1) not all monster uses str for melee Wolf , Giant Spider for example uses dex . and not all range weapons are made with Dex ape , Giant ape . you must subtract stuff to know the state . but what if they are the same state ? how then do you know ?
2) Ray of enfeeblement can target Creature says on the wording so it does affect any creature and not humanoids only .
3) Unarmed Strike and Natural weapons are 2 different things . an creature can do unarmed strike which is 1+str modifiers (except for monks and tavern brawlers or other special features "tabaxi" , "dragonborn with dragon hide feat") . most creature uses weapon melee attacks . it says s before the +X to hit .
Still no rule in the players handbook explicitly States monsters always do weapon attacks. It's not a logical conclusion. Sure if you have a familiar you might figure out, but that's only if you have a familiar.
Its arbitrary in the sense that you don't know before hand whether an attack is strength or dex based and that is entirely up to the dm since it isn't printed in the monster manual and players don't have access to the monster manual.
Illusion spells work all the time unless the creature beats the save dc. It isn't a spell that only works for weapon attacks that use a specific attribute that is determined by dm and can't be known ahead of time without a nice am.
It's really not hard to guess for a lot of monsters which ability they'll use. Strength correlates really, really well with size. If the creature is Large or bigger, it's very unlikely it's using Dexterity instead of Strength. Small and smaller creatures are very unlikely to rely on Strength. Even without using size, sometimes it's just obvious. Anyone who sees a gelatinous cube should be able to tell easily it's not very agile. Players can and should ask what a monster looks like and acts like.
Also note that Ray of Enfeeblement's effect isn't resistance, so it stacks with things like Rage, Blade Ward and Warding Bond. That makes it really powerful when it applies. It can effectively take a creature out of the fight while you deal with its friends.
By your logic players wouldn't pick spells that inflict conditions because there's no guarantee the monster isn't immune to it. But in practice condition immunities are mostly intuitive, so it's a non-issue. It makes sense that you can't grapple a swarm or poison an earth elemental.
Illusion spells "always work" in the sense that the target always starts out believing it's real, but the effect it'll have on the target is highly dependent on how the DM roleplays the creature. I had a player try to distract a shambling mound by creating an illusion; I decided the monster didn't care because the illusion didn't look like something edible. if they'd had a ranger or druid in the party that knew what a shambling mound is, the wizard may have picked a better illusion. Likewise a smart monster won't fall repeatedly for illusion-based tricks, while a slime or zombie shouldn't catch on.
Right in the monster manual or the dmg which your average player doesn't have. A player has no reason to look in the monster manual to figure out the common sense idea that a monster without a weapon isn't a weapon attack. The only reason you would ever look is if you knew the rule existed in the first place.
Well, the Player's Handbook also has an appendix with creature statistics for things like Wild Shape and transmutation spells (summoning spells explicitly mention the DM has the stats, but for things that allow a player to take another shape, there's Appendix D, page 304). In those stat blocks the same annotation is used; "Bite. Melee weapon attack."
The Ray of Enfeeblement is an interesting issue. If I encountered it as a DM, I'd say it counts on all Melee Strength Attacks from creatures, unless something is specifically using a finesse weapon. Simple to resolve, and generally erring to the favor of the players.
For anything else, like Wild Shape, as mentioned before, it doesn't really matter - you use your own calculations for your attacks, only substituting them for the creatures' default if they are better than your end result. Which is also simple to resolve.
Well, the Player's Handbook also has an appendix with creature statistics for things like Wild Shape and transmutation spells (summoning spells explicitly mention the DM has the stats, but for things that allow a player to take another shape, there's Appendix D, page 304). In those stat blocks the same annotation is used; "Bite. Melee weapon attack."
The Ray of Enfeeblement is an interesting issue. If I encountered it as a DM, I'd say it counts on all Melee Strength Attacks from creatures, unless something is specifically using a finesse weapon. Simple to resolve, and generally erring to the favor of the players.
For anything else, like Wild Shape, as mentioned before, it doesn't really matter - you use your own calculations for your attacks, only substituting them for the creatures' default if they are better than your end result. Which is also simple to resolve.
You would actually never use your own calculations for your attacks, because your physical ability scores change into that of the creature and I don't believe you can turn into any creature where you and the creature is going to have the same proficiency as far as attacks go.
And what you would do is not necessarily what most DMs would do, and probably not what your party would assume you would do when they are selecting spells.
