Interesting question, do you think a monk with an Eldritch Claw Tattoo should be able to use a stunning strike from 30ft away? Depending on how you read the Tattoo i think it could go either way, and I can't find any official ruling (was unlikely as it's UA).
For reference:
Eldritch Maul. As a bonus action, you can empower the tattoo for 1 minute. For the duration, each of your melee weapon attacks can reach a target up to 30 feet away from you, as tendrils of ink launch from your weapon or unarmed strike toward the target. In addition, your melee weapon attacks deal an extra 1d6 force damage on a hit. Once used, this bonus action can’t be used again until the next dawn.
Stunning Strike: Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent’s body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn.
Launch implies that it becomes a ranged attack however, so it doesn't seem so clear cut to me. Again not denying it can definitely be read that way, but logically how would that work if you are send Ki in to the body and it has to be melee, if this works, why wouldn't you be able to do it with a dart or a bow?
Nothing about Eldritch Maul changes the type of attack. It remains a melee weapon attack. That’s a technical game term; a verb in a bit of descriptive text doesn’t interact with it.
If it said “your melee weapon attacks change to ranged weapon attacks with a range of 30 feet,” then yeah, that would make them ineligible for stunning strike. But that’s not the case. There’s existing precedent for melee attacks that have a longer range. Reach weapons are an easy thing to cite, as well as the spell thorn whip.
Saga is correct. Nor is this the first example of an ability extending the reach of an Unarmed Strike despite it remaining a melee weapon attack: see also Fangs of the Fire Snake from the Way of the Four Elements Monk.
So it says that u can use your melee weopon attacks and in the next sentence it says that you can also use your unarmed attack to hit... but the extra 1d6 only works if you use a melee weapon.
So it says that u can use your melee weopon attacks and in the next sentence it says that you can also use your unarmed attack to hit... but the extra 1d6 only works if you use a melee weapon.
Unless the text has changed from what's in the OP (I'm not gonna check, sorry), the extra 1d6 absolutely works if you don't use a weapon. Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Interesting question, do you think a monk with an Eldritch Claw Tattoo should be able to use a stunning strike from 30ft away? Depending on how you read the Tattoo i think it could go either way, and I can't find any official ruling (was unlikely as it's UA).
For reference:
Eldritch Maul. As a bonus action, you can empower the tattoo for 1 minute. For the duration, each of your melee weapon attacks can reach a target up to 30 feet away from you, as tendrils of ink launch from your weapon or unarmed strike toward the target. In addition, your melee weapon attacks deal an extra 1d6 force damage on a hit. Once used, this bonus action can’t be used again until the next dawn.
Stunning Strike: Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent’s body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn.
Yes, the language is pretty clear that that’s totally allowed.
Launch implies that it becomes a ranged attack however, so it doesn't seem so clear cut to me. Again not denying it can definitely be read that way, but logically how would that work if you are send Ki in to the body and it has to be melee, if this works, why wouldn't you be able to do it with a dart or a bow?
Nothing about Eldritch Maul changes the type of attack. It remains a melee weapon attack. That’s a technical game term; a verb in a bit of descriptive text doesn’t interact with it.
If it said “your melee weapon attacks change to ranged weapon attacks with a range of 30 feet,” then yeah, that would make them ineligible for stunning strike. But that’s not the case. There’s existing precedent for melee attacks that have a longer range. Reach weapons are an easy thing to cite, as well as the spell thorn whip.
Saga is correct. Nor is this the first example of an ability extending the reach of an Unarmed Strike despite it remaining a melee weapon attack: see also Fangs of the Fire Snake from the Way of the Four Elements Monk.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So it says that u can use your melee weopon attacks and in the next sentence it says that you can also use your unarmed attack to hit... but the extra 1d6 only works if you use a melee weapon.
Unless the text has changed from what's in the OP (I'm not gonna check, sorry), the extra 1d6 absolutely works if you don't use a weapon. Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks.