For REAL! Why hasn't that abomination that is the Way of the Four Elements Monk been updated with a proper spell list and spell slots?
And my big one: When is an Unarmed Strike a weapon attack, and when is it not? ACK!
An unarmed strike is always a weapon attack (by virtue of not being a spell attack), it's just not always an attack with a weapon.
That’s not true, though that may be changing with future releases and printing.
there is supposedly a difference between a melee weapon attack and weapon attack. It’s been clarified that a melee weapon attack is basically any melee attack done with or without a weapon. A weapon attack requires a weapon to be used. An unarmed attack only counts as a weapon if it’s specified as a natural weapon or in some other way.
sage advice compendium:
[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike? No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Like naturalists said, unarmed strikes are always weapon attacks, just not attacks with a weapon (yes, we know that is confusing). The sage advice you quoted even refers to that: "divine smite does work with melee weapon attacks, and unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack."
That’s not true. A weapon attack always involves a weapon. A melee weapon attack doesn’t necessarily involve a weapon.
An unarmed strike is always a weapon attack (by virtue of not being a spell attack), it's just not always an attack with a weapon.
That’s not true, though that may be changing with future releases and printing.
there is supposedly a difference between a melee weapon attack and weapon attack. It’s been clarified that a melee weapon attack is basically any melee attack done with or without a weapon. A weapon attack requires a weapon to be used. An unarmed attack only counts as a weapon if it’s specified as a natural weapon or in some other way.
sage advice compendium:
[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike? No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Like naturalists said, unarmed strikes are always weapon attacks, just not attacks with a weapon (yes, we know that is confusing). The sage advice you quoted even refers to that: "divine smite does work with melee weapon attacks, and unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack."
That’s not true. A weapon attack always involves a weapon. A melee weapon attack doesn’t necessarily involve a weapon.
There is no such thing as a "weapon attack" that is not either a melee weapon attack or a ranged weapon attack. An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, a melee weapon attack is a type of weapon attack, so an unarmed strike is a weapon attack.
There is an "attack with a weapon" that always requires a weapon but that doesn't even necessarily require it be a weapon attack as using magic stone with a sling is a ranged spell attack with a weapon.
The way it's worded leads me to believe it's intended to work only with weapons, and the flavor text of the subclass seems to support that. But, does this preclude unarmed strikes counting as "the weapon" mentioned in the text? My gut tells me that Sage Advice would say it doesn't count.
But, what do you guys think?
Yea that should fall into the same box as Smite. I.e not intended to be usable with unarmed strikes but unlikely to create balance issues if a DM wanted to allow it to work with unarmed strikes.
IMO the half in, half out way that unarmed strikes are treated is really dumb. The should just let them count as a weapon (like natural weapons do).
I've asked this elsewhere, but I wanted to get y'all's take. Do you guys allow the College of Swords Bard's "Blade Flourish" ability to work with unarmed strikes? The language is as follows:
"Whenever you take the Attack action on your turn, your walking speed increases by 10 feet until the end of the turn, and if a weapon attack that you make as part of this action hits a creature, you can use one of the following Blade Flourish options of your choice."
It goes on to list the three options, and the first sentence of each entry says, "You can expend one use of your Bardic Inspiration to cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target..." before going on to list the other effects.
The way it's worded leads me to believe it's intended to work only with weapons, and the flavor text of the subclass seems to support that. But, does this preclude unarmed strikes counting as "the weapon" mentioned in the text? My gut tells me that Sage Advice would say it doesn't count.
But, what do you guys think?
No, for the same reason as paladin divine smite. The wording of the whole effect must be met to apply (that's not to say, the whole feature, as a single feature can have multiple effects (this disclaimer is to prevent any future attempts to misconstrue my explanation)).
It meats the stated condition for the trigger, but not the conditions needed for application. WotC isn't always clear and their rules are meant to be interpreted as a whole and in context (which helps).
The part about the attack action and movement is still met and applies.
Yea that should fall into the same box as Smite. I.e not intended to be usable with unarmed strikes but unlikely to create balance issues if a DM wanted to allow it to work with unarmed strikes.
IMO the half in, half out way that unarmed strikes are treated is really dumb. The should just let them count as a weapon (like natural weapons do).
No arguments here. Play the game the way it is most fun for your group (especially if it does not upset game balance, but who am I to judge in either case?).
I answer questions the way I believe is RAW (and sometimes what I believe is RAI), and don't usually weigh in with personal rulings unless the rules are particularly vague or nonsensical.
[Edit]And I just realized that this is not the topic of this thread, you (anyone) should start a new thread if you'd like to continue this line of rules discussion.
