[...] As an amusing aside, it is interesting that "5 feet" is hard-coded into the grappling rules instead of saying "within reach". Technically, this causes these features to not interact at all:
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.
But this is one of those details that just needs extremely obvious errata and can just be ignored for the purposes of this discussion. [...]
To me, that "within 5 feet of you" is general (the normal value), so the Level 3: Elemental Attunement feature overrides it to become "within 15 feet of you".
Reach. When you make an Unarmed Strike, your reach is 10 feet greater than normal, as elemental energy extends from you.
Also, Reach is defined in the Rules Glossary:
Reach
A creature has a reach of 5 feet unless a rule says otherwise.
That "unless a rule says otherwise" could be the Level 3: Elemental Attunement feature.
The reach of 15' lasts--uninterupted and unchanged--for 10 minutes. Once elemental attunement is active, nothing shortens the monk's physical reach until the 10 minutes are over (or if the monk gains an unfavorable condition, such as incappacitated).
This is simply not true.
The Elemental Attunement feature does NOT provide a benefit that reads something like: "Reach. Your reach is 10 feet greater than normal."
Instead, it provides a benefit that reads like this: "Reach. When you make an Unarmed Strike, your reach is 10 feet greater than normal."
That's because it does not affect your reach with spells, swords, polearms, etc.
Could they have phrased it as "the reach of your unarmed strikes is 10 feet greater than normal"? Sure. Would that wording make any mechanical difference? No.
You are asserting that the range of the character's grapples for the purposes of determining if the grapple can be held is not the range at which the character can make grapple attacks.
And that's inconsistent with both the text of the rules and common sense.
Now, the OP does make a good case due to the wording of the grappling rules stating that "The condition also ends . . . if the distance between the Grappled target and the grappler exceeds the grapple’s range. It's hard to know what that means exactly, but it's definitely not anything that has to do with the current reach of the character.
What else could it be? The range of the grapple is the range at which you can make grapple attacks. Which is defined by the reach of your unarmed strikes, barring some other ability.
As an amusing aside, it is interesting that "5 feet" is hard-coded into the grappling rules instead of saying "within reach". Technically, this causes these features to not interact at all:
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.
Huh?
Seriously, what?
The rules define the default reach of an unarmed strike, just like it defines the default reach of a weapon attack. Arguably, it's redundant to do so, since the basic reach definition defines it as five feet, but so what? The weapon table also defines the reach of melee attacks as five feet. If I could be bothered to look at the spells section, I bet it's defined as five feet there, too.
The rules define your default reach. The ability extends the reach. Perfectly normal, not conflicting in any way. It's how the rules of 5e work.
Amusingly, I've always read Grapple as Wrestle. In other words, relying on footwork, balance, body weight, stance - and so on - and sure, involving the hands as well. But the hands could never wrestle anyone to the ground as I see it.
So to me the whole discussion is weird, because ... I don't see how you can Grapple at range at all, unless your whole body shifts over there.
That's certainly the default idea of grappling, with the idea that once you have somebody in a hold, you only need a free hand to maintain it.
Unrealistic, perhaps, but that's D&D for you.
However, they're abstracted sufficiently that they can be used for any sort of attack that holds somebody -- tentacles, grasping vine, etc.
In the case of elements monks, they're doing the sort of thing often seen in the Avatar: the Last Airbender TV show, where characters often hold somebody with a stream of water, or bonds of earth or ice, or that sort of thing.
You can flavor your grapples to be temporary ice chunks that hold your foes in place or swirls of air that catch your enemies and prevent them from moving.
Ah. Yea, I see. It seems like if the reach is instant - lasting only for the attack - then the ice would be the same. But I see how it get's rid of my 'wrestling' interpretation =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The reach of 15' lasts--uninterupted and unchanged--for 10 minutes. Once elemental attunement is active, nothing shortens the monk's physical reach until the 10 minutes are over (or if the monk gains an unfavorable condition, such as incappacitated).
This is simply not true.
The Elemental Attunement feature does NOT provide a benefit that reads something like: "Reach. Your reach is 10 feet greater than normal."
