I really don't get how it is either sloppy or confusing. Imo the reading comprehension required to parse the distinction between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" is fairly basic, particularly when you can look at a stat block and see "melee weapon attack" used to describe attacks with claws, fangs, etc.
I really don't get how it is either sloppy or confusing. Imo the reading comprehension required to parse the distinction between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" is fairly basic, particularly when you can look at a stat block and see "melee weapon attack" used to describe attacks with claws, fangs, etc.
Because English doesn't work that way. Those two phrases are equivalent.
Now, if you are reading the text as Rules, and are experienced at reading Rules, they might be distinct, and one can figure out that they are distinct, but the D&D 5 rules aren't written that rigorously in general.
And, AFAIK, they never explicitly define the classifications of attacks. You just sort of have to figure it out from context, and it's just as easy to figure out "the game calls these melee weapon attacks, so all these things are considered to be weapons for game-rule purposes." Indeed, I would consider it the more natural reading. The 'correct' reading comes from noting that there are things that the rules explicitly say are not weapons, but are still used to make "melee weapon attacks".
I could go on, at length, about how this probably happened, but I'm not going to. Suffice to say: it's sloppiness. More excusable sloppiness than overloading "attack", but still very sloppy.
I really don't get how it is either sloppy or confusing. Imo the reading comprehension required to parse the distinction between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" is fairly basic, particularly when you can look at a stat block and see "melee weapon attack" used to describe attacks with claws, fangs, etc.
Because English doesn't work that way. Those two phrases are equivalent.
Now, if you are reading the text as Rules, and are experienced at reading Rules, they might be distinct, and one can figure out that they are distinct, but the D&D 5 rules aren't written that rigorously in general.
And, AFAIK, they never explicitly define the classifications of attacks. You just sort of have to figure it out from context, and it's just as easy to figure out "the game calls these melee weapon attacks, so all these things are considered to be weapons for game-rule purposes." Indeed, I would consider it the more natural reading. The 'correct' reading comes from noting that there are things that the rules explicitly say are not weapons, but are still used to make "melee weapon attacks".
I could go on, at length, about how this probably happened, but I'm not going to. Suffice to say: it's sloppiness. More excusable sloppiness than overloading "attack", but still very sloppy.
By definition, if two phrases use the same words in a different order, then they are different phrases and thus can have different meanings. It is very clearly spelled out in multiple places that a “melee weapon attack” is a particular term that covers slightly more than a literal interpretation of the words. This is not some arbitrary and selective use, it’s clearly defined in the Attacks chapter of the PHB, the SAC, and literally any monster block with claws, fangs, etc.
By definition, if two phrases use the same words in a different order, then they are different phrases and thus can have different meanings.
English does not have a formal grammar.
They can be different, because English's lack of formal definitions mean that shades of meaning can be conveyed in word ordering.
Doing so for game mechanics is a terrible choice.
It is very clearly spelled out in multiple places that a “melee weapon attack” is a particular term that covers slightly more than a literal interpretation of the words. This is not some arbitrary and selective use, it’s clearly defined in the Attacks chapter of the PHB, the SAC, and literally any monster block with claws, fangs, etc.
If it were "clearly spelled out", we wouldn't have threads like this one and all its friends.
It's not clear. It can be inferred, but the fact that it has to be is a problem, especially when there's a different interpolation of the rules just sitting there, looking obvious, and it doesn't require hair-splitting parsing to figure out whether paladins can smite on an unarmed attack.
Technical writing in the casual mode is very difficult. I know. To pull it off without ambiguity requires being very precise with one's terms of art, and they weren't.
By definition, if two phrases use the same words in a different order, then they are different phrases and thus can have different meanings.
English does not have a formal grammar.
They can be different, because English's lack of formal definitions mean that shades of meaning can be conveyed in word ordering.
Doing so for game mechanics is a terrible choice.
It is very clearly spelled out in multiple places that a “melee weapon attack” is a particular term that covers slightly more than a literal interpretation of the words. This is not some arbitrary and selective use, it’s clearly defined in the Attacks chapter of the PHB, the SAC, and literally any monster block with claws, fangs, etc.
If it were "clearly spelled out", we wouldn't have threads like this one and all its friends.
You have an uncommonly high opinion of people’s willingness to parse through even a simple problem for themselves rather than throw up their hands in frustration at an obstacle, particularly for something low-stakes like a game.
I agree with jl8e 100% here. The rule and the correct ruling on this topic is very unclear and very unintuitive. If we could somehow take a poll of brand new players who read through the PHB exactly once, I think that a very low percentage of them could explain how this categorization is organized with any degree of accuracy. The fact that an unarmed strike is considered to be a melee weapon attack will probably be missed by a huge percentage of such players. It takes quite a bit of experience with the game, many many re-reads of the books, becoming familiar with many monster stat blocks -- which are generally meant to be for the DM's eyes only -- and probably reading through several of these sorts of forum threads before such a player will gain a clear understanding of how it is actually meant to work.