An unarmed strike is always a weapon attack (by virtue of not being a spell attack), it's just not always an attack with a weapon.
That’s not true, though that may be changing with future releases and printing.
there is supposedly a difference between a melee weapon attack and weapon attack. It’s been clarified that a melee weapon attack is basically any melee attack done with or without a weapon. A weapon attack requires a weapon to be used. An unarmed attack only counts as a weapon if it’s specified as a natural weapon or in some other way.
sage advice compendium:
[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike? No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Like naturalists said, unarmed strikes are always weapon attacks, just not attacks with a weapon (yes, we know that is confusing). The sage advice you quoted even refers to that: "divine smite does work with melee weapon attacks, and unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack."
That’s not true. A weapon attack always involves a weapon. A melee weapon attack doesn’t necessarily involve a weapon.
There is no such thing as a "weapon attack" that is not either a melee weapon attack or a ranged weapon attack. An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, a melee weapon attack is a type of weapon attack, so an unarmed strike is a weapon attack.
There is an "attack with a weapon" that always requires a weapon but that doesn't even necessarily require it be a weapon attack as using magic stone with a sling is a ranged spell attack with a weapon.
Again that’s not true. An unarmed attack isn’t considered a weapon attack unless it’s made with a natural weapon or some other feature that makes the unarmed attack a weapon.
Melee weapon attack is the game term that encompasses melee attacks with or without a weapon, not weapon attack.
If you want to discuss these questions, make new threads.
This time you're participating in dragging this off-topic. 😝
Posts should be questions for sage advice, not debate over what the answers might be.
Yeah, like I said, I didn't notice. Wouldn't have happened if people didn't answer these questions incorrectly in the first place, but that is a topic for a different thread...
If you want to discuss these questions, make new threads.
This time you're participating in dragging this off-topic. 😝
Posts should be questions for sage advice, not debate over what the answers might be.
It is probably still worth pointing out when someone’s question suggestion in this thread doesn’t actually need Sage Advice because the answer is otherwise known or maybe even already appears in Sage Advice.
If you want to discuss these questions, make new threads.
This time you're participating in dragging this off-topic. 😝
Posts should be questions for sage advice, not debate over what the answers might be.
It is probably still worth pointing out when someone’s question suggestion in this thread doesn’t actually need Sage Advice because the answer is otherwise known or maybe even already appears in Sage Advice.
If it's already in Sage Advice then posting a link and/or quoting should be all that's required, no need for all this back and forth over something that has confused people for ages.
This is a bit different than an actual game question regarding sage advice suggestions but here’s a suggestion about sage advice.
I think there should be an effort made to incorporate sage advice into this platform. I’ve seen the pop up several times so if WOTC has indeed purchased then I’d like to see a more complete level of product integration.
updated sage advice compendiums, perhaps even with DnD beyond links that might bring people to those dress for clarification.
id also like to see the recordings made with Jeremey Crawford linked, and those videos maybe even renamed to highlight the information they actually go over. Most of the sage advice videos are named by the date they were made., which is not helpful at all. Also, the majority of those videos don’t have time stamps about rules discussions. A few have dedicated commenters who attempt to break them down but this doesn’t happen often. A few of those videos don’t even allow comments for that to be a possibility.
there should also be a reorganized playlist directly dedicated to the videos that would fall under sage advice. Sage advice videos have changed programs over the years between different hosts that covered content in different ways over the years.
there are quite a few problems we have within this community related to these issues that frankly have already been solved, we just don’t seem to be utilizing the technology in a way that it could make this a more user friendly experience.
This is a bit different than an actual game question regarding sage advice suggestions but here’s a suggestion about sage advice.
I think there should be an effort made to incorporate sage advice into this platform. I’ve seen the pop up several times so if WOTC has indeed purchased then I’d like to see a more complete level of product integration.
updated sage advice compendiums, perhaps even with DnD beyond links that might bring people to those dress for clarification.
id also like to see the recordings made with Jeremey Crawford linked, and those videos maybe even renamed to highlight the information they actually go over. Most of the sage advice videos are named by the date they were made., which is not helpful at all. Also, the majority of those videos don’t have time stamps about rules discussions. A few have dedicated commenters who attempt to break them down but this doesn’t happen often. A few of those videos don’t even allow comments for that to be a possibility.
there should also be a reorganized playlist directly dedicated to the videos that would fall under sage advice. Sage advice videos have changed programs over the years between different hosts that covered content in different ways over the years.
there are quite a few problems we have within this community related to these issues that frankly have already been solved, we just don’t seem to be utilizing the technology in a way that it could make this a more user friendly experience.
