I'm continually confused by the rulings in Sage Advice on the Monk Unarmed Attack and conflating it with Unarmed Attack's available to other characters.
Examples from Sage Advice:
Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?
Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack. The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
Does the Savage Attacker feat work with unarmed strikes?
No. Savage Attacker relies on a weapon’s damage dice, and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon (a point that was clarified in the Player’s Handbook errata).
Are natural weapons considered weapons?
Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.
Does a melee spell attack count as a melee attack for Touch of Death?
A melee spell attack is, indeed, a melee attack and can qualify for the Death cleric’s Touch of Death feature.
Now all of that from the Sage Advice, yet if you look at the Non-player Character listed in Volo's Guide To Monsters: Martial Arts Adept
Unarmed Strike.Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (1d8 + 3) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a creature, the adept can choose one of the following additional effects:
The target must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or drop one item it is holding (adept’s choice).
The target must succeed on a DC 13 Dexterity saving throw or be knocked prone.
The target must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of the adept’s next turn.
Now if that is NOT a Monk of the Way Of The Openhand I don't know what is. They clearly consider it a Melee Weapon Attack for all intents and purposes here.
Does the Martial Arts feature turn monk weapons and unarmed strikes into finesse weapons?
No. The feature grants a benefit that is similar to the finesse property, but the feature doesn’t confer that property.
I think one of the issues that is causing all this confusion is they do not specifically list a weapon table with unarmed attacks, claws, bites, getting gored by horns and what special features they have. I think there is a STRONG argument that a Monks Unarmed attacks are in FACT a Finesse weapon compared to the Unarmed attacks of other characters. They will never STOP having the ability to chose between using Strength or Dexterity in their attacks. There body IS a weapon. That is the primary difference. They are making precision attacks at their opponents weakest points. If that is not a Finesse weapon that can't count with a Thieve's backstab I don't know what is. There commentary on this is:
Can a rogue/monk use Sneak Attack with unarmed strikes?
The Sneak Attack feature works with a weapon that has the finesse or ranged property. An unarmed strike isn’t a weapon, so it doesn’t qualify. In contrast, a rogue/ monk can use Sneak Attack with a monk weapon, such as a shortsword or a dagger, that has one of the required properties.
The confusion here is between melee weapons and melee weapons attacks. A melee weapon doesn't include unarmed attacks because unarmed attacks are, well, unarmed.
A melee weapon attack is an attack that's made in melee range and that isn't a spell attack. It includes unarmed attacks because they are used in the same way.
I agree it's confusing, and I always wondered why natural weapons don't count as unarmed attacks, but that's a design choice, not a mistake.
Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. Fists/heads/knees are not weapons. Therefore an attack made with a fist -- aka an unarmed strike -- is (a) a melee weapon attack but (b) not made with a weapon.
It's baffling and confusing and doesn't make a ton of sense, but it is what it is. It feels like a remnant of a time when "wielding a weapon" maybe had a much more aggressive connotation in 5e than it actually does -- like, if there were cases where "wielding a weapon" would disallow some social abilities or something, but such rules don't exist so long as I know. By RAW, walking into a tavern with a sword drawn functions basically the same as if it were sheathed (the DM is likely going to rule otherwise, but by the rules there doesn't seem to be any difference with how those function).
Natural weapons (such as horns or claws) on a PC are usually stipulated that they can be used as an unarmed strike, and that is a RARE case where an unarmed strike is done with a [natural] weapon.
I did ramble on a bit so I'll try to be more concise.
It seems like every time the Monk's Unarmed Strikes are being ruled as a Weapon or not is arbitrary. The game designers only exception to calling it a weapon is within the Monk class itself. As soon as any other effect is considered it does not appear to qualify. Similarly, the monk being able to use any weapon as a finesse weapon is once again considered a special exception to all rules and only holds within the class. I think the inadvertent consequence of this is the Monk class continues to have poor synergy with Multi-classing or use of weapons in general as a result. If they would simply declare the Monk Unarmed Strike to be a Finesse Weapon PERIOD, that would bring an end to the nebulous grey area.
And as far as worrying about balance goes, I don't think they could really care after they introduced the Unarmed Combat rules for Fighters in Tasha's. A first level Monk looks like he's playing patty cake against that. Almost inevitably, they've opened up a Fighter 1 Monk 19 barrage.
I always felt, as least from a player's perspective, that the reason Monk Weapons and Martial Arts are not considered Finesse weapons is so they can't be used for the purpose of Rogue Backstabbing/Sneak Attacks... I don't think there is anything over the top powerful for making a Martial Arts weapon or unarmed strikes a Backstab trigger, considering the amount of level investment for a monk and rogue to be feasible, so I know people at my table have argued it in the past.
Think of it this way, a weapon is Finesse because it is designed to be used in a particular manner. A monk uses a weapon in a non-conventional way to make use of their dexterity, but the weapon itself is still not Finesse. Take the Light Hammer or Throwing Hammer for an instance, Finesse is a property that it simply does not have, but a Monk or character could still use it in a Dextrose way even if it is not designed to be that way.