Instead, it provides a benefit that reads like this: "Reach. When you make an Unarmed Strike, your reach is 10 feet greater than normal."
Elemental Attunement feature does not provide a benefit that reads something like "Your reach is 10 feet greater than normal" because it doesn't apply when you when you are wielding a Pike or any other weapon. It doesn't apply when making a touch spell.
I would argue, however, the rules don't say someone's reach changes at any point in the round. For example, I don't think anyone would argue that someone wielding a pike has Reach when they attack but not when they're not attacking. It's a pike. It's always 12 feet long. It doesn't shrink after you roll your attack roll and embiggen when someone tries to run away from you.
And the pike's Reach weapon property is worded the same as the monk's ability:
"Reach: A Reach weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it." By the literal logic of that sentence, you don't have Reach when you're not attacking or you're not determining an opportunity attack. I really don't think anyone would say the pike's reach changes at any point in the round. So why would the reach change for the monk's ability?
The effect of Reach with a Pike applies when you are wielding it.
The reach from Elemental Attunement applies when you are "wielding" your unarmed strikes.
[...] As an amusing aside, it is interesting that "5 feet" is hard-coded into the grappling rules instead of saying "within reach". Technically, this causes these features to not interact at all:
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.
But this is one of those details that just needs extremely obvious errata and can just be ignored for the purposes of this discussion. [...]
To me, that "within 5 feet of you" is general (the normal value), so the Level 3: Elemental Attunement feature overrides it to become "within 15 feet of you".
Reach. When you make an Unarmed Strike, your reach is 10 feet greater than normal, as elemental energy extends from you.
No. It doesn't work that way.
It's important to always be really careful when thinking about whether or not the Exceptions Supersede General Rules rule applies to any particular situation. Explicitly, that rule ONLY applies:
When an exception and a general rule disagree
In this case, we have one rule that says:
"an Unarmed Strike [is] a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you."
and another rule that says:
"Reach. When you make an Unarmed Strike, your reach is 10 feet greater than normal, as elemental energy extends from you."
Notice that the first rule doesn't say anything at all about reach. As written (incorrectly -- needs errata), it's not contingent upon reach in any way. So, the second rule does not interact with the first rule at all. The second rule might as well say that your Speed is doubled. Or that your Armor Class is reduced. Or that your Hit Points are increased by 10. None of those possibilities would change the fact that the default rule for an Unarmed Strike says that it is a melee attack against a target within 5 feet of you.
Again, to be clear, we all know that the text should say "within reach" instead of "within 5 feet of you" so we should rule it that way in our games. I was just pointing out how the rules are actually currently written.
Could they have phrased it as "the reach of your unarmed strikes is 10 feet greater than normal"? Sure. Would that wording make any mechanical difference? No.
That wording still doesn't work for the same reasons.
It's true that it's difficult to come up with concise wording that aligns with your interpretation. You seem to want a base reach of 15 feet that persists while not making any attack and also holds true while making an unarmed strike but reverts back to 5 feet while making an attack with a weapon or when casting a Touch range spell. Unfortunately, the current wording does not get there. The current wording makes the modified reach contingent upon being in the process of making an Unarmed Strike. That works out perfectly fine for an Unarmed Strike for damage or for a Shove attack since those types of attacks are fully resolved immediately upon making that attack. It doesn't work for grappling since grappling is an ongoing activity which persists after the process of making the attempt to grapple has ended.
Just like other ongoing activities such as hiding or holding your breath under water, you must continue to meet the prerequisites for performing that activity on an ongoing basis. You don't get to just take a snapshot in time at the moment that the activity is initiated and assume that its status remains the same regardless of how things change during the timeframe of that ongoing activity.
The range of the grapple is the range at which you can make grapple attacks.
It is true that the term "the grapple's range" is not tightly defined, but this interpretation is by far the least convincing. The text where this term is used is discussing scenarios whereby the grapple is ended, not the scenarios whereby it is initiated. It is talking about the distance between the grappler and the grappled at the moment that the grapple might end. This check is most likely being made during some moment while you are NOT "making" an attack. For example, in many cases this would be checked when it is not even your turn.