FYI: The sage advice compendium has been in the list of sources for a while now.
This is a bit different than an actual game question regarding sage advice suggestions but here’s a suggestion about sage advice.
I think there should be an effort made to incorporate sage advice into this platform. I’ve seen the pop up several times so if WOTC has indeed purchased then I’d like to see a more complete level of product integration.
updated sage advice compendiums, perhaps even with DnD beyond links that might bring people to those dress for clarification.
id also like to see the recordings made with Jeremey Crawford linked, and those videos maybe even renamed to highlight the information they actually go over. Most of the sage advice videos are named by the date they were made., which is not helpful at all. Also, the majority of those videos don’t have time stamps about rules discussions. A few have dedicated commenters who attempt to break them down but this doesn’t happen often. A few of those videos don’t even allow comments for that to be a possibility.
there should also be a reorganized playlist directly dedicated to the videos that would fall under sage advice. Sage advice videos have changed programs over the years between different hosts that covered content in different ways over the years.
there are quite a few problems we have within this community related to these issues that frankly have already been solved, we just don’t seem to be utilizing the technology in a way that it could make this a more user friendly experience.
FYI: The sage advice compendium has been in the list of sources for a while now.
I have a new one that I think Sage Advice will need to address as it has not been an issue up until now and likely not one that was anticipated before. It has to do with the Oath of the Watchers paladin subclass from TCoE and the various Fey races from the newly released MotM.
The channel divinity option Abjure the Extraplanar states:
You can use your Channel Divinity to castigate unworldly beings. As an action, you present your holy symbol and each aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, or fiend within 30 feet of you that can hear you must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is turned for 1 minute or until it takes damage.
A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can't willingly end its move in a space within 30 feet of you. For its action, it can use only the Dash action or try to escape from an effect that prevents it from moving. If there's nowhere to move, the creature can take the Dodge action.
Because this option targets every fey within 30 feet of you (i.e. you dont get to choose which ones), presumably if you are playing a Fey race like a Fairy you would be included in that. In other words, we have a situation where RAW you can "turn" yourself. Given that it is impossible for you to move away from yourself, this introduces a strange interaction in the event that you fail your Wisdom save.
There are a bunch of easy ways to address this at the table, I am sure. Perhaps just the DM allows you to exclude yourself from the effect or just disallows Fey races from playing Watcher paladins in the first place. In any case, it is a weird situation where a PC is now not only targetable by turning effects, but their OWN turning effect. Thus, I think it merits a Sage Advice clarification.
This will make me sound like a miserable old curmudgeon but i'd just like SA to give a clear answer, at least half the time I turn to it I come away thinking 'nope that didn't answer the question'.
This will make me sound like a miserable old curmudgeon but i'd just like SA to give a clear answer, at least half the time I turn to it I come away thinking 'nope that didn't answer the question'.
The SAC does that nearly every time though. The other random tweets by JC and Mearls and such are much more problematic yes.
This will make me sound like a miserable old curmudgeon but i'd just like SA to give a clear answer, at least half the time I turn to it I come away thinking 'nope that didn't answer the question'.
I think most of them do an adequate job. Mostly they want to point out and clarify the rule that answers the question, and only a handful are as or more vague.
Which SAC answers in particular don't answer the question?
This will make me sound like a miserable old curmudgeon but i'd just like SA to give a clear answer, at least half the time I turn to it I come away thinking 'nope that didn't answer the question'.
I think most of them do an adequate job. Mostly they want to point out and clarify the rule that answers the question, and only a handful are as or more vague.
Which SAC answers in particular don't answer the question?
I think a problem in some SAC answers is that they often aren't explained very well, so they can end up confusing things further.
A good example is the ruling on whether you can antimagic or dispel animate dead; it covers why you can't dispel it (instantaneous duration means there's no spell to dispel) but it doesn't explain why the undead is unaffected by the magical creature or object clause of antimagic field. Nothing in the antimagic field description makes it dependent on the spell having a duration, so is it because the undead was an existing corpse (so not really created or summoned)? While it later mentions conjure woodland beings (a summon spell with a duration) it doesn't mention find familiar, a spell that very clearly creates/summons a magical creature but does not have a duration.
For the length of the answer, it's not a very useful one; the part on dispelling is obvious (didn't need a sage advice) but the part on antimagic field also seems quite obvious (it says it affects magically created/summoned creatures) but they've contradicted the text of the spell and failed to explain why.
