So before the madness begins, as it always seems to do so and stir up people on this question - yes, for the record, I have looked this up elsewhere.
I've read all the analysis that Unarmed Strike is a Martial Arts attack and not a Melee Spell Attack. I've seen it. My DM has told me this, and I accept it. I was good until I got the DNDBeyond App running... and like a damaged spleen it just had to go and rupture on me and get me to ask questions again.
The reason why I'm asking this question is that it arose from a curious thing in the DnDBeyond App on my Monk Character. Under "Actions," it had "Inflict Wounds" -- and "Guiding Bolt" under "Actions" that I could take -- not Spells (which I had as I have 1 level of Cleric of the Light) ... but Actions.
As far as the app is concerned, both Inflict Wounds and Guiding Bolt are actions? Now, this, for obvious reasons, opens up all kinds of potential. None the least of which is - I could effectively use my Unarmed Strikes, which might be considered a Magical (Ki-powered attack)- to trigger Inflict Wounds and still get my flurry of blows. And before we go too far -- I know it says they're only considered magical for the purposes of overcoming immunity and resistances - and that they are not, in fact, magical.
That's the way the campaign I'm in is playing now. I can attack as a monk, or I can attack as a cleric, and I can't use one of my 2 monk attacks for magic and one for martial arts attacks. It's one, or the other per turn - I either use my attacks to get my Monk abilities, Unarmed Strike/Flurry -- or I can fire off a spell, and maybe get in an Unarmed Strike or use my Weapon.
Using an Unarmed strike to trigger Inflict Wounds is, from what I'm told by the DM, not an option since Inflict Wounds requires a Melee SpellAttack, and even if I spend Ki, Ki isn't magic and it's not a spell soo.... no dice. :(
I accept this - although it does still irk me that our Fighter dances through turn after turn doing, frankly, all manner of magical attacks while still being... a fighter, firing off magic and beating the crap out of things turn after turn, while I hold positions to insure they have advantage on attacks or control as best I can.
I would love to see people's thoughts on if a Monk should be able to use Inflict wounds with their Unarmed Strike.
[REDACTED] Your GM is correct (the GM is always correct, simply by being the GM). Using inflict wounds is a 'cast a spell' action which requires a melee spell attack. Punching someone with an unarmed strike requires you to take the 'attack' action. They are not the same thing, and unless your character has a specific rule in place such as the Bladesinger wizard or the Eldritch Knight fighter that allows it - then you can't do both.
It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or feels. Them are the rules, and your GM is completely correct. If you don't like it you can always leave the game and start your own.
I accept this - although it does still irk me that our Fighter dances through turn after turn doing, frankly, all manner of magical attacks while still being... a fighter, firing off magic and beating the crap out of things turn after turn, while I hold positions to insure they have advantage on attacks or control as best I can.
Please elaborate on this and give some examples. I am pretty sure there's some misunderstanding somewhere. The basic rules apply to all classes not just Monks.
No they should not as your DM is correct. Its a spell not an unarmed strike or weapon attack.
Balance wise its not good and if you had a class that could upcast inflict wounds (basically any caster class now with shadow touched) then they could toss out several upcast inflict wounds per turn....not intended or designed to go that way.
While I would never allow Inflict Wounds to modify an attack like Booming Blade does, I would seriously consider letting a Monk/Cleric or Monk/Druid use Martial Arts to roll their Range Touch melee spell attacks with Dexterity, rather than Wisdom. The core rules were not written with multiclassing in mind, and Martial Arts are an oft-cited example, because they don't grant Finesse, nerfing Monk/Rogues in a way many see as unnecessary. I've met many people online who say they rule at their tables that it does grant Finesse, and letting it also work on Range Touch Melee Spell Attacks that would otherwise be rolled with Wisdom feels very similar to me.