I agree that it would clear up that gray area, but the straight ruling is the weapon is NOT a Finesse weapon. If in doubt, talk to your DM about it, and make it a homebrew ruling, although it has very little impact on gameplay outside of a small niche build here and there.
I did ramble on a bit so I'll try to be more concise.
It seems like every time the Monk's Unarmed Strikes are being ruled as a Weapon or not is arbitrary. The game designers only exception to calling it a weapon is within the Monk class itself. As soon as any other effect is considered it does not appear to qualify. Similarly, the monk being able to use any weapon as a finesse weapon is once again considered a special exception to all rules and only holds within the class. I think the inadvertent consequence of this is the Monk class continues to have poor synergy with Multi-classing or use of weapons in general as a result. If they would simply declare the Monk Unarmed Strike to be a Finesse Weapon PERIOD, that would bring an end to the nebulous grey area.
And as far as worrying about balance goes, I don't think they could really care after they introduced the Unarmed Combat rules for Fighters in Tasha's. A first level Monk looks like he's playing patty cake against that. Almost inevitably, they've opened up a Fighter 1 Monk 19 barrage.
So there are a few issues here. First, the consideration of Unarmed Strikes to not be a weapon is consistent everywhere. It certainly creates some dumb interactions and definitions (the earlier mentioned "weapon attack but not using a weapon") but there isn't any case where they call Unarmed Strikes (or fists/feet/etc) weapons.
Second, the Monk can't use any weapon as a finesse weapon. They are allowed to use DEX instead of STR. This is the same as the effect of the finesse property, but importantly they do not say that Monk weapons gain the Finesse property. Two different things, and definitionally important.
Monks are generally rough to MC with because of two things: their MADness and their ki progression. Monks want lots of ki to use, and they don't get that by gaining levels in other classes. It is strange that Rogue and Monk don't mesh well due to the finesse thing, and personally I think that it would make more sense for Rogues to have Sneak Attack worded as "The attack must use DEX as it's attack modifier" rather than "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon". Honestly, I think that Sneak Attack was meant to operate that way, but it was simply an oversight that this would disallow Monk/Rogue MCing to keep up with some other quality MCs. But that's a separate topic.
Finally, the Unarmed Combat fighting style does have some strange implications on Monks. But that has been discussed in multiple other threads on this board, so if you are interested in discussing that feel free to check those out.
As said, unarmed strikes are not weapons, that’s why they are unarmed. They do qualify for the phrase “melee weapon attack” but not with “attack with a melee weapon”. They could have just phrased it as “melee attack” instead of “melee weapon attack” but I think they had to make a distinction between “melee weapon attack” and “melee spell attack”.
And finesse is a property of a weapon, which unarmed strikes are not so they didn’t call monk unarmed strikes finesse weapons even though they act like them.
And IF that qualifies as a weapon, then why doesn't punching a boulder as part of his training for 17 yrs causing micro fractures in his bones and increased density in his bone structure count? They in effect are honing a weapon in all those years. It's a natural weapon.
And IF that qualifies as a weapon, then why doesn't punching a boulder as part of his training for 17 yrs causing micro fractures in his bones and increased density in his bone structure count? They in effect are honing a weapon in all those years. It's a natural weapon.
Well, if someone were wearing brass knuckles in DND then they still aren't weapons, because they aren't on the weapons table.
Brass Knuckles aren't on any official weapons list in 5e, but that's not to say that you couldn't create a weapon and label it with whatever properties you want.
There's a future campaign system called Stars Without Numbers by Kevin Crawford (d6 system) that has several variations of weapons for unarmed strikes. Dusters or Brass Nuckles would do an additional +1 to hit and damage, and would change the damage type to lethal. Higher tech equivalents like Kinesis wraps (wraps that you wear around your fists) further this by allowing them surpass additional damage resistances, which are common per Tech Tier.
If you asked me to what an Brass knuckle or something should be treated as for a Home Brew, I would say something like a +1 or +2 Bludgeoning damage ontop of whatever their unarmed strike is, but no additional bonus to attack rolls. For someone like a Monk who has an increasing unarmed strike value, this could worthwhile. For other classes (Unarmed Fighting Style or Tavern Brawler), there's still some potential use. Heck, silver brass knuckles or a silver duster would be a pretty cool item for an unarmed combatant.