A common problem in the compendium, and more often in tweets, is that the question being asked is answered perfectly correctly, but isn't really the question that the authors (or the later readers) think it is. I've often seen people using tweets from the devs that say one thing as proof for another.
A common problem in the compendium, and more often in tweets, is that the question being asked is answered perfectly correctly, but isn't really the question that the authors (or the later readers) think it is. I've often seen people using tweets from the devs that say one thing as proof for another.
"My DM used a Vampire against level 1 characters, and I got mad and threatened to hit him with a chair. He said that would be illegal. Who's right?" "Making an attack with an object other than a weapon is fully doable within the rules. Treat it as an improvised weapon."
This will make me sound like a miserable old curmudgeon but i'd just like SA to give a clear answer, at least half the time I turn to it I come away thinking 'nope that didn't answer the question'.
I think most of them do an adequate job. Mostly they want to point out and clarify the rule that answers the question, and only a handful are as or more vague.
Which SAC answers in particular don't answer the question?
I think a problem in some SAC answers is that they often aren't explained very well, so they can end up confusing things further.
A good example is the ruling on whether you can antimagic or dispel animate dead; it covers why you can't dispel it (instantaneous duration means there's no spell to dispel) but it doesn't explain why the undead is unaffected by the magical creature or object clause of antimagic field. Nothing in the antimagic field description makes it dependent on the spell having a duration, so is it because the undead was an existing corpse (so not really created or summoned)? While it later mentions conjure woodland beings (a summon spell with a duration) it doesn't mention find familiar, a spell that very clearly creates/summons a magical creature but does not have a duration.
For the length of the answer, it's not a very useful one; the part on dispelling is obvious (didn't need a sage advice) but the part on antimagic field also seems quite obvious (it says it affects magically created/summoned creatures) but they've contradicted the text of the spell and failed to explain why.
I think the entire first paragraph does a pretty good job explaining the logic of it. "If the [spell's duration is instantaneous], there is nothing to dispel or suspend. [...] the effects aren’t sustained by magic. [...] The resulting [creature] now exists without the magic’s help."
Basically, since the monster exists independently of the magic that created/summoned it, it doesn't count as a "created/summoned creature".
The only problem with the explanation is that it relies on plain language/logic rather than a written rule. But plain language/logic is what they wrote the rules based on. It comes down to a problem with 5e's design philosophy rather than the SAC answer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That’s not true. A weapon attack always involves a weapon. A melee weapon attack doesn’t necessarily involve a weapon.
There is no such thing as a "weapon attack" that is not either a melee weapon attack or a ranged weapon attack. An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, a melee weapon attack is a type of weapon attack, so an unarmed strike is a weapon attack.
There is an "attack with a weapon" that always requires a weapon but that doesn't even necessarily require it be a weapon attack as using magic stone with a sling is a ranged spell attack with a weapon.
Yea that should fall into the same box as Smite. I.e not intended to be usable with unarmed strikes but unlikely to create balance issues if a DM wanted to allow it to work with unarmed strikes.
IMO the half in, half out way that unarmed strikes are treated is really dumb. The should just let them count as a weapon (like natural weapons do).
No, for the same reason as paladin divine smite. The wording of the whole effect must be met to apply (that's not to say, the whole feature, as a single feature can have multiple effects (this disclaimer is to prevent any future attempts to misconstrue my explanation)).
It meats the stated condition for the trigger, but not the conditions needed for application. WotC isn't always clear and their rules are meant to be interpreted as a whole and in context (which helps).
The part about the attack action and movement is still met and applies.
No arguments here. Play the game the way it is most fun for your group (especially if it does not upset game balance, but who am I to judge in either case?).
I answer questions the way I believe is RAW (and sometimes what I believe is RAI), and don't usually weigh in with personal rulings unless the rules are particularly vague or nonsensical.
[Edit]And I just realized that this is not the topic of this thread, you (anyone) should start a new thread if you'd like to continue this line of rules discussion.
Again that’s not true. An unarmed attack isn’t considered a weapon attack unless it’s made with a natural weapon or some other feature that makes the unarmed attack a weapon.
Melee weapon attack is the game term that encompasses melee attacks with or without a weapon, not weapon attack.
This time you're participating in dragging this off-topic. 😝
Posts should be questions for sage advice, not debate over what the answers might be.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Yeah, like I said, I didn't notice. Wouldn't have happened if people didn't answer these questions incorrectly in the first place, but that is a topic for a different thread...
It is probably still worth pointing out when someone’s question suggestion in this thread doesn’t actually need Sage Advice because the answer is otherwise known or maybe even already appears in Sage Advice.
