from the phb: “When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack”
does this really mean that to use a key feature of a class dedicated to mostly fighting with out weapons only works on attacks with a weapon? Or do monk unarmed attacks count as melee weapon attacks?
Your confusing armed and unarmed with different types of attack categories. Melee attack can be either armed or unarmed. Then you have the other categories of Ranged, Spell, Psychic, etc.
Yes in this case the Dutch American is in the wrong, Tim and Stone Goliath are correct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway.
The result is that an Unarmed Attack is classified as a Melee Weapon Attack.
This means whenever the rules mention a Melee Weapon Attack, that attack can be an Unarmed Attack.
As per the clarification from JC, it does not mean that the Monk's feet/hands are weapons.
The first quote from Stormknight does say unarmed strikes count as a weapon attack. It specifically says you can use unarmed instead of a weapon attack in such cases where a weapon attack is needed. So when Stunning Strike says melee weapon attack you can use unarmed in instead of a weapon and it will still work. Specific rule beats general rule every time.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
from the phb: “When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack”
does this really mean that to use a key feature of a class dedicated to mostly fighting with out weapons only works on attacks with a weapon? Or do monk unarmed attacks count as melee weapon attacks?
Five years too late, but you might have been on to something given that that Playtest 6 removed the "melee weapon attack" wording and added "simple weapon and unarmed strike".
The PHB, under Martial Arts, actually defines "melee Weapon":
At 1st level, your practice o f martial arts gives you mastery o f combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.
So everyone or most people were incorrectly stunning with unarmed strikes, when they should have had a weapon. The Playtest resolved this by added "unarmed strike" since people were doing it anyway.
from the phb: “When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack”
does this really mean that to use a key feature of a class dedicated to mostly fighting with out weapons only works on attacks with a weapon? Or do monk unarmed attacks count as melee weapon attacks?
Five years too late, but you might have been on to something given that that Playtest 6 removed the "melee weapon attack" wording and added "simple weapon and unarmed strike".
The PHB, under Martial Arts, actually defines "melee Weapon":
At 1st level, your practice o f martial arts gives you mastery o f combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.
So everyone or most people were incorrectly stunning with unarmed strikes, when they should have had a weapon. The Playtest resolved this by added "unarmed strike" since people were doing it anyway.
Unarmed strikes could always be used for Stunning Strikes.
sage Advice Compendium confirms it way before One D&D was a thing. Unarmed Strikes are melee weapon attack but not “an attack with a melee weapon” which is wording that is used in other places.
Bit you are correct that One D&D is clarifying the wording.
Question about fancy unarmed strike (backflip kick, flip, etc) how to run these?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM and player; also MirikSiannodel
Current Character(s): Marcon Domine level 2 monk in Lost Mine of Phandelver
Current Campaigns: Icewind Dale: Rime Of the Frostmaiden, Princes of the Apocalypse
Four things I hate in D&D: People who think the tarasque is the most powerful (an empyrean or kraken can beat it), players trying to seduce bad guys (it's funny though), when a monster roles a NAT 20 (everyone hates that), rolling a NAT 1 (everyone hates that)
Question about fancy unarmed strike (backflip kick, flip, etc) how to run these?
As jl8e said. Or if you feel necessary, if you are DM and think the fancy move has a possibility of failure then Acrobatics check with DC 10 or something
Question about fancy unarmed strike (backflip kick, flip, etc) how to run these?
As jl8e said. Or if you feel necessary, if you are DM and think the fancy move has a possibility of failure then Acrobatics check with DC 10 or something
Unless the fancy move is attempting to achieve something beyond what "I punch him inna face" would, I don't think there should be any extra conditions. Color should be free.
Question about fancy unarmed strike (backflip kick, flip, etc) how to run these?
As jl8e said. Or if you feel necessary, if you are DM and think the fancy move has a possibility of failure then Acrobatics check with DC 10 or something
Unless the fancy move is attempting to achieve something beyond what "I punch him inna face" would, I don't think there should be any extra conditions. Color should be free.
I completely agree. But if the player wants to backflip over the target and kick them in the back. Or cartwheel over a table and kick the target as they cartwheel. Then I think a check is fine. But I would also be fine without it too.
Question about fancy unarmed strike (backflip kick, flip, etc) how to run these?