Home brew a nice weapon out of it, but don't go too crazy with it
I appreciate the thought theredwind, but then I realized because of this nebulous crap that would put me in another situation. As soon as I put some magical wrap or brass knuckle on, now it's NOT an unarmed attack, NOW it would magically become a weapon attack. Further, according to the rules it couldn't be a WEAPON UNLESS I had to train for proficiency in it. You see THAT is where all this crap comes from about an unarmed attack NOT being a weapon. It says, "you are proficient with unarmed strikes, so they don't count as weapons." And then they also say that the Monks unarmed attacks are NOT a finesse weapon, but that "Finesse-like" attacks are something that comes about as a result of the Monks abilities. Now this DESPITE the fact that NO other class can do an Unarmed attack as if it had Finesse. And NO other class receives proficiency to use this ability UNLESS they become a Monk for one level. But Jeremy Crawford on 8/24/18 said, "Your unarmed strikes have no weapon properties. As a result unarmed strikes don't qualify for anything that requires a weapon property." So the unarmed attack of the monk STILL equates somehow to the same type of unarmed attack as that of Todd the stable boy at Flander's Flip and Flop. Now, I might understand there being concerns about play balance or something, but this is beyond the pale. They added an Unarmed Fighting style for Fighter's so they can clobber people with a massive 1d8 damage if they AREN'T wielding any weapons or shields. Meanwhile, the Monk's little d4 goes plink. That without any explanation as to WHY the Unarmed Fighting Style mysteriously allows the Fighter to go from a d6 damage to a d8. WHY? If it's because he's able to use both fists, then should the Monk be able to go from a d4 to a d6? and one die up through 20th level if somehow having both hands free equates to more damage? It's like they keep doubling down on their first ruling and compounding the error again and again and again. I think I'm going to go back to playing MMOs. At least they have weekly updates and unending Nerfs because they know they don't know what they're doing. I'm not having fun with a class where I can't even tell half the time what rule applies to his attacks and then resenting when I see that EVERY other class can take advantage of some spell or effect EXCEPT the Monk due to this.
Yeah, i can see your frustration with odd clarification of rules and power creep that you are coming across, but they will be existing in any popular rpg where new content and a live "sage" advice feed exists. You can either choose to disregard some rules and ignore others, and play the game as you and your team choose...
...or move onto another system, possiblely an older system that doesn't have the power creep (because no new official content) that makes you feel like your martial arts strikes are less useful.
I think jumping into an MMORPG that includes NERFs on a regular basis is pretty much the same problem youll have in 5e where your character's relovence will constantly change. In 5e, they buff or add new subclasses or abilities that do the same thing in the end as nerfing everyone as a whole.
What's going to make you enjoy either of these is the group you play with and how they are willing to interpret rules or gray areas. DnD is only as fun as the group youre playing with...
I appreciate the thought theredwind, but then I realized because of this nebulous crap that would put me in another situation. As soon as I put some magical wrap or brass knuckle on, now it's NOT an unarmed attack, NOW it would magically become a weapon attack. Further, according to the rules it couldn't be a WEAPON UNLESS I had to train for proficiency in it. You see THAT is where all this crap comes from about an unarmed attack NOT being a weapon. It says, "you are proficient with unarmed strikes, so they don't count as weapons." And then they also say that the Monks unarmed attacks are NOT a finesse weapon, but that "Finesse-like" attacks are something that comes about as a result of the Monks abilities. Now this DESPITE the fact that NO other class can do an Unarmed attack as if it had Finesse. And NO other class receives proficiency to use this ability UNLESS they become a Monk for one level. But Jeremy Crawford on 8/24/18 said, "Your unarmed strikes have no weapon properties. As a result unarmed strikes don't qualify for anything that requires a weapon property." So the unarmed attack of the monk STILL equates somehow to the same type of unarmed attack as that of Todd the stable boy at Flander's Flip and Flop. Now, I might understand there being concerns about play balance or something, but this is beyond the pale. They added an Unarmed Fighting style for Fighter's so they can clobber people with a massive 1d8 damage if they AREN'T wielding any weapons or shields. Meanwhile, the Monk's little d4 goes plink. That without any explanation as to WHY the Unarmed Fighting Style mysteriously allows the Fighter to go from a d6 damage to a d8. WHY? If it's because he's able to use both fists, then should the Monk be able to go from a d4 to a d6? and one die up through 20th level if somehow having both hands free equates to more damage? It's like they keep doubling down on their first ruling and compounding the error again and again and again. I think I'm going to go back to playing MMOs. At least they have weekly updates and unending Nerfs because they know they don't know what they're doing. I'm not having fun with a class where I can't even tell half the time what rule applies to his attacks and then resenting when I see that EVERY other class can take advantage of some spell or effect EXCEPT the Monk due to this.
NOT FUN ANYMORE
It's not about being able to hit with both hands. Your drawing lines to create these kinds of conflicts again and again in multiple threads. The idea behind not having anything in your hands to be able to do slightly more damage is that you are not restricted by your equipment to put the force into the punch and not because your now hitting suddenly with both fists.