You are right, but the player has every right to ask the DM about any rule, and the DM has the duty to answer exhaustively.
But that doesn't mean they do or even think to know to do that. Unless by chance you have wondered about the appendix which is not unless you use polymorph or happen to be a druid. So odds are most players haven't noticed that.
Ray of Enfeeblement specifically needs a weapon attack (which your average player isn't going to know unarmed claw attacks by monsters is a weapon attack, because there is no logical reason to believe it would be. So when it comes time to select Ray of Enfeeblement, you would have to know that unarmed monster attacks are actually for some unknown reason considered weapon attacks. My guess, most players don't.
Second, it only deals with strength attacks, which is not apparent in the monster entry and isn't really something a player's character is going to be privileged to know. A nice dm may provide a way for them to check and see what the monster would use, but largely it is going to be potentially a waste of a spell if what you thought was a strength attack turned out to be a dex attack OR the monster has an option that is dex based and can switch.
There is just too much in the air to know whether or not it is going to work.
Still no rule in the players handbook explicitly States monsters always do weapon attacks. It's not a logical conclusion. Sure if you have a familiar you might figure out, but that's only if you have a familiar.
Its arbitrary in the sense that you don't know before hand whether an attack is strength or dex based and that is entirely up to the dm since it isn't printed in the monster manual and players don't have access to the monster manual.
Illusion spells work all the time unless the creature beats the save dc. It isn't a spell that only works for weapon attacks that use a specific attribute that is determined by dm and can't be known ahead of time without a nice am.
It's really not hard to guess for a lot of monsters which ability they'll use. Strength correlates really, really well with size. If the creature is Large or bigger, it's very unlikely it's using Dexterity instead of Strength. Small and smaller creatures are very unlikely to rely on Strength. Even without using size, sometimes it's just obvious. Anyone who sees a gelatinous cube should be able to tell easily it's not very agile. Players can and should ask what a monster looks like and acts like.
Also note that Ray of Enfeeblement's effect isn't resistance, so it stacks with things like Rage, Blade Ward and Warding Bond. That makes it really powerful when it applies. It can effectively take a creature out of the fight while you deal with its friends.
By your logic players wouldn't pick spells that inflict conditions because there's no guarantee the monster isn't immune to it. But in practice condition immunities are mostly intuitive, so it's a non-issue. It makes sense that you can't grapple a swarm or poison an earth elemental.
Illusion spells "always work" in the sense that the target always starts out believing it's real, but the effect it'll have on the target is highly dependent on how the DM roleplays the creature. I had a player try to distract a shambling mound by creating an illusion; I decided the monster didn't care because the illusion didn't look like something edible. if they'd had a ranger or druid in the party that knew what a shambling mound is, the wizard may have picked a better illusion. Likewise a smart monster won't fall repeatedly for illusion-based tricks, while a slime or zombie shouldn't catch on.
As a player you specifically know that condition immunities are in the monster manual. (And you could have technically looked it up on your phone). There is no game reason that the shambling mound can not be tricked by illusions, and I believe by the rules generally the shambling mound would have to make a save to ignore the illusion. If you constantly go around saying monsters ignore illusions for various reasons, eventually the party will stop taking illusion spells because they have no clue when you are going to just decide it doesn't work because you don't want it to.
Ray of Enfeeblement has that problem. It isn't clear which monsters use strength and which use dex and the vast major of players have no idea unarmed monster attacks are actually considered weapon attacks. Hence it isn't weird the spell isn't used, it makes a lot of sense why it isn't used all that much.
Those are your guess and your opinion about the players knowing that unarmed strike is a weapon attack. The next question is if it is not a weapon attack, then unarmed strike what it is?
But then, that's why forum exist, to help understand things.
Second, a strength based attack is not so evident in very few cases. Against giants and dragons the usefulness of Ray of enfeeblement is pretty evident.
You would actually never use your own calculations for your attacks, because your physical ability scores change into that of the creature and I don't believe you can turn into any creature where you and the creature is going to have the same proficiency as far as attacks go.
And what you would do is not necessarily what most DMs would do, and probably not what your party would assume you would do when they are selecting spells.
Yup. Easy to resolve, isn't it? You turn into a Flaberstiskin, it has a Strength of 20 (+5) and it uses an attack of "Tendril". You calculate your own attack with "tendril", which is +5 (because your strength is 20), and you (probably) lack a proficiency in tendrils. The Flaberthingy has a bonus of +23 on its Tendril attack, though. Go figure why, but you don't need to know why: it's better than your own, so you use that.
