Rules answers: February 2016

[DanyBallon]

FYI

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-february-2016

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Well, at least this time it's blandly inoffensive. And it's good that they explicitly stated that the rogue can proc sneak attack multiple times in a round, just once per turn. I could see less informed groups getting into arguments about that, as some might miss the difference between a turn and a round.

[KorvinStarmast]

FYI

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-february-2016

I like the part, about dragon breath not being magical damage. This is consistent with original design template: there were saves based upon source of effect:

Death Ray / or Poison --
All Wands - Including Polymorph or paralyzation --
Stone --
Dragon Breath --
Staves & Spells


Granted, as much as that flavor is neat, I am also pleased with the current system as being a lot simpler to play, and being based on your stats rather.

[Xetheral]

Ugh. Now we have yet another source in addition to the problematic PHB 194 suggesting that a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike doesn't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll, even though everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes.

The problematic part of the sage advice column is the first asterisk, which states that, when making a melee weapon attack, you use your strength mod and you "Add your proficiency bonus if you’re using a weapon with which you’re proficient." This directly implies (in the colloquial sense, not the formal logic sense) that if you're *not* using a weapon, you *don't* add your proficiency modifer to the attack roll of the melee weapon attack.

This is obviously unintended, and since PHB 194 was written before the unarmed strike errata, it was one thing to make an allowence for the unfortunate reliance on the word "weapon" in the pre-eratta text. But this Sage Advice was written with full knowledge of the errata, and repeated the error instead of taking the opportunity to fix it. :(

Not a big problem since the intent is clear, but still very annoying.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Ugh. Now we have yet another source in addition to the problematic PHB 194 suggesting that a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike doesn't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll, even though everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes.

RAW aside, I wish this was given out on a specific race/class/background basis. It would feel correct if the Noble Wizard who's life's been pampered had no idea how to throw a punch, whereas Urchin Bard who's been jumped a few times (and done the jumping) did know how to fight bare-knuckled.

[DanyBallon]

As far as I'm concerned, I'd say that monk and martials (Barbarian, fighter, aladin and ranger) are the only ones that are proficient with unnarmed strike. Everyone else isn't and must take the Tavern Brawler feat to become proficient.

Or if you want to stick to raw, nobody is proficient with unnarmed strike unless they take the Tavern Brawler feat. The monk Martial art feature, let you add your dex mod to your unnarmed strike. I can live with such a ruling as well.

[coredump]

The problematic part of the sage advice column is the first asterisk, which states that, when making a melee weapon attack, you use your strength mod and you "Add your proficiency bonus if you’re using a weapon with which you’re proficient." This directly implies (in the colloquial sense, not the formal logic sense) that if you're *not* using a weapon, you *don't* add your proficiency modifer to the attack roll of the melee weapon attack.
.

It makes no such implication. It says what it says, if you decide to read much more into it than it actually says.... that is on you, not them.

[Xetheral]

It makes no such implication. It says what it says, if you decide to read much more into it than it actually says.... that is on you, not them.

Could you please clarify what you interpret the requirement to actually say, and why? I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me because you believe the formal logic interpretation (i.e. it doesn't say anything about nonweapon/nonproficiency) is superior to my colloquial one, or if you're reading the requirement as having only one restriction (proficiency) instead of two (weapon with which you are proficient).

I'm happy to go into further detail to support my interpretation in either case, but it would help if you'd clarify your argument first.

[mgshamster]

Ugh. Now we have yet another source in addition to the problematic PHB 194 suggesting that a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike doesn't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll, even though everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes.

The problematic part of the sage advice column is the first asterisk, which states that, when making a melee weapon attack, you use your strength mod and you "Add your proficiency bonus if you’re using a weapon with which you’re proficient." This directly implies (in the colloquial sense, not the formal logic sense) that if you're *not* using a weapon, you *don't* add your proficiency modifer to the attack roll of the melee weapon attack.

This is obviously unintended, and since PHB 194 was written before the unarmed strike errata, it was one thing to make an allowence for the unfortunate reliance on the word "weapon" in the pre-eratta text. But this Sage Advice was written with full knowledge of the errata, and repeated the error instead of taking the opportunity to fix it. :(

I'm confused - is this claiming that an unarmed strike is not a weapon, even though it's considered a Melee Weapon Attack and is listed in the Weapons Table?

Also, not everyone is proficient with unarmed attacks. The Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard weapon prof lists don't include unarmed strikes. The rest of the classes all have simple weapons, which includes unarmed.

[Xetheral]

I'm confused - is this claiming that an unarmed strike is not a weapon, even though it's considered a Melee Weapon Attack and is listed in the Weapons Table?

Also, not everyone is proficient with unarmed attacks. The Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard weapon prof lists don't include unarmed strikes. The rest of the classes all have simple weapons, which includes unarmed.

Unarmed strike was errataed to explicitly not be a weapon (but still makes melee weapon attacks), and as of the second printing of the phb is no longer on the weapon table. Also, everyone is now proficient with unarmed strikes.