Martial Arts may act similarly to Finesse but it is not finesse. Being able to hold a finesse weapon which is used in a certain style of usage and not just about the heaviness of the item is not necessarily the same way that you would use your fists without Martial Arts. It's like the difference between a Boxer and Karate. It is in no way giving weapon traits to your unarmed strikes. It should not be seen as much your trying to simplify it into such to give room for other ways to twist things. The Fighters Fighting Style is similar to that Boxer by the way. Throwing strong heavy punches and blocking through more brute force than redirection of force. And it is not a dual weapon despite your having two fists. Your using them in tandem with each other to strike the blows as if they were one thing.
Also people should keep in mind that anything on Sage Advice are not actually rules. Several things that are listed are actually Jeremy's personal preferences on how he would run games and nothing in it is official. It's semi-official Advice at best and should be treated as such. Anything that is a hard and fast ruling will come up in Errata that get published every so often but they try not to do too much. This has been stated both by the D&D team and by Jeremy.
I appreciate the thought theredwind, but then I realized because of this nebulous crap that would put me in another situation. As soon as I put some magical wrap or brass knuckle on, now it's NOT an unarmed attack, NOW it would magically become a weapon attack. Further, according to the rules it couldn't be a WEAPON UNLESS I had to train for proficiency in it. You see THAT is where all this crap comes from about an unarmed attack NOT being a weapon. It says, "you are proficient with unarmed strikes, so they don't count as weapons." And then they also say that the Monks unarmed attacks are NOT a finesse weapon, but that "Finesse-like" attacks are something that comes about as a result of the Monks abilities. Now this DESPITE the fact that NO other class can do an Unarmed attack as if it had Finesse. And NO other class receives proficiency to use this ability UNLESS they become a Monk for one level. But Jeremy Crawford on 8/24/18 said, "Your unarmed strikes have no weapon properties. As a result unarmed strikes don't qualify for anything that requires a weapon property." So the unarmed attack of the monk STILL equates somehow to the same type of unarmed attack as that of Todd the stable boy at Flander's Flip and Flop. Now, I might understand there being concerns about play balance or something, but this is beyond the pale. They added an Unarmed Fighting style for Fighter's so they can clobber people with a massive 1d8 damage if they AREN'T wielding any weapons or shields. Meanwhile, the Monk's little d4 goes plink. That without any explanation as to WHY the Unarmed Fighting Style mysteriously allows the Fighter to go from a d6 damage to a d8. WHY? If it's because he's able to use both fists, then should the Monk be able to go from a d4 to a d6? and one die up through 20th level if somehow having both hands free equates to more damage? It's like they keep doubling down on their first ruling and compounding the error again and again and again. I think I'm going to go back to playing MMOs. At least they have weekly updates and unending Nerfs because they know they don't know what they're doing. I'm not having fun with a class where I can't even tell half the time what rule applies to his attacks and then resenting when I see that EVERY other class can take advantage of some spell or effect EXCEPT the Monk due to this.
NOT FUN ANYMORE
It's not about being able to hit with both hands. Your drawing lines to create these kinds of conflicts again and again in multiple threads. The idea behind not having anything in your hands to be able to do slightly more damage is that you are not restricted by your equipment to put the force into the punch and not because your now hitting suddenly with both fists.
Martial Arts may act similarly to Finesse but it is not finesse. Being able to hold a finesse weapon which is used in a certain style of usage and not just about the heaviness of the item is not necessarily the same way that you would use your fists without Martial Arts. It's like the difference between a Boxer and Karate. It is in no way giving weapon traits to your unarmed strikes. It should not be seen as much your trying to simplify it into such to give room for other ways to twist things. The Fighters Fighting Style is similar to that Boxer by the way. Throwing strong heavy punches and blocking through more brute force than redirection of force. And it is not a dual weapon despite your having two fists. Your using them in tandem with each other to strike the blows as if they were one thing.
Also people should keep in mind that anything on Sage Advice are not actually rules. Several things that are listed are actually Jeremy's personal preferences on how he would run games and nothing in it is official. It's semi-official Advice at best and should be treated as such. Anything that is a hard and fast ruling will come up in Errata that get published every so often but they try not to do too much. This has been stated both by the D&D team and by Jeremy.
To the bolded above, which begs the question why can’t a monk do this. If having both hands empty and not restricted by equipment allows you to do more damage then a monk not using a weapon should be able to benefit. But if a monk decides to use a monk weapon and then use their Bonus Action to unarmed strike or FoB then they don’t get the higher die.
Edit: it’s kind of funny to think a fighter wearing a full suit of plate mail but no weapons is “not restricted” but the monk wearing loose fitting clothes/robes somehow is.
Eh, i think of it as part of the martial discipline to the fighting style. The fighter trains to fight while wearing heavy armor, so its not an impediment to how he moves... a monk that is used to having both hands free is used to parrying and striking at the same time, opening up a larger window for his strike. Like a rogue trying to pull off the same strike while wearing Medium Armor, that a ranger can pull off without difficulty.