As an amusing aside, it is interesting that "5 feet" is hard-coded into the grappling rules instead of saying "within reach". Technically, this causes these features to not interact at all:
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.
Huh?
Seriously, what?
The rules define the default reach of an unarmed strike, just like it defines the default reach of a weapon attack. Arguably, it's redundant to do so, since the basic reach definition defines it as five feet, but so what? The weapon table also defines the reach of melee attacks as five feet. If I could be bothered to look at the spells section, I bet it's defined as five feet there, too.
The rules define your default reach. The ability extends the reach. Perfectly normal, not conflicting in any way. It's how the rules of 5e work.
Look again.
This definition of an Unarmed Strike, as currently written (incorrectly -- it needs errata), never actually uses the term "reach" anywhere. It literally defines the term "Unarmed Strike" to be a certain type of attack against a target that's within 5 feet of you.
It's hard-coded. And it shouldn't be. By this definition, a monster that has long arms and a natural reach of 10 feet is restricted to making Unarmed Strikes against targets that are within 5 feet of it. Reach is simply not part of the definition any more than a creature's speed or height or intelligence score. It's an odd error by the author and it needs to be changed.
It's eerily similar to when the first person made the claim that the Invisible Condition doesn't actually say that it makes you invisible. The common knee-jerk reaction was "Huh? Seriously, what? Of course it makes you invisible! It's in the name!" . . . and then people actually went back and read the text for that Condition -- and it actually does not say that it makes you invisible. There are weird things like this in the rules all over the place.
A Reach weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it.
Apart from calling out opportunity attacks, the wording for the reach weapon property is the same.
Let's ignore the hardcoded 5 feet for unarmed strikes and that maintaining a grapple requires you to be with a grapple's range, which still has no explicit link to reach. The wording is similar and if the effect means the monk can attack at 15 feet, then the grapple's range should be extended as well. RAW clearly doesn't support it but a purely RAW interpretation makes the effect useless. So what is RAI?
The rules indicate that melee attacks attack a target within your reach which Unarmed Strike are.
Melee Attacks
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters make melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
Reach
A creature has a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet when making a melee attack. Certain creatures have melee attacks with a reach greater than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
Let's ignore the hardcoded 5 feet for unarmed strikes and that maintaining a grapple requires you to be with a grapple's range, which still has no explicit link to reach. The wording is similar and if the effect means the monk can attack at 15 feet, then the grapple's range should be extended as well. RAW clearly doesn't support it but a purely RAW interpretation makes the effect useless. So what is RAI?
I agree with this last part. RAW clearly doesn't support it indeed. The effect is indeed mostly useless for the grapple option, but it works perfectly fine for the damage and the shove options.
As for the RAI, that's unclear from the text. When I first read the subclass along with the feature in question, I picture the character being "imbued" with elemental energy as something that is mainly internal -- perhaps some evidence of this exists as some sort of shimmering glow immediately surrounding the creature, perhaps within an inch or two of the creature's body. Then, when you make an Unarmed Strike, elemental energy extends from you. I picture this like some portion of that shimmering glow organizes itself into some sort of beam of energy that instantaneously extends outwards an additional 10 feet in that moment, immediately fully resolves and then retracts back inward towards itself again instantly. Like a boxer who unleashes a lightning-fast jab right between his opponent's eyes, but with a long beam of elemental energy. How does that jive with this energy holding and maintaining a long distance grapple over time for turn after turn? It doesn't.
On the other hand, there seems to be some evidence of some informal publications from the game designers that suggest that this subclass is meant to have a fighting tactic available to him where he can maintain a long distance grapple, forcing the enemy to zero speed, and then continue to beat on that enemy with long distance melee attacks on future turns while that enemy cannot reach you and cannot move. The thing is, if they had actually intended for it to work that way then they should have written it that way.
Context matters, so it's clear the interaction is allowed and the feature works properly.
Context does matter in many cases. For example, when you come across a word that could mean a couple of different things, you can see how it is used in the sentence and how it fits into the rest of the paragraph as context clues for what the word means. When a rule is ambiguous you can use context clues to determine the best interpretation.
