deliver "an attack", neither specifically melee, nor specifically ranged?
It's not actually the wielder making the attack (the ring uses all its own modifiers), so it might reasonably not involve any of the normal considerations appropriate for either a melee attack or ranged attack. |
| (Reply to #53)Bloodscythe |
|
| #55KalaniJul 01, 2015 15:48:29 | The ring of the Ram uses the "Use Object" action, however despite this it makes an Attack Roll. I would consider it similar to a thrown weapon - the attack can either be Melee or ranged. |
| #56jaelisJul 01, 2015 19:51:32 | Iron Bands of Billarro is another magic item with an attack that is not called out as either weapon or spell. Though here it is specified as a ranged attack.
Staff of the Adder also doesn't say, but for that one I'd call it a weapon attack since the staff is a weapon. Similarly for the Tentacle Rod. |