It's odd to imagine visually, but makes plenty of sense to me
I appreciate the thought theredwind, but then I realized because of this nebulous crap that would put me in another situation. As soon as I put some magical wrap or brass knuckle on, now it's NOT an unarmed attack, NOW it would magically become a weapon attack. Further, according to the rules it couldn't be a WEAPON UNLESS I had to train for proficiency in it. You see THAT is where all this crap comes from about an unarmed attack NOT being a weapon. It says, "you are proficient with unarmed strikes, so they don't count as weapons." And then they also say that the Monks unarmed attacks are NOT a finesse weapon, but that "Finesse-like" attacks are something that comes about as a result of the Monks abilities. Now this DESPITE the fact that NO other class can do an Unarmed attack as if it had Finesse. And NO other class receives proficiency to use this ability UNLESS they become a Monk for one level. But Jeremy Crawford on 8/24/18 said, "Your unarmed strikes have no weapon properties. As a result unarmed strikes don't qualify for anything that requires a weapon property." So the unarmed attack of the monk STILL equates somehow to the same type of unarmed attack as that of Todd the stable boy at Flander's Flip and Flop. Now, I might understand there being concerns about play balance or something, but this is beyond the pale. They added an Unarmed Fighting style for Fighter's so they can clobber people with a massive 1d8 damage if they AREN'T wielding any weapons or shields. Meanwhile, the Monk's little d4 goes plink. That without any explanation as to WHY the Unarmed Fighting Style mysteriously allows the Fighter to go from a d6 damage to a d8. WHY? If it's because he's able to use both fists, then should the Monk be able to go from a d4 to a d6? and one die up through 20th level if somehow having both hands free equates to more damage? It's like they keep doubling down on their first ruling and compounding the error again and again and again. I think I'm going to go back to playing MMOs. At least they have weekly updates and unending Nerfs because they know they don't know what they're doing. I'm not having fun with a class where I can't even tell half the time what rule applies to his attacks and then resenting when I see that EVERY other class can take advantage of some spell or effect EXCEPT the Monk due to this.
NOT FUN ANYMORE
It's not about being able to hit with both hands. Your drawing lines to create these kinds of conflicts again and again in multiple threads. The idea behind not having anything in your hands to be able to do slightly more damage is that you are not restricted by your equipment to put the force into the punch and not because your now hitting suddenly with both fists.
Martial Arts may act similarly to Finesse but it is not finesse. Being able to hold a finesse weapon which is used in a certain style of usage and not just about the heaviness of the item is not necessarily the same way that you would use your fists without Martial Arts. It's like the difference between a Boxer and Karate. It is in no way giving weapon traits to your unarmed strikes. It should not be seen as much your trying to simplify it into such to give room for other ways to twist things. The Fighters Fighting Style is similar to that Boxer by the way. Throwing strong heavy punches and blocking through more brute force than redirection of force. And it is not a dual weapon despite your having two fists. Your using them in tandem with each other to strike the blows as if they were one thing.
Also people should keep in mind that anything on Sage Advice are not actually rules. Several things that are listed are actually Jeremy's personal preferences on how he would run games and nothing in it is official. It's semi-official Advice at best and should be treated as such. Anything that is a hard and fast ruling will come up in Errata that get published every so often but they try not to do too much. This has been stated both by the D&D team and by Jeremy.
To the bolded above, which begs the question why can’t a monk do this. If having both hands empty and not restricted by equipment allows you to do more damage then a monk not using a weapon should be able to benefit. But if a monk decides to use a monk weapon and then use their Bonus Action to unarmed strike or FoB then they don’t get the higher die.
Edit: it’s kind of funny to think a fighter wearing a full suit of plate mail but no weapons is “not restricted” but the monk wearing loose fitting clothes/robes somehow is.
The monk doesn't do damage with his hands empty because he's not boxing. The Fighting Style given to the Fighter is basically Boxing. It's all about throwing the punch. Your unrestricted with gear in your hands so you have an easier time throwing a punch.
The Monk on the other hand gets the full abilities of martial arts which go way above and beyond simply dealing slightly more damage on an individual strike because they get the ability to do a whole extra strike, the ability to use their dex instead of simply their strength to deal the blows and even the ability to deal damage with their hands full because their unarmed Strike is not restricted by what is in their hands but can be dealt with their entire body. So they are not only getting more damage out of it but a whole suite of abilities the fighting style does not have and cannot even hope to replicate. The fighting style is a poor imitation of what the Monks actually do.
The rules surrounding unarmed strikes are a little confounding, to be honest. It flies in the face of all the rhetoric we get about plain language style rules... and some of the sage advice notes even admit that the choices are arbitrary and don't really have any foundation in balance at all. It's literally just weird and messy for the sake of it.
Also people should keep in mind that anything on Sage Advice are not actually rules. Several things that are listed are actually Jeremy's personal preferences on how he would run games and nothing in it is official. It's semi-official Advice at best and should be treated as such. Anything that is a hard and fast ruling will come up in Errata that get published every so often but they try not to do too much. This has been stated both by the D&D team and by Jeremy.