Context doesn't really come into play here if we are talking RAW. The rules clearly state that the reach is extended while you make an Unarmed Strike and the rules also clearly state that an Unarmed Strike is, by definition, "a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you". There is nothing to contextualize here. It's not ambiguous. It says what it says. Nothing about any context would change the meaning of these rules as currently written.
The rules indicate that melee attacks attack a target within your reach which Unarmed Strike are.
Melee Attacks
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters make melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
Reach
A creature has a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet when making a melee attack. Certain creatures have melee attacks with a reach greater than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
If we are discussing the Rules as Written, the rules actually indicate:
-- by default, melee attacks attack a target within your reach.
-- A particular type of melee attack, called an Unarmed Strike, "involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you".
__________
Honestly, I brought up the "within 5 feet" thing as an amusing aside that I thought people would find interesting. It was an indisputable statement of fact. And it has some strange RAW implications if we were actually forced to play very strictly according to the RAW. Once again, none of us should play it that way. It is an error in the text. When I mentioned it, I honestly expected the community reaction to basically be "Oh wow! Hey, you're right! They really should not have written it like that!" Instead, the general reaction has been . . . pretty strange to say the least.
On the other hand, there seems to be some evidence of some informal publications from the game designers that suggest that this subclass is meant to have a fighting tactic available to him where he can maintain a long distance grapple, forcing the enemy to zero speed, and then continue to beat on that enemy with long distance melee attacks on future turns while that enemy cannot reach you and cannot move. The thing is, if they had actually intended for it to work that way then they should have written it that way.
Analyzing RAI is an inherent step in adjudicating the rules of the game. If it is clear that the developer's intent was for a certain interaction, and you are aware of that intent, that interaction should be adhered to unless you have a specific reason to not do so. Sage Advice supposedly adjudicates on RAW and sometimes RAI at the least.
Analyzing RAI is an inherent step in adjudicating the rules of the game. If it is clear that the developer's intent was for a certain interaction, and you are aware of that intent, that interaction should be adhered to unless you have a specific reason to not do so. Sage Advice supposedly adjudicates on RAW and sometimes RAI at the least.
That's fair. I would generally agree with this in cases where the rules are ambiguous. When they are not ambiguous then they are what they are, regardless of intent. But we can always play however we want, of course. For example, regardless of how closely I would want to run a game according to the RAW, I would never enforce the rule that states that an Unarmed Strike is made against a target that is within 5 feet of you because I know for sure that that is just a blatant error by the authors and I know that the intent is otherwise, even though that rule as currently written is not ambiguous. So yeah, this forum is generally about getting to the bottom of what the rules actually are as written. But discussions about the RAI have their place and understanding RAI can indeed be very helpful in determining how best to run a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To me, that "within 5 feet of you" is general (the normal value), so the Level 3: Elemental Attunement feature overrides it to become "within 15 feet of you".
Also, Reach is defined in the Rules Glossary:
That "unless a rule says otherwise" could be the Level 3: Elemental Attunement feature.
That's because it does not affect your reach with spells, swords, polearms, etc.
Could they have phrased it as "the reach of your unarmed strikes is 10 feet greater than normal"? Sure. Would that wording make any mechanical difference? No.
You are asserting that the range of the character's grapples for the purposes of determining if the grapple can be held is not the range at which the character can make grapple attacks.
And that's inconsistent with both the text of the rules and common sense.
What else could it be? The range of the grapple is the range at which you can make grapple attacks. Which is defined by the reach of your unarmed strikes, barring some other ability.
Huh?
Seriously, what?
The rules define the default reach of an unarmed strike, just like it defines the default reach of a weapon attack. Arguably, it's redundant to do so, since the basic reach definition defines it as five feet, but so what? The weapon table also defines the reach of melee attacks as five feet. If I could be bothered to look at the spells section, I bet it's defined as five feet there, too.
The rules define your default reach. The ability extends the reach. Perfectly normal, not conflicting in any way. It's how the rules of 5e work.