My party would probably assume what I do, or they'd ask; I've been playing with them for over a decade. :p When I mention what I'd do as a DM, however, I intend it as an advice at face value, nothing more. I'm not saying "I do that, so that's the correct one", or "I'm doing that, so most people do that, right?" No, I'm just saying "If I faced that situation, that's how I'd rule it." Usually preceded or followed by my reasoning, because otherwise face value is hard to judge. :p
Still no rule in the players handbook explicitly States monsters always do weapon attacks. It's not a logical conclusion. Sure if you have a familiar you might figure out, but that's only if you have a familiar.
Its arbitrary in the sense that you don't know before hand whether an attack is strength or dex based and that is entirely up to the dm since it isn't printed in the monster manual and players don't have access to the monster manual.
Illusion spells work all the time unless the creature beats the save dc. It isn't a spell that only works for weapon attacks that use a specific attribute that is determined by dm and can't be known ahead of time without a nice am.
It's really not hard to guess for a lot of monsters which ability they'll use. Strength correlates really, really well with size. If the creature is Large or bigger, it's very unlikely it's using Dexterity instead of Strength. Small and smaller creatures are very unlikely to rely on Strength. Even without using size, sometimes it's just obvious. Anyone who sees a gelatinous cube should be able to tell easily it's not very agile. Players can and should ask what a monster looks like and acts like.
Also note that Ray of Enfeeblement's effect isn't resistance, so it stacks with things like Rage, Blade Ward and Warding Bond. That makes it really powerful when it applies. It can effectively take a creature out of the fight while you deal with its friends.
By your logic players wouldn't pick spells that inflict conditions because there's no guarantee the monster isn't immune to it. But in practice condition immunities are mostly intuitive, so it's a non-issue. It makes sense that you can't grapple a swarm or poison an earth elemental.
Illusion spells "always work" in the sense that the target always starts out believing it's real, but the effect it'll have on the target is highly dependent on how the DM roleplays the creature. I had a player try to distract a shambling mound by creating an illusion; I decided the monster didn't care because the illusion didn't look like something edible. if they'd had a ranger or druid in the party that knew what a shambling mound is, the wizard may have picked a better illusion. Likewise a smart monster won't fall repeatedly for illusion-based tricks, while a slime or zombie shouldn't catch on.
As a player you specifically know that condition immunities are in the monster manual. (And you could have technically looked it up on your phone). There is no game reason that the shambling mound can not be tricked by illusions, and I believe by the rules generally the shambling mound would have to make a save to ignore the illusion. If you constantly go around saying monsters ignore illusions for various reasons, eventually the party will stop taking illusion spells because they have no clue when you are going to just decide it doesn't work because you don't want it to.
Ray of Enfeeblement has that problem. It isn't clear which monsters use strength and which use dex and the vast major of players have no idea unarmed monster attacks are actually considered weapon attacks. Hence it isn't weird the spell isn't used, it makes a lot of sense why it isn't used all that much.
As a player you'd know that weapon attacks are in the monsters manual too (and you could technically look it up on your phone)
Well, pretty much any time I've had a spellcaster in my group, they ask me questions about spells. My guess is that the player would look at the spell and question whether or not that works on monsters. They probably wouldn't look at a spell and just ASSUME it doesn't. They'd wonder if it does and then ask. Also, since many of my players are new to the game, I tend to help them level up by explaining any new abilities, features, or spells they may want to get. Even my one player who has been playing longer than I have still asks me questions, because he knows that I read the manuals multiple times and am on websites like this far more often than I should be. Hell, I had Perkins follow me back on Twitter because I'm constantly tweeting to him, Crawford, and Mearls. I feel it's the DMs job to know as much as possible and to educate the players as to the uses of the abilities they have access to. And those I don't know about (if there's no sage advice or forum posts about them), I discuss with the player and then adjudicate a decision based on that conversation until someone or something official contradicts it.