Please note that the published Sage Advice Compendium IS official rulings and clarifies the difference to unofficial advice given online via twitter.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here.
What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?
It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.
Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.
- Sage Advise Compendium
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm continually confused by the rulings in Sage Advice on the Monk Unarmed Attack and conflating it with Unarmed Attack's available to other characters.
Examples from Sage Advice:
Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?
Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack. The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
Does the Savage Attacker feat work with unarmed strikes?
No. Savage Attacker relies on a weapon’s damage dice, and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon (a point that was clarified in the Player’s Handbook errata).
Are natural weapons considered weapons?
Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.
Does a melee spell attack count as a melee attack for Touch of Death?
A melee spell attack is, indeed, a melee attack and can qualify for the Death cleric’s Touch of Death feature.
Now all of that from the Sage Advice, yet if you look at the Non-player Character listed in Volo's Guide To Monsters: Martial Arts Adept
Unarmed Strike. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (1d8 + 3) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a creature, the adept can choose one of the following additional effects:
Now if that is NOT a Monk of the Way Of The Openhand I don't know what is. They clearly consider it a Melee Weapon Attack for all intents and purposes here.
Does the Martial Arts feature turn monk weapons and unarmed strikes into finesse weapons?
No. The feature grants a benefit that is similar to the finesse property, but the feature doesn’t confer that property.
I think one of the issues that is causing all this confusion is they do not specifically list a weapon table with unarmed attacks, claws, bites, getting gored by horns and what special features they have. I think there is a STRONG argument that a Monks Unarmed attacks are in FACT a Finesse weapon compared to the Unarmed attacks of other characters. They will never STOP having the ability to chose between using Strength or Dexterity in their attacks. There body IS a weapon. That is the primary difference. They are making precision attacks at their opponents weakest points. If that is not a Finesse weapon that can't count with a Thieve's backstab I don't know what is. There commentary on this is:
Can a rogue/monk use Sneak Attack with unarmed strikes?
The Sneak Attack feature works with a weapon that has the finesse or ranged property. An unarmed strike isn’t a weapon, so it doesn’t qualify. In contrast, a rogue/ monk can use Sneak Attack with a monk weapon, such as a shortsword or a dagger, that has one of the required properties.
Opinions?
The confusion here is between melee weapons and melee weapons attacks. A melee weapon doesn't include unarmed attacks because unarmed attacks are, well, unarmed.
A melee weapon attack is an attack that's made in melee range and that isn't a spell attack. It includes unarmed attacks because they are used in the same way.
I agree it's confusing, and I always wondered why natural weapons don't count as unarmed attacks, but that's a design choice, not a mistake.
Right, I'm not sure what the question is here.
Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. Fists/heads/knees are not weapons. Therefore an attack made with a fist -- aka an unarmed strike -- is (a) a melee weapon attack but (b) not made with a weapon.
It's baffling and confusing and doesn't make a ton of sense, but it is what it is. It feels like a remnant of a time when "wielding a weapon" maybe had a much more aggressive connotation in 5e than it actually does -- like, if there were cases where "wielding a weapon" would disallow some social abilities or something, but such rules don't exist so long as I know. By RAW, walking into a tavern with a sword drawn functions basically the same as if it were sheathed (the DM is likely going to rule otherwise, but by the rules there doesn't seem to be any difference with how those function).
Natural weapons (such as horns or claws) on a PC are usually stipulated that they can be used as an unarmed strike, and that is a RARE case where an unarmed strike is done with a [natural] weapon.
I did ramble on a bit so I'll try to be more concise.
It seems like every time the Monk's Unarmed Strikes are being ruled as a Weapon or not is arbitrary. The game designers only exception to calling it a weapon is within the Monk class itself. As soon as any other effect is considered it does not appear to qualify. Similarly, the monk being able to use any weapon as a finesse weapon is once again considered a special exception to all rules and only holds within the class. I think the inadvertent consequence of this is the Monk class continues to have poor synergy with Multi-classing or use of weapons in general as a result. If they would simply declare the Monk Unarmed Strike to be a Finesse Weapon PERIOD, that would bring an end to the nebulous grey area.
And as far as worrying about balance goes, I don't think they could really care after they introduced the Unarmed Combat rules for Fighters in Tasha's. A first level Monk looks like he's playing patty cake against that. Almost inevitably, they've opened up a Fighter 1 Monk 19 barrage.
I always felt, as least from a player's perspective, that the reason Monk Weapons and Martial Arts are not considered Finesse weapons is so they can't be used for the purpose of Rogue Backstabbing/Sneak Attacks... I don't think there is anything over the top powerful for making a Martial Arts weapon or unarmed strikes a Backstab trigger, considering the amount of level investment for a monk and rogue to be feasible, so I know people at my table have argued it in the past.