That's certainly the default idea of grappling, with the idea that once you have somebody in a hold, you only need a free hand to maintain it.
Unrealistic, perhaps, but that's D&D for you.
However, they're abstracted sufficiently that they can be used for any sort of attack that holds somebody -- tentacles, grasping vine, etc.
In the case of elements monks, they're doing the sort of thing often seen in the Avatar: the Last Airbender TV show, where characters often hold somebody with a stream of water, or bonds of earth or ice, or that sort of thing.
Ah. Yea, I see. It seems like if the reach is instant - lasting only for the attack - then the ice would be the same. But I see how it get's rid of my 'wrestling' interpretation =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Elemental Attunement feature does not provide a benefit that reads something like "Your reach is 10 feet greater than normal" because it doesn't apply when you when you are wielding a Pike or any other weapon. It doesn't apply when making a touch spell.
As TieflingLew put it:
The effect of Reach with a Pike applies when you are wielding it.
The reach from Elemental Attunement applies when you are "wielding" your unarmed strikes.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Unfortunately, the feature doesn't actually say that. The character's reach is not changed "while unarmed" or anything like that.
Instead, it says this:
No. It doesn't work that way.
It's important to always be really careful when thinking about whether or not the Exceptions Supersede General Rules rule applies to any particular situation. Explicitly, that rule ONLY applies:
In this case, we have one rule that says:
"an Unarmed Strike [is] a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you."
and another rule that says:
"Reach. When you make an Unarmed Strike, your reach is 10 feet greater than normal, as elemental energy extends from you."
Notice that the first rule doesn't say anything at all about reach. As written (incorrectly -- needs errata), it's not contingent upon reach in any way. So, the second rule does not interact with the first rule at all. The second rule might as well say that your Speed is doubled. Or that your Armor Class is reduced. Or that your Hit Points are increased by 10. None of those possibilities would change the fact that the default rule for an Unarmed Strike says that it is a melee attack against a target within 5 feet of you.
Again, to be clear, we all know that the text should say "within reach" instead of "within 5 feet of you" so we should rule it that way in our games. I was just pointing out how the rules are actually currently written.
That wording still doesn't work for the same reasons.
It's true that it's difficult to come up with concise wording that aligns with your interpretation. You seem to want a base reach of 15 feet that persists while not making any attack and also holds true while making an unarmed strike but reverts back to 5 feet while making an attack with a weapon or when casting a Touch range spell. Unfortunately, the current wording does not get there. The current wording makes the modified reach contingent upon being in the process of making an Unarmed Strike. That works out perfectly fine for an Unarmed Strike for damage or for a Shove attack since those types of attacks are fully resolved immediately upon making that attack. It doesn't work for grappling since grappling is an ongoing activity which persists after the process of making the attempt to grapple has ended.
Just like other ongoing activities such as hiding or holding your breath under water, you must continue to meet the prerequisites for performing that activity on an ongoing basis. You don't get to just take a snapshot in time at the moment that the activity is initiated and assume that its status remains the same regardless of how things change during the timeframe of that ongoing activity.
It is true that the term "the grapple's range" is not tightly defined, but this interpretation is by far the least convincing. The text where this term is used is discussing scenarios whereby the grapple is ended, not the scenarios whereby it is initiated. It is talking about the distance between the grappler and the grappled at the moment that the grapple might end. This check is most likely being made during some moment while you are NOT "making" an attack. For example, in many cases this would be checked when it is not even your turn.
Look again.
This definition of an Unarmed Strike, as currently written (incorrectly -- it needs errata), never actually uses the term "reach" anywhere. It literally defines the term "Unarmed Strike" to be a certain type of attack against a target that's within 5 feet of you.
It's hard-coded. And it shouldn't be. By this definition, a monster that has long arms and a natural reach of 10 feet is restricted to making Unarmed Strikes against targets that are within 5 feet of it. Reach is simply not part of the definition any more than a creature's speed or height or intelligence score. It's an odd error by the author and it needs to be changed.