While I would never allow Inflict Wounds to modify an attack like Booming Blade does, I would seriously consider letting a Monk/Cleric or Monk/Druid use Martial Arts to roll their Range Touch melee spell attacks with Dexterity, rather than Wisdom. The core rules were not written with multiclassing in mind, and Martial Arts are an oft-cited example, because they don't grant Finesse, nerfing Monk/Rogues in a way many see as unnecessary. I've met many people online who say they rule at their tables that it does grant Finesse, and letting it also work on Range Touch Melee Spell Attacks that would otherwise be rolled with Wisdom feels very similar to me.
This seems far more reasonable to me as a suggestion.
Click on inflict wounds, then customize. You will see the “Display as Attack box checked. It is an option so that you can have spells show on your actions screen so you don’t have to flip back and forth.
It’s a cast a spell action and doesn’t work with martial arts.
edit: it might not show on the app, but on the website it does.
Click on inflict wounds, then customize. You will see the “Display as Attack box checked. It is an option so that you can have spells show on your actions screen so you don’t have to flip back and forth.
It’s a cast a spell action and doesn’t work with martial arts.
This... The original post is misconstruing things. All the interface has done is provide individual buttons for different spells used through a Cast a spell action along side different attacks that can be made with the Attack Action so that you can just click on them and use them without digging through your sheet and finding the proper stuff. Actions in no way means "Attack Actions" which are different things from Both Attacks (which can be from cast a spell or the Attack Action) and Actions in general (which covers both the "Attack Action" that MA requires to be used and the "Cast a Spell Action" that are being used with inflict wounds and guiding bolt). But overlap to some extent.
Guiding Bolt and Inflict Wounds are in fact both Attacks. But they are attacks initiated by the Cast a Spell Action. They are under your attacks tab because of that. And they are Actions because of the Cast a Spell Action to use them. So that is why they are under the Actions heading. If you unclick the box that Thrikreen mentioned they will be removed and only found amongst your spells if that makes more sense to you as an individual.
If you will read my post, I asked a question, and started I am openly fine with the DMs decisions. I've never been one to question a DMs ruling, so not sure where your giving me attitude like I am.
The reason for drawing the boxes was to make it easier for people to understand what I was trying to say -- not that that is the way it should be or that I thought it should be that way. Sure, I have feelings on the matter, but as I openly stated, I accept the DM and the prevailing wisdom on it. That said, if someone knew of a legit reason this could be done I'd be as happy as you get.
The consensus from what I've read makes sense. But there's no need to be rude over it.
If you will read my post, I asked a question, and started I am openly fine with the DMs decisions. I've never been one to question a DMs ruling, so not sure where your giving me attitude like I am.
The reason for drawing the boxes was to make it easier for people to understand what I was trying to say -- not that that is the way it should be or that I thought it should be that way. Sure, I have feelings on the matter, but as I openly stated, I accept the DM and the prevailing wisdom on it. That said, if someone knew of a legit reason this could be done I'd be as happy as you get.
The consensus from what I've read makes sense. But there's no need to be rude over it.
I'm not being rude, I am stating facts. The only way this could happen is if the DM allows it for their game. Yours does not. Those are also facts. The fact that you don't like it does not make them any less of a fact.
You are absolutely taking an unnecessarily hostile tone beardsinger...
While op was all over the place with their reading of the rules they were simply looking for some clarification... The dm has the final word on rules of but it's perfectly normal that DMs may be operating under a misunderstanding themselves and would be willing to change their mind when presented with the evidence.. this clearly isn't the case here but it could have been..
It is not you stating the facts that is rude..it is you telling op to leave the group if they disagree that comes off rude..you are creating a conflict where none existed...
Im just pointing this out because I was I initially met with a similarly hostile tone on one of my early posts and it gave me a very negative impression of the community... Nothing personal of course 🙂 i just think we should try to encourage people rather than jumping down their throat for being new
You are absolutely taking an unnecessarily hostile tone beardsinger...