Think of it this way, a weapon is Finesse because it is designed to be used in a particular manner. A monk uses a weapon in a non-conventional way to make use of their dexterity, but the weapon itself is still not Finesse. Take the Light Hammer or Throwing Hammer for an instance, Finesse is a property that it simply does not have, but a Monk or character could still use it in a Dextrose way even if it is not designed to be that way.
I agree that it would clear up that gray area, but the straight ruling is the weapon is NOT a Finesse weapon. If in doubt, talk to your DM about it, and make it a homebrew ruling, although it has very little impact on gameplay outside of a small niche build here and there.
So there are a few issues here. First, the consideration of Unarmed Strikes to not be a weapon is consistent everywhere. It certainly creates some dumb interactions and definitions (the earlier mentioned "weapon attack but not using a weapon") but there isn't any case where they call Unarmed Strikes (or fists/feet/etc) weapons.
Second, the Monk can't use any weapon as a finesse weapon. They are allowed to use DEX instead of STR. This is the same as the effect of the finesse property, but importantly they do not say that Monk weapons gain the Finesse property. Two different things, and definitionally important.
Monks are generally rough to MC with because of two things: their MADness and their ki progression. Monks want lots of ki to use, and they don't get that by gaining levels in other classes. It is strange that Rogue and Monk don't mesh well due to the finesse thing, and personally I think that it would make more sense for Rogues to have Sneak Attack worded as "The attack must use DEX as it's attack modifier" rather than "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon". Honestly, I think that Sneak Attack was meant to operate that way, but it was simply an oversight that this would disallow Monk/Rogue MCing to keep up with some other quality MCs. But that's a separate topic.
Finally, the Unarmed Combat fighting style does have some strange implications on Monks. But that has been discussed in multiple other threads on this board, so if you are interested in discussing that feel free to check those out.
As said, unarmed strikes are not weapons, that’s why they are unarmed. They do qualify for the phrase “melee weapon attack” but not with “attack with a melee weapon”. They could have just phrased it as “melee attack” instead of “melee weapon attack” but I think they had to make a distinction between “melee weapon attack” and “melee spell attack”.
And finesse is a property of a weapon, which unarmed strikes are not so they didn’t call monk unarmed strikes finesse weapons even though they act like them.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
So...what happens if he puts on Brass Knuckles?
And IF that qualifies as a weapon, then why doesn't punching a boulder as part of his training for 17 yrs causing micro fractures in his bones and increased density in his bone structure count? They in effect are honing a weapon in all those years. It's a natural weapon.
Well, if someone were wearing brass knuckles in DND then they still aren't weapons, because they aren't on the weapons table.
Brass Knuckles aren't on any official weapons list in 5e, but that's not to say that you couldn't create a weapon and label it with whatever properties you want.
There's a future campaign system called Stars Without Numbers by Kevin Crawford (d6 system) that has several variations of weapons for unarmed strikes. Dusters or Brass Nuckles would do an additional +1 to hit and damage, and would change the damage type to lethal. Higher tech equivalents like Kinesis wraps (wraps that you wear around your fists) further this by allowing them surpass additional damage resistances, which are common per Tech Tier.
If you asked me to what an Brass knuckle or something should be treated as for a Home Brew, I would say something like a +1 or +2 Bludgeoning damage ontop of whatever their unarmed strike is, but no additional bonus to attack rolls. For someone like a Monk who has an increasing unarmed strike value, this could worthwhile. For other classes (Unarmed Fighting Style or Tavern Brawler), there's still some potential use. Heck, silver brass knuckles or a silver duster would be a pretty cool item for an unarmed combatant.
Home brew a nice weapon out of it, but don't go too crazy with it
I appreciate the thought theredwind, but then I realized because of this nebulous crap that would put me in another situation. As soon as I put some magical wrap or brass knuckle on, now it's NOT an unarmed attack, NOW it would magically become a weapon attack. Further, according to the rules it couldn't be a WEAPON UNLESS I had to train for proficiency in it. You see THAT is where all this crap comes from about an unarmed attack NOT being a weapon. It says, "you are proficient with unarmed strikes, so they don't count as weapons." And then they also say that the Monks unarmed attacks are NOT a finesse weapon, but that "Finesse-like" attacks are something that comes about as a result of the Monks abilities. Now this DESPITE the fact that NO other class can do an Unarmed attack as if it had Finesse. And NO other class receives proficiency to use this ability UNLESS they become a Monk for one level. But Jeremy Crawford on 8/24/18 said, "Your unarmed strikes have no weapon properties. As a result unarmed strikes don't qualify for anything that requires a weapon property." So the unarmed attack of the monk STILL equates somehow to the same type of unarmed attack as that of Todd the stable boy at Flander's Flip and Flop. Now, I might understand there being concerns about play balance or something, but this is beyond the pale. They added an Unarmed Fighting style for Fighter's so they can clobber people with a massive 1d8 damage if they AREN'T wielding any weapons or shields. Meanwhile, the Monk's little d4 goes plink. That without any explanation as to WHY the Unarmed Fighting Style mysteriously allows the Fighter to go from a d6 damage to a d8. WHY? If it's because he's able to use both fists, then should the Monk be able to go from a d4 to a d6? and one die up through 20th level if somehow having both hands free equates to more damage? It's like they keep doubling down on their first ruling and compounding the error again and again and again. I think I'm going to go back to playing MMOs. At least they have weekly updates and unending Nerfs because they know they don't know what they're doing. I'm not having fun with a class where I can't even tell half the time what rule applies to his attacks and then resenting when I see that EVERY other class can take advantage of some spell or effect EXCEPT the Monk due to this.