As for problems with Ray of Enfeeblement: It doesn't really have any more of a problem than monsters with resistances do, as far as players not knowing what to do. As others have said, you can pretty much guess if it's a Strength-based or Dexterity-based attack judging by the size and relative strength of a monster. For example of two real world animals: I'd expect a sleek and cunning creature like a wolf or a panther to value dexterity over strength (of course in the panther's case Str and Dex are =); meanwhile, a mighty lion or boar would likely value strength over dexterity. It's basically the same with spells. You probably wouldn't fireball a Fire Elemental, you wouldn't try to cast a constitution affecting spell like Poison Spray on a warrior-type enemy or an undead, and you probably wouldn't try to use a mind affecting spell like Fear on a fellow magic user. These are all things you typically find out after trial and error (like non-magical weapons against vampires/ghosts) or by applying logic to the battle situation (and new players are likely playing new adventurers, so it's something they and their characters can learn simultaneously). Your usage of Shambling Mound is a perfect example of this: There's absolutely no way to know that electricity will heal it instead of damage it (even in Pokemon, grass types are simply strong against electric attacks). So, the second your party's spellcaster tries casting Lightning Bolt against it, they'll learn real quick about its healing. A swamp druid, on the other hand, would probably already know not to cast Call Lightning against it (even if this is the first time seeing the creature, they've likely heard about such monstrosities). Hell a druid, or ranger whose favored enemy is plant creatures, would probably also know about the fact that it feigns death to avoid being fully destroyed. This is something that isn't in its stat block, but in it's description text (the same description text that Halwasa insists isn't as useful as the creature's width). So, if the PCs are given a job to destroy the shambling mound, perhaps they later find out that their job wasn't completed correctly, "You DID kill the root-stem right? Otherwise it's just gonna come back again..."
As a DM, you should always make sure that the players play their characters the "correct" way, even if it would otherwise help the monsters (and thus provide more of a challenge). And by correct, I mean that a necromancer would almost ABSOLUTELY know not to use Poison Spray on a zombie because they are immune. And, if the player brain farts and says they want to do something that doesn't make sense based on what the character would know, you should probably make them make a saving throw or ability check to remember (or just straight up remind them of that, since that's not something the character would forget). To fail to remind the players (or at least give them a chance to remember via die roll) would be the same kind of "gotcha" DMing that says, "you never said you were buying components/rations/ammo/etc... before you left and now you don't have any!"
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
You would actually never use your own calculations for your attacks, because your physical ability scores change into that of the creature and I don't believe you can turn into any creature where you and the creature is going to have the same proficiency as far as attacks go.
And what you would do is not necessarily what most DMs would do, and probably not what your party would assume you would do when they are selecting spells.
Yup. Easy to resolve, isn't it? You turn into a Flaberstiskin, it has a Strength of 20 (+5) and it uses an attack of "Tendril". You calculate your own attack with "tendril", which is +5 (because your strength is 20), and you (probably) lack a proficiency in tendrils. The Flaberthingy has a bonus of +23 on its Tendril attack, though. Go figure why, but you don't need to know why: it's better than your own, so you use that.
My party would probably assume what I do, or they'd ask; I've been playing with them for over a decade. :p When I mention what I'd do as a DM, however, I intend it as an advice at face value, nothing more. I'm not saying "I do that, so that's the correct one", or "I'm doing that, so most people do that, right?" No, I'm just saying "If I faced that situation, that's how I'd rule it." Usually preceded or followed by my reasoning, because otherwise face value is hard to judge. :p
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Those are your guess and your opinion about the players knowing that unarmed strike is a weapon attack. The next question is if it is not a weapon attack, then unarmed strike what it is?
But then, that's why forum exist, to help understand things.
Second, a strength based attack is not so evident in very few cases. Against giants and dragons the usefulness of Ray of enfeeblement is pretty evident.
An unarmed strike is logically an unarmed strike. Second a forum isn't very helpful to understand a problem you don't know you have. I would say it isn't really a guess or an opinion. Players tend to not know all the rules to the game, and watching any twitch or youtube video of people playing D&D and it virtually proves that spellcasters mess up their own spells, so it is really stretching it to say they are going to read monster entries when they have barely read their spells.
Of course why would you think Ray of Enfeeblement is hardly used?
You would actually never use your own calculations for your attacks, because your physical ability scores change into that of the creature and I don't believe you can turn into any creature where you and the creature is going to have the same proficiency as far as attacks go.
And what you would do is not necessarily what most DMs would do, and probably not what your party would assume you would do when they are selecting spells.
Yup. Easy to resolve, isn't it? You turn into a Flaberstiskin, it has a Strength of 20 (+5) and it uses an attack of "Tendril". You calculate your own attack with "tendril", which is +5 (because your strength is 20), and you (probably) lack a proficiency in tendrils. The Flaberthingy has a bonus of +23 on its Tendril attack, though. Go figure why, but you don't need to know why: it's better than your own, so you use that.