While op was all over the place with their reading of the rules they were simply looking for some clarification... The dm has the final word on rules of but it's perfectly normal that DMs may be operating under a misunderstanding themselves and would be willing to change their mind when presented with the evidence.. this clearly isn't the case here but it could have been..
It is not you stating the facts that is rude..it is you telling op to leave the group if they disagree that comes off rude..you are creating a conflict where none existed...
Im just pointing this out because I was I initially met with a similarly hostile tone on one of my early posts and it gave me a very negative impression of the community... Nothing personal of course 🙂 i just think we should try to encourage people rather than jumping down their throat for being new
So firstly the DM is interpreting and using the rules correctly. Secondly, even if they weren’t then that’s still their prerogative. It’s not for any of us here to second guess or call out the DM for using whatever rules they want as long as they are applied fairly to all players.
As for advising leaving the group - That is literally the best advice possible, if you are unhappy when playing with your group, if you feel that the rules are unfair, if you want to do something that the rules say you can’t and the DM doesn’t let you then you literally have 2 options; 1: stay and be unhappy or 2: leave and find a group more suitable. I don’t really care if you like that advice or not.
So before the madness begins, as it always seems to do so and stir up people on this question - yes, for the record, I have looked this up elsewhere.
I've read all the analysis that Unarmed Strike is a Martial Arts attack and not a Melee Spell Attack. I've seen it. My DM has told me this, and I accept it. I was good until I got the DNDBeyond App running... and like a damaged spleen it just had to go and rupture on me and get me to ask questions again.
The reason why I'm asking this question is that it arose from a curious thing in the DnDBeyond App on my Monk Character. Under "Actions," it had "Inflict Wounds" -- and "Guiding Bolt" under "Actions" that I could take -- not Spells (which I had as I have 1 level of Cleric of the Light) ... but Actions.
As far as the app is concerned, both Inflict Wounds and Guiding Bolt are actions? Now, this, for obvious reasons, opens up all kinds of potential. None the least of which is - I could effectively use my Unarmed Strikes, which might be considered a Magical (Ki-powered attack)- to trigger Inflict Wounds and still get my flurry of blows. And before we go too far -- I know it says they're only considered magical for the purposes of overcoming immunity and resistances - and that they are not, in fact, magical.
That's the way the campaign I'm in is playing now. I can attack as a monk, or I can attack as a cleric, and I can't use one of my 2 monk attacks for magic and one for martial arts attacks. It's one, or the other per turn - I either use my attacks to get my Monk abilities, Unarmed Strike/Flurry -- or I can fire off a spell, and maybe get in an Unarmed Strike or use my Weapon.
Using an Unarmed strike to trigger Inflict Wounds is, from what I'm told by the DM, not an option since Inflict Wounds requires a Melee Spell Attack, and even if I spend Ki, Ki isn't magic and it's not a spell soo.... no dice. :(
I accept this - although it does still irk me that our Fighter dances through turn after turn doing, frankly, all manner of magical attacks while still being... a fighter, firing off magic and beating the crap out of things turn after turn, while I hold positions to insure they have advantage on attacks or control as best I can.
I would love to see people's thoughts on if a Monk should be able to use Inflict wounds with their Unarmed Strike.
[REDACTED] Your GM is correct (the GM is always correct, simply by being the GM). Using inflict wounds is a 'cast a spell' action which requires a melee spell attack. Punching someone with an unarmed strike requires you to take the 'attack' action. They are not the same thing, and unless your character has a specific rule in place such as the Bladesinger wizard or the Eldritch Knight fighter that allows it - then you can't do both.
It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or feels. Them are the rules, and your GM is completely correct. If you don't like it you can always leave the game and start your own.
Please elaborate on this and give some examples. I am pretty sure there's some misunderstanding somewhere. The basic rules apply to all classes not just Monks.
No they should not as your DM is correct. Its a spell not an unarmed strike or weapon attack.