NOT FUN ANYMORE
I mean, yeah if the distinctions surrounding Unarmed Strikes are making you this upset about it then maybe Monks (or 5e in general) aren't for you.
Yeah, i can see your frustration with odd clarification of rules and power creep that you are coming across, but they will be existing in any popular rpg where new content and a live "sage" advice feed exists. You can either choose to disregard some rules and ignore others, and play the game as you and your team choose...
...or move onto another system, possiblely an older system that doesn't have the power creep (because no new official content) that makes you feel like your martial arts strikes are less useful.
I think jumping into an MMORPG that includes NERFs on a regular basis is pretty much the same problem youll have in 5e where your character's relovence will constantly change. In 5e, they buff or add new subclasses or abilities that do the same thing in the end as nerfing everyone as a whole.
What's going to make you enjoy either of these is the group you play with and how they are willing to interpret rules or gray areas. DnD is only as fun as the group youre playing with...
It's not about being able to hit with both hands. Your drawing lines to create these kinds of conflicts again and again in multiple threads. The idea behind not having anything in your hands to be able to do slightly more damage is that you are not restricted by your equipment to put the force into the punch and not because your now hitting suddenly with both fists.
Martial Arts may act similarly to Finesse but it is not finesse. Being able to hold a finesse weapon which is used in a certain style of usage and not just about the heaviness of the item is not necessarily the same way that you would use your fists without Martial Arts. It's like the difference between a Boxer and Karate. It is in no way giving weapon traits to your unarmed strikes. It should not be seen as much your trying to simplify it into such to give room for other ways to twist things. The Fighters Fighting Style is similar to that Boxer by the way. Throwing strong heavy punches and blocking through more brute force than redirection of force. And it is not a dual weapon despite your having two fists. Your using them in tandem with each other to strike the blows as if they were one thing.
Also people should keep in mind that anything on Sage Advice are not actually rules. Several things that are listed are actually Jeremy's personal preferences on how he would run games and nothing in it is official. It's semi-official Advice at best and should be treated as such. Anything that is a hard and fast ruling will come up in Errata that get published every so often but they try not to do too much. This has been stated both by the D&D team and by Jeremy.
To the bolded above, which begs the question why can’t a monk do this. If having both hands empty and not restricted by equipment allows you to do more damage then a monk not using a weapon should be able to benefit. But if a monk decides to use a monk weapon and then use their Bonus Action to unarmed strike or FoB then they don’t get the higher die.
Edit: it’s kind of funny to think a fighter wearing a full suit of plate mail but no weapons is “not restricted” but the monk wearing loose fitting clothes/robes somehow is.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Eh, i think of it as part of the martial discipline to the fighting style. The fighter trains to fight while wearing heavy armor, so its not an impediment to how he moves... a monk that is used to having both hands free is used to parrying and striking at the same time, opening up a larger window for his strike. Like a rogue trying to pull off the same strike while wearing Medium Armor, that a ranger can pull off without difficulty.
It's odd to imagine visually, but makes plenty of sense to me
The monk doesn't do damage with his hands empty because he's not boxing. The Fighting Style given to the Fighter is basically Boxing. It's all about throwing the punch. Your unrestricted with gear in your hands so you have an easier time throwing a punch.
The Monk on the other hand gets the full abilities of martial arts which go way above and beyond simply dealing slightly more damage on an individual strike because they get the ability to do a whole extra strike, the ability to use their dex instead of simply their strength to deal the blows and even the ability to deal damage with their hands full because their unarmed Strike is not restricted by what is in their hands but can be dealt with their entire body. So they are not only getting more damage out of it but a whole suite of abilities the fighting style does not have and cannot even hope to replicate. The fighting style is a poor imitation of what the Monks actually do.
The rules surrounding unarmed strikes are a little confounding, to be honest. It flies in the face of all the rhetoric we get about plain language style rules... and some of the sage advice notes even admit that the choices are arbitrary and don't really have any foundation in balance at all. It's literally just weird and messy for the sake of it.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersPlease note that the published Sage Advice Compendium IS official rulings and clarifies the difference to unofficial advice given online via twitter.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | 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!"🔊
What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?
It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.
Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.
- Sage Advise Compendium