Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
"Unarmed Strike
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you."
This is really bad writing. It states what unarmed strike is, then says it is more. This is causing a bunch of Dms to think you grapple by rolling to hit. A better wording would be:
"Unarmed Strike
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can either use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow to do damage, or a DC contest to control your opponent. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you."
Though realistically I would just rewrite the whole thing. It doesn't make sense as it is written currently. Not sure if this is the place for this post, but link wear it should go if you know better.
That would be redundant. The Unarmed Strike section contains instructions for how to handle damage, grapple, or shove immediately after the part you quoted.
The Unarmed Strike say "Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect." then list the effect of Damage, Grapple or Shove. Some rely on Saving Throw and other on Attack Roll.
I think it's clear enougth but if you believe it need a rewrite for your game feel free to do so.
I really don't see why that's necessary, and mixing flavor text and references to game mechanics in the same sentence like that feels really weird.
For what matters i find 4E Powers had neat way to distinguish them but i disgress;
This has actually sparked a debate in one of my groups because as far as I can see the rule is you need to make an unarmed strike (so an attack) to trigger grappling whilst one of my players quite reasonably is arguing if the attack is standard for all three effects why does the damage option specifically say you need to make an attack roll, which would imply you don’t make an attack roll for the other two.
Stuff like this is why no one understanding the grapple rules is a meme
While Unarmed Strike is a melee attack, it's not necessarily to Damage with an Attack Roll, clearly offering other options that are not doing that but to Shove or Grapple with a Saving Throw.
Yes, it's poorly written. If you read the entirety of the definition, it becomes clear, unarmed strike has three options. But if you scan through the first couple of sentences, it makes zero sense in context. I can see why there is an argument.
Clear enough is not a reason to not correct it though. It is objectively bad. Any english major would look at it and see it has technical errors in the writing. The very first sentence is just flat out incorrect.
There is no redundancy in correction unless the sentence is already redundant, since it (incompletely) states what you can do and my edit is completing the sentence accurately. Either the entire sentence is redundant regardless, or it is not and needs completion.
The main reason 5.5e wrote it the way it did is because originally in the Next playtest it was an attack roll, and people thought it was stupid, so they changed it to a save, but there are several places in the rules where the original version shows up.
IMO debating a rule should be done after you read the entirety of it, people often argues when they read or remember only portion of a rule this when not also misinterpreting or misremembering it like i said.
So if you read Unarmed Strike entirely, there's no definition error and every options in it make sense. After 2 years or so, i would be highly surprised they rewrite it to be honest.