Balance wise its not good and if you had a class that could upcast inflict wounds (basically any caster class now with shadow touched) then they could toss out several upcast inflict wounds per turn....not intended or designed to go that way.
While I would never allow Inflict Wounds to modify an attack like Booming Blade does, I would seriously consider letting a Monk/Cleric or Monk/Druid use Martial Arts to roll their Range Touch melee spell attacks with Dexterity, rather than Wisdom. The core rules were not written with multiclassing in mind, and Martial Arts are an oft-cited example, because they don't grant Finesse, nerfing Monk/Rogues in a way many see as unnecessary. I've met many people online who say they rule at their tables that it does grant Finesse, and letting it also work on Range Touch Melee Spell Attacks that would otherwise be rolled with Wisdom feels very similar to me.
This seems far more reasonable to me as a suggestion.
Click on inflict wounds, then customize. You will see the “Display as Attack box checked. It is an option so that you can have spells show on your actions screen so you don’t have to flip back and forth.
It’s a cast a spell action and doesn’t work with martial arts.
edit: it might not show on the app, but on the website it does.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This... The original post is misconstruing things. All the interface has done is provide individual buttons for different spells used through a Cast a spell action along side different attacks that can be made with the Attack Action so that you can just click on them and use them without digging through your sheet and finding the proper stuff. Actions in no way means "Attack Actions" which are different things from Both Attacks (which can be from cast a spell or the Attack Action) and Actions in general (which covers both the "Attack Action" that MA requires to be used and the "Cast a Spell Action" that are being used with inflict wounds and guiding bolt). But overlap to some extent.
Guiding Bolt and Inflict Wounds are in fact both Attacks. But they are attacks initiated by the Cast a Spell Action. They are under your attacks tab because of that. And they are Actions because of the Cast a Spell Action to use them. So that is why they are under the Actions heading. If you unclick the box that Thrikreen mentioned they will be removed and only found amongst your spells if that makes more sense to you as an individual.
In response to BeardSingers remarks:
If you will read my post, I asked a question, and started I am openly fine with the DMs decisions. I've never been one to question a DMs ruling, so not sure where your giving me attitude like I am.
The reason for drawing the boxes was to make it easier for people to understand what I was trying to say -- not that that is the way it should be or that I thought it should be that way. Sure, I have feelings on the matter, but as I openly stated, I accept the DM and the prevailing wisdom on it. That said, if someone knew of a legit reason this could be done I'd be as happy as you get.
The consensus from what I've read makes sense. But there's no need to be rude over it.
Thanks. I haven't dug into the interface much. Will give that a go.
I'm not being rude, I am stating facts. The only way this could happen is if the DM allows it for their game. Yours does not. Those are also facts. The fact that you don't like it does not make them any less of a fact.
You are absolutely taking an unnecessarily hostile tone beardsinger...
While op was all over the place with their reading of the rules they were simply looking for some clarification... The dm has the final word on rules of but it's perfectly normal that DMs may be operating under a misunderstanding themselves and would be willing to change their mind when presented with the evidence.. this clearly isn't the case here but it could have been..
It is not you stating the facts that is rude..it is you telling op to leave the group if they disagree that comes off rude..you are creating a conflict where none existed...
Im just pointing this out because I was I initially met with a similarly hostile tone on one of my early posts and it gave me a very negative impression of the community... Nothing personal of course 🙂 i just think we should try to encourage people rather than jumping down their throat for being new
So firstly the DM is interpreting and using the rules correctly. Secondly, even if they weren’t then that’s still their prerogative. It’s not for any of us here to second guess or call out the DM for using whatever rules they want as long as they are applied fairly to all players.
As for advising leaving the group - That is literally the best advice possible, if you are unhappy when playing with your group, if you feel that the rules are unfair, if you want to do something that the rules say you can’t and the DM doesn’t let you then you literally have 2 options; 1: stay and be unhappy or 2: leave and find a group more suitable. I don’t really care if you like that advice or not.