My party would probably assume what I do, or they'd ask; I've been playing with them for over a decade. :p When I mention what I'd do as a DM, however, I intend it as an advice at face value, nothing more. I'm not saying "I do that, so that's the correct one", or "I'm doing that, so most people do that, right?" No, I'm just saying "If I faced that situation, that's how I'd rule it." Usually preceded or followed by my reasoning, because otherwise face value is hard to judge. :p
So basically you would never use your attack bonuses.
I am fairly certain if you took a poll you would find almost no D&D player actually comes online and even less cares who Crawford is.
Probably not players, but I'd wager the opposite case for DMs as far as coming online. As for Crawford: not knowing who someone is isn't the same as not valuing their opinion. I don't know any scientists, and hell I barely know my own doctor, but I'll put more stock in their opinions and/or someone who specializes in something over myself or random others ANY day.
If my players said something like, "How does this <spell/feature/ability> work? I think the way it's worded seems like it means x, but I could also see it going like y" and I say, "I just looked it up and the guy who made the game said the rule means x", chances are, they're most likely going to just accept x as the answer (though we've house ruled other things, so if they make a valid enough argument, I might house rule it to mean y despite what Crawford says).
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
As a player you specifically know that condition immunities are in the monster manual. (And you could have technically looked it up on your phone).
Ray of Enfeeblement has that problem. It isn't clear which monsters use strength and which use dex and the vast major of players have no idea unarmed monster attacks are actually considered weapon attacks. Hence it isn't weird the spell isn't used, it makes a lot of sense why it isn't used all that much.
There's a bunch of stat blocks in the back of the Player's Handbook, next to the spells. They all say "melee weapon attack" next to their attacks. I'm not sure why you keep insisting a player would never suspect beast attacks are weapon attacks, because they just have to look at one random beast stat block to confirm it. Wizards and Warlocks already have reason to look there, because both classes have access to Find Familiar. If you're going to assume players will look at stat blocks to check for condition immunities, I can assume players will look at stat blocks to check if their attacks are weapon attacks.
On the subject of attack bonuses: you never use your own in Wild Shape. The rule for using your own bonus only applies to skills and saving throws.
As a player you specifically know that condition immunities are in the monster manual. (And you could have technically looked it up on your phone).
Ray of Enfeeblement has that problem. It isn't clear which monsters use strength and which use dex and the vast major of players have no idea unarmed monster attacks are actually considered weapon attacks. Hence it isn't weird the spell isn't used, it makes a lot of sense why it isn't used all that much.
There's a bunch of stat blocks in the back of the Player's Handbook, next to the spells. They all say "melee weapon attack" next to their attacks. I'm not sure why you keep insisting a player would never suspect beast attacks are weapon attacks, because they just have to look at one random beast stat block to confirm it. Wizards and Warlocks already have reason to look there, because both classes have access to Find Familiar. If you're going to assume players will look at stat blocks to check for condition immunities, I can assume players will look at stat blocks to check if their attacks are weapon attacks.
On the subject of attack bonuses: you never use your own in Wild Shape. The rule for using your own bonus only applies to skills and saving throws.
Because a player who does not wild shape or cast a familiar has no reason to every look at those stat blocks in the back of the book. Even if they do, they may glance over the melee weapon attack portion without noticing it. I don't think it is that hard to believe that players wouldn't read the entire PHB, especially players who have played d&d for ages. Having access to find familiar doesn't mean you actually chose it as a spell or use it.
I don't assume that players will look at stat blocks to check for condition immunities, in fact I assume they will not and don't have access to the monster manual and will never come to dndbeyond. It isn't therefore so much that they look, but they could and it is listed. So you can use common sense to figure them out without the DM determining whether they apply or not. Further you have a reason to look for condition immunities. You have no reason to look and see if a bear's attacks are weapon attacks because a bear doesn't use weapons, so common sense would tell you it doesn't make a weapon attack. In other words, if you don't know the rule, you would never suspect that you need to check in the first place.
So my reason why it isn't weird that Ray of Enfeeblement isn't uses is because players don't know all mosnters use weapon attacks, and the difficulty/ambiguity of determining whether a monster will be using strength or dex.
Of course you are free to believe it is weird that Ray of Enfeeblement isn't used or reject the posters original statement completely.
As a player you specifically know that condition immunities are in the monster manual. (And you could have technically looked it up on your phone).
Ray of Enfeeblement has that problem. It isn't clear which monsters use strength and which use dex and the vast major of players have no idea unarmed monster attacks are actually considered weapon attacks. Hence it isn't weird the spell isn't used, it makes a lot of sense why it isn't used all that much.
There's a bunch of stat blocks in the back of the Player's Handbook, next to the spells. They all say "melee weapon attack" next to their attacks. I'm not sure why you keep insisting a player would never suspect beast attacks are weapon attacks, because they just have to look at one random beast stat block to confirm it. Wizards and Warlocks already have reason to look there, because both classes have access to Find Familiar. If you're going to assume players will look at stat blocks to check for condition immunities, I can assume players will look at stat blocks to check if their attacks are weapon attacks.
On the subject of attack bonuses: you never use your own in Wild Shape. The rule for using your own bonus only applies to skills and saving throws.
Because a player who does not wild shape or cast a familiar has no reason to every look at those stat blocks in the back of the book. Even if they do, they may glance over the melee weapon attack portion without noticing it. I don't think it is that hard to believe that players wouldn't read the entire PHB, especially players who have played d&d for ages. Having access to find familiar doesn't mean you actually chose it as a spell or use it.
I don't assume that players will look at stat blocks to check for condition immunities, in fact I assume they will not and don't have access to the monster manual and will never come to dndbeyond. It isn't therefore so much that they look, but they could and it is listed. So you can use common sense to figure them out without the DM determining whether they apply or not. Further you have a reason to look for condition immunities. You have no reason to look and see if a bear's attacks are weapon attacks because a bear doesn't use weapons, so common sense would tell you it doesn't make a weapon attack. In other words, if you don't know the rule, you would never suspect that you need to check in the first place.
So my reason why it isn't weird that Ray of Enfeeblement isn't uses is because players don't know all mosnters use weapon attacks, and the difficulty/ambiguity of determining whether a monster will be using strength or dex.
Of course you are free to believe it is weird that Ray of Enfeeblement isn't used or reject the posters original statement completely.
Idk, I'd say common sense would be that because unarmed attacks are considered weapon attacks that a beast's natural attacks would be considered weapon attacks, because unarmed attacks = claws. Of course, as far as the rules go, WE know that an unarmed strike <> claw (in that a monk/druid wouldn't be able to use Flurry of Blows to claw, claw, claw). But any person who isn't as well read on the rules would assume that unarmed attacks follow the same rules as natural weapons (and so the inverse must be true). If you were arguing that a druid+monk would have no way of knowing that their natural attacks didn't count as unarmed strikes, then I'd say you have a case on your hand. But, the method in which they arrive to the correct assertion (that unarmed strikes = claws = weapon) doesn't impact that logic would dictate it that way.
Also, I still assert that upon reading that spell, if there was any confusion, most wouldn't simply go "well must not affect natural attacks, pass!" They'd most likely go, "huh... Hey, does this spell work against monster's attacks too?"
In fact, if I said to you: "Hey, go fight that bear. Here's a knife." You wouldn't answer, "That's unfair, that bear is unarmed. I shouldn't use a weapon." Your response would probably be something along the lines of: "Are you ******* stupid!? Look at those claws! What's this little knife gonna do!?", implying that the bear's natural weapons are more than equal to yours (unless you are one of those stupid crazy survivalist people who does that kind of stuff).
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Those are your guess and your opinion about the players knowing that unarmed strike is a weapon attack. The next question is if it is not a weapon attack, then unarmed strike what it is?
But then, that's why forum exist, to help understand things.
Second, a strength based attack is not so evident in very few cases. Against giants and dragons the usefulness of Ray of enfeeblement is pretty evident.
An unarmed strike is logically an unarmed strike. Second a forum isn't very helpful to understand a problem you don't know you have. I would say it isn't really a guess or an opinion. Players tend to not know all the rules to the game, and watching any twitch or youtube video of people playing D&D and it virtually proves that spellcasters mess up their own spells, so it is really stretching it to say they are going to read monster entries when they have barely read their spells.
Of course why would you think Ray of Enfeeblement is hardly used?