If it's already in Sage Advice then posting a link and/or quoting should be all that's required, no need for all this back and forth over something that has confused people for ages.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
This is a bit different than an actual game question regarding sage advice suggestions but here’s a suggestion about sage advice.
I think there should be an effort made to incorporate sage advice into this platform. I’ve seen the pop up several times so if WOTC has indeed purchased then I’d like to see a more complete level of product integration.
updated sage advice compendiums, perhaps even with DnD beyond links that might bring people to those dress for clarification.
id also like to see the recordings made with Jeremey Crawford linked, and those videos maybe even renamed to highlight the information they actually go over. Most of the sage advice videos are named by the date they were made., which is not helpful at all. Also, the majority of those videos don’t have time stamps about rules discussions. A few have dedicated commenters who attempt to break them down but this doesn’t happen often. A few of those videos don’t even allow comments for that to be a possibility.
there should also be a reorganized playlist directly dedicated to the videos that would fall under sage advice. Sage advice videos have changed programs over the years between different hosts that covered content in different ways over the years.
there are quite a few problems we have within this community related to these issues that frankly have already been solved, we just don’t seem to be utilizing the technology in a way that it could make this a more user friendly experience.
FYI: The sage advice compendium has been in the list of sources for a while now.
That’s awesome! I had no idea.
I have a new one that I think Sage Advice will need to address as it has not been an issue up until now and likely not one that was anticipated before. It has to do with the Oath of the Watchers paladin subclass from TCoE and the various Fey races from the newly released MotM.
The channel divinity option Abjure the Extraplanar states:
A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can't willingly end its move in a space within 30 feet of you. For its action, it can use only the Dash action or try to escape from an effect that prevents it from moving. If there's nowhere to move, the creature can take the Dodge action.
Because this option targets every fey within 30 feet of you (i.e. you dont get to choose which ones), presumably if you are playing a Fey race like a Fairy you would be included in that. In other words, we have a situation where RAW you can "turn" yourself. Given that it is impossible for you to move away from yourself, this introduces a strange interaction in the event that you fail your Wisdom save.
There are a bunch of easy ways to address this at the table, I am sure. Perhaps just the DM allows you to exclude yourself from the effect or just disallows Fey races from playing Watcher paladins in the first place. In any case, it is a weird situation where a PC is now not only targetable by turning effects, but their OWN turning effect. Thus, I think it merits a Sage Advice clarification.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
This will make me sound like a miserable old curmudgeon but i'd just like SA to give a clear answer, at least half the time I turn to it I come away thinking 'nope that didn't answer the question'.
The SAC does that nearly every time though. The other random tweets by JC and Mearls and such are much more problematic yes.
I think most of them do an adequate job. Mostly they want to point out and clarify the rule that answers the question, and only a handful are as or more vague.
Which SAC answers in particular don't answer the question?
I think a problem in some SAC answers is that they often aren't explained very well, so they can end up confusing things further.
A good example is the ruling on whether you can antimagic or dispel animate dead; it covers why you can't dispel it (instantaneous duration means there's no spell to dispel) but it doesn't explain why the undead is unaffected by the magical creature or object clause of antimagic field. Nothing in the antimagic field description makes it dependent on the spell having a duration, so is it because the undead was an existing corpse (so not really created or summoned)? While it later mentions conjure woodland beings (a summon spell with a duration) it doesn't mention find familiar, a spell that very clearly creates/summons a magical creature but does not have a duration.
For the length of the answer, it's not a very useful one; the part on dispelling is obvious (didn't need a sage advice) but the part on antimagic field also seems quite obvious (it says it affects magically created/summoned creatures) but they've contradicted the text of the spell and failed to explain why.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
A common problem in the compendium, and more often in tweets, is that the question being asked is answered perfectly correctly, but isn't really the question that the authors (or the later readers) think it is. I've often seen people using tweets from the devs that say one thing as proof for another.
"My DM used a Vampire against level 1 characters, and I got mad and threatened to hit him with a chair. He said that would be illegal. Who's right?" "Making an attack with an object other than a weapon is fully doable within the rules. Treat it as an improvised weapon."
I think the entire first paragraph does a pretty good job explaining the logic of it. "If the [spell's duration is instantaneous], there is nothing to dispel or suspend. [...] the effects aren’t sustained by magic. [...] The resulting [creature] now exists without the magic’s help."
Basically, since the monster exists independently of the magic that created/summoned it, it doesn't count as a "created/summoned creature".
The only problem with the explanation is that it relies on plain language/logic rather than a written rule. But plain language/logic is what they wrote the rules based on. It comes down to a problem with 5e's design philosophy rather than the SAC answer.