Pretty simple really. Ask yourself is what they are planning something a true practitioner can do or is it special effects using cords like in the movies? If it is the first one, then let them do it, if the second then a DC of 5 or 10 (depending on what is all going on). Heck might even call it a performance check if he is showing off to impress bystanders.
Question about fancy unarmed strike (backflip kick, flip, etc) how to run these?
rule of cool, man. As long as no rules are broken or special effects occur, let him describe his moves however he wants.
EDIT: what I mean by that is if he just wants to flip off the top rope, that's fine. If he wants to flip off the top rope then try to say, "oh, the impact should knock him back" then no.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry for the really noob question:
from the phb: “When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack”
does this really mean that to use a key feature of a class dedicated to mostly fighting with out weapons only works on attacks with a weapon? Or do monk unarmed attacks count as melee weapon attacks?
Monk unarmed attacks count as melee weapon attacks.
Professional computer geek
Your confusing armed and unarmed with different types of attack categories. Melee attack can be either armed or unarmed. Then you have the other categories of Ranged, Spell, Psychic, etc.
Yes in this case the Dutch American is in the wrong, Tim and Stone Goliath are correct.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Just dropping some references into the discussion.
Basic Rules - Unarmed Attacks
Jeremy Crawford clarification
The result is that an Unarmed Attack is classified as a Melee Weapon Attack.
This means whenever the rules mention a Melee Weapon Attack, that attack can be an Unarmed Attack.
As per the clarification from JC, it does not mean that the Monk's feet/hands are weapons.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
The first quote from Stormknight does say unarmed strikes count as a weapon attack. It specifically says you can use unarmed instead of a weapon attack in such cases where a weapon attack is needed. So when Stunning Strike says melee weapon attack you can use unarmed in instead of a weapon and it will still work.
Specific rule beats general rule every time.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Replies removed because I feel dumb for not reading more closely.
Actual tooltip:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
Five years too late, but you might have been on to something given that that Playtest 6 removed the "melee weapon attack" wording and added "simple weapon and unarmed strike".
The PHB, under Martial Arts, actually defines "melee Weapon":
At 1st level, your practice o f martial arts gives you
mastery o f combat styles that use unarmed strikes and
monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple
melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or
heavy property.
So everyone or most people were incorrectly stunning with unarmed strikes, when they should have had a weapon. The Playtest resolved this by added "unarmed strike" since people were doing it anyway.
Unarmed strikes could always be used for Stunning Strikes.
sage Advice Compendium confirms it way before One D&D was a thing. Unarmed Strikes are melee weapon attack but not “an attack with a melee weapon” which is wording that is used in other places.
Bit you are correct that One D&D is clarifying the wording.
Question about fancy unarmed strike (backflip kick, flip, etc) how to run these?
DM and player; also MirikSiannodel
Current Character(s): Marcon Domine level 2 monk in Lost Mine of Phandelver
Current Campaigns: Icewind Dale: Rime Of the Frostmaiden, Princes of the Apocalypse
Four things I hate in D&D: People who think the tarasque is the most powerful (an empyrean or kraken can beat it), players trying to seduce bad guys (it's funny though), when a monster roles a NAT 20 (everyone hates that), rolling a NAT 1 (everyone hates that)
Just narrate them.
As far as the rules care, all unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes. Monks can do as much wire-fu as they like.
As jl8e said. Or if you feel necessary, if you are DM and think the fancy move has a possibility of failure then Acrobatics check with DC 10 or something
Unless the fancy move is attempting to achieve something beyond what "I punch him inna face" would, I don't think there should be any extra conditions. Color should be free.
I completely agree. But if the player wants to backflip over the target and kick them in the back. Or cartwheel over a table and kick the target as they cartwheel. Then I think a check is fine. But I would also be fine without it too.
Pretty simple really. Ask yourself is what they are planning something a true practitioner can do or is it special effects using cords like in the movies? If it is the first one, then let them do it, if the second then a DC of 5 or 10 (depending on what is all going on). Heck might even call it a performance check if he is showing off to impress bystanders.
rule of cool, man. As long as no rules are broken or special effects occur, let him describe his moves however he wants.
EDIT: what I mean by that is if he just wants to flip off the top rope, that's fine. If he wants to flip off the top rope then try to say, "oh, the impact should knock him back" then no.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha