I’m pretty sure I already know the answer to this, but I just want to double check. If a Ranger casts Hunter’s Mark and ends up punching the marked creature, does the unarmed strike still benefit from Hunter’s Mark? My money’s on “RAW, no,” but it just seems like a silly technicality to me.
Rule as written, Hunter's Mark should be applied to unarmed strike as well. While not a weapon per se, you do weapon attacks with unarmed strike. So, it is eligible for Hunter's Mark.
Yeah, once again, the rules' insistence on drawing a mechanically relevant distinction between "a weapon attack" and "an attack with a weapon" rears its ugly head.
It wouldn’t be so bad if they were more consistent. Sometimes they say “attack made with a weapon” sometimes they say “attack made with a melee weapon” sometimes they say “melee-weapon attack” with the hyphen to indicate that it specifically requires a weapon. If they were just more consistent it would be nice.
Yeah, once again, the rules' insistence on drawing a mechanically relevant distinction between "a weapon attack" and "an attack with a weapon" rears its ugly head.
Yeah, once again, the rules' insistence on drawing a mechanically relevant distinction between "a weapon attack" and "an attack with a weapon" rears its ugly head.
So, how would you have phrased it?
The phrasing per se isn’t the problem (it is a little bit, but it’s a symptom, not the disease). The problem is that some rules work with “weapon attacks” and some rules work with “attacks made with weapons” and that those are two different things. I don’t feel there’s any significant justification for excluding unarmed strikes from rules that use the latter phrasing (I’m not intimately familiar with every example, so if someone has a particular one that breaks the game if opened up to headbutts, I’m listening), so making the two phrases mechanically different just creates a whole lot of confusion.
My solution would be to say that the body parts you use to make unarmed strikes are weapons, thus making the two terms equivalent. You could even rephrase it and call them “physical attacks” or something and remove any mention of “attack made with a weapon” entirely.
If the distinction is necessary for some reason, then “weapon attacks” should definitely be called “physical attacks” (or something similarly evocative), because “what do you mean a weapon attack isn’t necessarily an attack with a weapon” is one the most imbecile questions I can imagine, through no fault whatsoever of the person asking it.
The phrasing per se isn’t the problem (it is a little bit, but it’s a symptom, not the disease). The problem is that some rules work with “weapon attacks” and some rules work with “attacks made with weapons” and that those are two different things. I don’t feel there’s any significant justification for excluding unarmed strikes from rules that use the latter phrasing (I’m not intimately familiar with every example, so if someone has a particular one that breaks the game if opened up to headbutts, I’m listening) ...
None of them break the game. Features like Divine Smite and Divine Strike require weapons for narrative/worldbuilding purposes.
My solution would be to say that the body parts you use to make unarmed strikes are weapons, thus making the two terms equivalent.
That kinda makes Dueling Fighting Style impossible since you're always wielding another weapon besides your sword, and turns "unarmed strike" into an oxymoron.
If the distinction is necessary for some reason, then “weapon attacks” should definitely be called “physical attacks” (or something similarly evocative), because “what do you mean a weapon attack isn’t necessarily an attack with a weapon” is one the most imbecile questions I can imagine, through no fault whatsoever of the person asking it.
"Physical attack" is going to cause confusion with spells that deal bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage (e.g. Ice Knife), and weapon attacks that don't deal those types (e.g. attacking with a Sun Blade, Shadow Blade or Spiritual Weapon.)
Also for whatever it's worth there are spell attacks that don't involve any spells too so it's not like this is unique to weapon attacks. And renaming spell attacks to "magic attacks" is also going to cause problems because swinging a magic sword is a weapon attack that deals magical damage.
There are ways to phrase things that avoid those confusions, and all of those confusions are better than "sometimes a weapon attack isn't an attack with a weapon." And you're right that spell attacks can be similarly confusing, and that should be fixed too. "There are problems everywhere" is hardly a defense.
Jeremy Crawford confirms that "unarmed attacks are melee weapon attacks" so for the purposes of Hunter's Mark, they would fulfill the weapon requirement.
I’m pretty sure I already know the answer to this, but I just want to double check. If a Ranger casts Hunter’s Mark and ends up punching the marked creature, does the unarmed strike still benefit from Hunter’s Mark? My money’s on “RAW, no,” but it just seems like a silly technicality to me.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Rule as written, Hunter's Mark should be applied to unarmed strike as well. While not a weapon per se, you do weapon attacks with unarmed strike. So, it is eligible for Hunter's Mark.
Yeah, once again, the rules' insistence on drawing a mechanically relevant distinction between "a weapon attack" and "an attack with a weapon" rears its ugly head.
It wouldn’t be so bad if they were more consistent. Sometimes they say “attack made with a weapon” sometimes they say “attack made with a melee weapon” sometimes they say “melee-weapon attack” with the hyphen to indicate that it specifically requires a weapon. If they were just more consistent it would be nice.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So, how would you have phrased it?
The phrasing per se isn’t the problem (it is a little bit, but it’s a symptom, not the disease). The problem is that some rules work with “weapon attacks” and some rules work with “attacks made with weapons” and that those are two different things. I don’t feel there’s any significant justification for excluding unarmed strikes from rules that use the latter phrasing (I’m not intimately familiar with every example, so if someone has a particular one that breaks the game if opened up to headbutts, I’m listening), so making the two phrases mechanically different just creates a whole lot of confusion.
My solution would be to say that the body parts you use to make unarmed strikes are weapons, thus making the two terms equivalent. You could even rephrase it and call them “physical attacks” or something and remove any mention of “attack made with a weapon” entirely.
If the distinction is necessary for some reason, then “weapon attacks” should definitely be called “physical attacks” (or something similarly evocative), because “what do you mean a weapon attack isn’t necessarily an attack with a weapon” is one the most imbecile questions I can imagine, through no fault whatsoever of the person asking it.
None of them break the game. Features like Divine Smite and Divine Strike require weapons for narrative/worldbuilding purposes.
That kinda makes Dueling Fighting Style impossible since you're always wielding another weapon besides your sword, and turns "unarmed strike" into an oxymoron.
"Physical attack" is going to cause confusion with spells that deal bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage (e.g. Ice Knife), and weapon attacks that don't deal those types (e.g. attacking with a Sun Blade, Shadow Blade or Spiritual Weapon.)
Also for whatever it's worth there are spell attacks that don't involve any spells too so it's not like this is unique to weapon attacks. And renaming spell attacks to "magic attacks" is also going to cause problems because swinging a magic sword is a weapon attack that deals magical damage.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
There are ways to phrase things that avoid those confusions, and all of those confusions are better than "sometimes a weapon attack isn't an attack with a weapon." And you're right that spell attacks can be similarly confusing, and that should be fixed too. "There are problems everywhere" is hardly a defense.
They can't use the word "attack" as then somebody will want to get the bonus on a spell attack.
They probably want to avoid giving bonus damage to a grapple or shove.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Jeremy Crawford confirms that "unarmed attacks are melee weapon attacks" so for the purposes of Hunter's Mark, they would fulfill the weapon requirement.
Link: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/02/12/does-divine-smite-works-with-unarmed-attacks-and-or-natural-weapons/