It's eerily similar to when the first person made the claim that the Invisible Condition doesn't actually say that it makes you invisible. The common knee-jerk reaction was "Huh? Seriously, what? Of course it makes you invisible! It's in the name!" . . . and then people actually went back and read the text for that Condition -- and it actually does not say that it makes you invisible. There are weird things like this in the rules all over the place.
Reach
Apart from calling out opportunity attacks, the wording for the reach weapon property is the same.
Let's ignore the hardcoded 5 feet for unarmed strikes and that maintaining a grapple requires you to be with a grapple's range, which still has no explicit link to reach. The wording is similar and if the effect means the monk can attack at 15 feet, then the grapple's range should be extended as well. RAW clearly doesn't support it but a purely RAW interpretation makes the effect useless. So what is RAI?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The rules indicate that melee attacks attack a target within your reach which Unarmed Strike are.
I agree with this last part. RAW clearly doesn't support it indeed. The effect is indeed mostly useless for the grapple option, but it works perfectly fine for the damage and the shove options.
As for the RAI, that's unclear from the text. When I first read the subclass along with the feature in question, I picture the character being "imbued" with elemental energy as something that is mainly internal -- perhaps some evidence of this exists as some sort of shimmering glow immediately surrounding the creature, perhaps within an inch or two of the creature's body. Then, when you make an Unarmed Strike, elemental energy extends from you. I picture this like some portion of that shimmering glow organizes itself into some sort of beam of energy that instantaneously extends outwards an additional 10 feet in that moment, immediately fully resolves and then retracts back inward towards itself again instantly. Like a boxer who unleashes a lightning-fast jab right between his opponent's eyes, but with a long beam of elemental energy. How does that jive with this energy holding and maintaining a long distance grapple over time for turn after turn? It doesn't.
On the other hand, there seems to be some evidence of some informal publications from the game designers that suggest that this subclass is meant to have a fighting tactic available to him where he can maintain a long distance grapple, forcing the enemy to zero speed, and then continue to beat on that enemy with long distance melee attacks on future turns while that enemy cannot reach you and cannot move. The thing is, if they had actually intended for it to work that way then they should have written it that way.
Context does matter in many cases. For example, when you come across a word that could mean a couple of different things, you can see how it is used in the sentence and how it fits into the rest of the paragraph as context clues for what the word means. When a rule is ambiguous you can use context clues to determine the best interpretation.
Context doesn't really come into play here if we are talking RAW. The rules clearly state that the reach is extended while you make an Unarmed Strike and the rules also clearly state that an Unarmed Strike is, by definition, "a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you". There is nothing to contextualize here. It's not ambiguous. It says what it says. Nothing about any context would change the meaning of these rules as currently written.
If we are discussing the Rules as Written, the rules actually indicate:
-- by default, melee attacks attack a target within your reach.
-- A particular type of melee attack, called an Unarmed Strike, "involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you".
__________
Honestly, I brought up the "within 5 feet" thing as an amusing aside that I thought people would find interesting. It was an indisputable statement of fact. And it has some strange RAW implications if we were actually forced to play very strictly according to the RAW. Once again, none of us should play it that way. It is an error in the text. When I mentioned it, I honestly expected the community reaction to basically be "Oh wow! Hey, you're right! They really should not have written it like that!" Instead, the general reaction has been . . . pretty strange to say the least.
Analyzing RAI is an inherent step in adjudicating the rules of the game. If it is clear that the developer's intent was for a certain interaction, and you are aware of that intent, that interaction should be adhered to unless you have a specific reason to not do so. Sage Advice supposedly adjudicates on RAW and sometimes RAI at the least.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
That's fair. I would generally agree with this in cases where the rules are ambiguous. When they are not ambiguous then they are what they are, regardless of intent. But we can always play however we want, of course. For example, regardless of how closely I would want to run a game according to the RAW, I would never enforce the rule that states that an Unarmed Strike is made against a target that is within 5 feet of you because I know for sure that that is just a blatant error by the authors and I know that the intent is otherwise, even though that rule as currently written is not ambiguous. So yeah, this forum is generally about getting to the bottom of what the rules actually are as written. But discussions about the RAI have their place and understanding RAI can indeed be very helpful in determining how best to run a game.