Like I said earlier in this thread -- the wording, the text structure and the general organization for this entire section of the rules really needs a massive overhaul. Something this important to the core of the gameplay should not be written so poorly.
Like I said earlier in this thread -- the wording, the text structure and the general organization for this entire section of the rules really needs a massive overhaul. Something this important to the core of the gameplay should not be written so poorly.
As I said, this particular one could be fixed by changing the term from "melee weapon attack" to "melee physical attack", or, if word order matters to you, "magical/physical melee/ranged strike" (because then you also fix the "attack/attack action" mess)
I have little hope that they'll fix this one,, since it's so widespread, but the playtest material suggests they're going for more rigor in the new books
(Though honestly, they could fix most of it by just killing all the "not a weapon" clauses on attacks. I seriously doubt it'll break anything.)
I have to admit, if it wasn’t for the rules and game mechanics forum I wouldn’t have know that melee weapon attack and attack with a melee weapon were two separate things. And that unarmed strikes qualifies for one but not the other. The fact that they need a SAC entry kind of points to a better need to clarify.
I really don't get how it is either sloppy or confusing. Imo the reading comprehension required to parse the distinction between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" is fairly basic, particularly when you can look at a stat block and see "melee weapon attack" used to describe attacks with claws, fangs, etc.
Because English doesn't work that way. Those two phrases are equivalent.
Now, if you are reading the text as Rules, and are experienced at reading Rules, they might be distinct, and one can figure out that they are distinct, but the D&D 5 rules aren't written that rigorously in general.
And, AFAIK, they never explicitly define the classifications of attacks. You just sort of have to figure it out from context, and it's just as easy to figure out "the game calls these melee weapon attacks, so all these things are considered to be weapons for game-rule purposes." Indeed, I would consider it the more natural reading. The 'correct' reading comes from noting that there are things that the rules explicitly say are not weapons, but are still used to make "melee weapon attacks".
I could go on, at length, about how this probably happened, but I'm not going to. Suffice to say: it's sloppiness. More excusable sloppiness than overloading "attack", but still very sloppy.
By definition, if two phrases use the same words in a different order, then they are different phrases and thus can have different meanings. It is very clearly spelled out in multiple places that a “melee weapon attack” is a particular term that covers slightly more than a literal interpretation of the words. This is not some arbitrary and selective use, it’s clearly defined in the Attacks chapter of the PHB, the SAC, and literally any monster block with claws, fangs, etc.
English does not have a formal grammar.
They can be different, because English's lack of formal definitions mean that shades of meaning can be conveyed in word ordering.
Doing so for game mechanics is a terrible choice.
If it were "clearly spelled out", we wouldn't have threads like this one and all its friends.
It's not clear. It can be inferred, but the fact that it has to be is a problem, especially when there's a different interpolation of the rules just sitting there, looking obvious, and it doesn't require hair-splitting parsing to figure out whether paladins can smite on an unarmed attack.
Technical writing in the casual mode is very difficult. I know. To pull it off without ambiguity requires being very precise with one's terms of art, and they weren't.
You have an uncommonly high opinion of people’s willingness to parse through even a simple problem for themselves rather than throw up their hands in frustration at an obstacle, particularly for something low-stakes like a game.
I agree with jl8e 100% here. The rule and the correct ruling on this topic is very unclear and very unintuitive. If we could somehow take a poll of brand new players who read through the PHB exactly once, I think that a very low percentage of them could explain how this categorization is organized with any degree of accuracy. The fact that an unarmed strike is considered to be a melee weapon attack will probably be missed by a huge percentage of such players. It takes quite a bit of experience with the game, many many re-reads of the books, becoming familiar with many monster stat blocks -- which are generally meant to be for the DM's eyes only -- and probably reading through several of these sorts of forum threads before such a player will gain a clear understanding of how it is actually meant to work.
Like I said earlier in this thread -- the wording, the text structure and the general organization for this entire section of the rules really needs a massive overhaul. Something this important to the core of the gameplay should not be written so poorly.
As I said, this particular one could be fixed by changing the term from "melee weapon attack" to "melee physical attack", or, if word order matters to you, "magical/physical melee/ranged strike" (because then you also fix the "attack/attack action" mess)
I have little hope that they'll fix this one,, since it's so widespread, but the playtest material suggests they're going for more rigor in the new books
(Though honestly, they could fix most of it by just killing all the "not a weapon" clauses on attacks. I seriously doubt it'll break anything.)
I have to admit, if it wasn’t for the rules and game mechanics forum I wouldn’t have know that melee weapon attack and attack with a melee weapon were two separate things. And that unarmed strikes qualifies for one but not the other. The fact that they need a SAC entry kind of points to a better need to clarify.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?