Sorry for the question, but What exactly are you arguing here? The mechanics of unarmed strike or the negligence of some players? Because for the former, as some of us said, the rule is clear: a monster attack can be either a weapon attack or a spell attack. If it is the latter there is nothing to argue about. If players don't use a spell because for them a rule is not clear or not known, or because they don't ask the DM, it is up to them to show some interest in the rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) not all monster uses str for melee Wolf , Giant Spider for example uses dex . and not all range weapons are made with Dex ape , Giant ape . you must subtract stuff to know the state . but what if they are the same state ? how then do you know ?
2) Ray of enfeeblement can target Creature says on the wording so it does affect any creature and not humanoids only .
3) Unarmed Strike and Natural weapons are 2 different things . an creature can do unarmed strike which is 1+str modifiers (except for monks and tavern brawlers or other special features "tabaxi" , "dragonborn with dragon hide feat") . most creature uses weapon melee attacks . it says s before the +X to hit .
Lead designer of: Druid Wild Shape Revised, Druid: Circle of Monstrosity (Homebrew class), Revised Classes : Focus on level 20.
Homebrewer of: Halwasa`s Mushrooms of fluid movement (Item), Giraffe (Beast), Displacer Panther (Beast) (heavily modified Displacer Beast that is owned by WoC), Lightning whip (2nd-level Spell), Lesser Shapechange (5th-level Spell), Investiture of Lightning (6th-level Spell), Touched by the magic (Feat).
You are right, but the player has every right to ask the DM about any rule, and the DM has the duty to answer exhaustively.
Well, the Player's Handbook also has an appendix with creature statistics for things like Wild Shape and transmutation spells (summoning spells explicitly mention the DM has the stats, but for things that allow a player to take another shape, there's Appendix D, page 304). In those stat blocks the same annotation is used; "Bite. Melee weapon attack."
The Ray of Enfeeblement is an interesting issue. If I encountered it as a DM, I'd say it counts on all Melee Strength Attacks from creatures, unless something is specifically using a finesse weapon. Simple to resolve, and generally erring to the favor of the players.
For anything else, like Wild Shape, as mentioned before, it doesn't really matter - you use your own calculations for your attacks, only substituting them for the creatures' default if they are better than your end result. Which is also simple to resolve.
Those are your guess and your opinion about the players knowing that unarmed strike is a weapon attack. The next question is if it is not a weapon attack, then unarmed strike what it is?
But then, that's why forum exist, to help understand things.
Second, a strength based attack is not so evident in very few cases. Against giants and dragons the usefulness of Ray of enfeeblement is pretty evident.
As a DM, you should always make sure that the players play their characters the "correct" way, even if it would otherwise help the monsters (and thus provide more of a challenge). And by correct, I mean that a necromancer would almost ABSOLUTELY know not to use Poison Spray on a zombie because they are immune. And, if the player brain farts and says they want to do something that doesn't make sense based on what the character would know, you should probably make them make a saving throw or ability check to remember (or just straight up remind them of that, since that's not something the character would forget). To fail to remind the players (or at least give them a chance to remember via die roll) would be the same kind of "gotcha" DMing that says, "you never said you were buying components/rations/ammo/etc... before you left and now you don't have any!"
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I am fairly certain if you took a poll you would find almost no D&D player actually comes online and even less cares who Crawford is.
Probably not players, but I'd wager the opposite case for DMs as far as coming online. As for Crawford: not knowing who someone is isn't the same as not valuing their opinion. I don't know any scientists, and hell I barely know my own doctor, but I'll put more stock in their opinions and/or someone who specializes in something over myself or random others ANY day.
If my players said something like, "How does this <spell/feature/ability> work? I think the way it's worded seems like it means x, but I could also see it going like y" and I say, "I just looked it up and the guy who made the game said the rule means x", chances are, they're most likely going to just accept x as the answer (though we've house ruled other things, so if they make a valid enough argument, I might house rule it to mean y despite what Crawford says).
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Also, I still assert that upon reading that spell, if there was any confusion, most wouldn't simply go "well must not affect natural attacks, pass!" They'd most likely go, "huh... Hey, does this spell work against monster's attacks too?"
In fact, if I said to you: "Hey, go fight that bear. Here's a knife." You wouldn't answer, "That's unfair, that bear is unarmed. I shouldn't use a weapon." Your response would probably be something along the lines of: "Are you ******* stupid!? Look at those claws! What's this little knife gonna do!?", implying that the bear's natural weapons are more than equal to yours (unless you are one of those stupid crazy survivalist people who does that kind of stuff).
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.