UA Mystic Soul Knife + Bestial Claws question

[Cheshire Cat]

Hello all,

New here -- so I hope I'm posting this appropriately. Anyway, could someone explain why (for Order of the Soul Knife Mystics, of course) the base Soul Knife 1d8 damage would NOT stack with the Bestial Claws damage of 1d10/psi if the latter is performed with a successful hit (provided one has their Soul Knives otherwise active and has not dismissed them)?

While the Soul Knife prohibits holding weapons, Bestial Claws clearly describes that, although delivering a melee weapon attack of 1d10/psi slashing, it is the result of the manifestation "of long claws". This is obviously not consistent with the holding of a weapon; but therefore should not negate the activation of the Soul Knives, does not forfeit the BA of the Mystic (which the rules state is the cost of dismissing the Soul Knives), and should, precisely because it remains a melee attack, add the Soul Knife's 1d8 psychic damage, no?

(P.S. FWIW, even though I haven't really seen commentary on the forums that suggest many would agree with my assessment on this [or Google's just not giving me representative results] nevertheless, my position is that the matter I ask about here is part of a piece for the Soul Knife Mystic, which is why they don't get their own disciplines. Among such talents as Blade Meld and discipline abilities like Bestial Claws that permit combined use with the Soul Knife, the SK Mystic can exploit some abilities in ways no other Mystic orders can.)

[Tiadoppler]

From what I've pieced together, UA Mystic is an early draft of a future class, not a current class. It isn't fully drafted and not all of the ability interactions have been worked out. That being said, the following is just my personal opinion, and how I would rule it.

I haven't used Mystic in my games, in large part because of the rough draft nature of the abilities. For example, most of the abilities in the various disciplines specify what action they require (a bonus action, a reaction or whatever). Bestial Claws does not. Does that mean that it doesn't take an action?

Second, imagine that a monk (whose 1d4 unarmed strike is considered a melee weapon attack) is carrying a shortsword (a 1d6). If they make a 1d6 melee weapon attack with the shortsword, they do not get an additional 1d4 damage because they also have their hand on the sword when it's swinging. Neither Soul Knife nor Bestial Claws say that they give an additional damage bonus to other attacks.

[Cheshire Cat]

From what I've pieced together, UA Mystic is an early draft of a future class, not a current class. It isn't fully drafted and not all of the ability interactions have been worked out. That being said, the following is just my personal opinion, and how I would rule it.

I haven't used Mystic in my games, in large part because of the rough draft nature of the abilities. For example, most of the abilities in the various disciplines specify what action they require (a bonus action, a reaction or whatever). Bestial Claws does not. Does that mean that it doesn't take an action?

Second, imagine that a monk (whose 1d4 unarmed strike is considered a melee weapon attack) is carrying a shortsword (a 1d6). If they make a 1d6 melee weapon attack with the shortsword, they do not get an additional 1d4 damage because they also have their hand on the sword when it's swinging. Neither Soul Knife nor Bestial Claws say that they give an additional damage bonus to other attacks.

Thanks for replying. I'm pressed for time so my apologies for the terse reply. But the PHB defines the monk's unarmed attack as allowed when wielding a monk weapon that specifically is one-handed hence leaving it possible for an unarmed strike (because there's an unarmed hand). That's actually disanalogous to the Soul Knife which is active for both hands.

*Added to Edit: (Have some time at the moment, so I can expand on my prior comments.) So to continue, there is also the matter that Unarmed Strike is not inherently performed with the hands, and may take the form of head-butting, elbow strike, etc. And does it not go without saying what the term "unarmed", by definition, entails? In contrast, the Soul Knives are said specifically to project from both fists. If the X-Man Wolverine slashes an opponent with his claws while manifesting Psylocke's psi-blade (were he capable of doing so), would anyone be under the impression that the latter weapon wouldn't inflict its own damage also?

[carrdrivesyou]

Soul Knife Mystics (SKMs) are inherently flawed at the moment, as they do not have their own Order Disciplines. Because of this, the current draft of the Mystic is incomplete in its self-interactions. Meaning that the disciplines and abilities of the Mystic have not yet been worked out as to have a solid answer to every interaction.

Because of this, many of the Mystics abilities do not work as smoothly together than that of other classes. I would work with your DM to find a solution that works for your game.

Additionally, the Mystic is still in UA, and being playtest material, feel free to write WotC about the issues you run into, and let them know your experience with the class. The more feedback they get, the better off things will be; also, the faster they can work out the kinks, not miss small details, and the faster we will see a completed class.

Hope this helps!

-Carr

[Mortis_Elrod]

Ok so as someone who can type “mys” in his url and bring up the Mystic UA, and has gone over both of these abilities multiple times let me explain how they work.

They are separate attacks.

You’ll notice that the wording on bestial claws does not say “when you hit with a melee weapon attack you can spend X points to do XD10 additional slash damage” that wording specifically would be what you are looking for to combine them.

Instead it says “You manifest long claws for an instant and make a melee weapon attack” and “ on a hit, this attack deals 1d10 slashing damage per psi point spent.”

Reading the words let’s you know exactly what happens. You make a melee weapon attack with those long claws, they deal 1d10 slashing damage per psi point spent if you hit.

Nothing there about additional damage, nothing there about using psi blades.


However as I and others have noted Bestail claws has no action cost. So RAW you could just make multiple separate melee attacks doing 1d10 slashing damage if you want, and attack with your soul knives with you Action.

But there is no “putting both on a attack” going on here.

[DivisibleByZero]

A Soul Knife is a blade (or blades) that you manifest from your fist(s) that deal psychic damagde. It is effectively a weapon.
Bestial Claws are claws that you manifest which deal slashing damage. It is effectively a weapon.
Choose.
That's why they don't stack.

[Tiadoppler]

I think the confusion is this:

This early draft of Bestial Claws says

"You manifest long claws for an instant and make a melee weapon attack against one creature..." (emphasis mine)

It doesn't specify that you must make a melee weapon attack with the long claws you have just manifested.
It also doesn't specify that it takes any action at all, so it can be done without even taking a reaction.

These are typos in a rough draft, not purposeful, official RAW. You may as well argue that disguise and makeup kits can be used to disable traps.

After all, any rouge can disarm a trap.

[Cheshire Cat]

Interesting. I appreciate the replies, because I think the one clear point that can be agreed upon is that the language is rough and makes itself amenable to contrary interpretations.

What also stands out for me is that the Soul Knives are defined with the inclusion of the odd but express prohibitory clause, "You can't hold anything in your hands while manifesting these blades." Presumably, this was said because the difference of things being otherwise is meaningful. But what's the problem with being able to hold something? Admittedly, in D&D your character can hold all kinds of things that might be important for a role-playing moment; but this is surely a tactical observation: the clause prevents the SK Mystic from a holding a weapon simultaneously while the SKs are active. But, then, what's wrong with that? Well, unless you're not me I suppose (?), the coincidence of two weapons suggests the coincidence of two types of damage that can potentially be delivered on potentially the one and same attack move, and that's certainly something you want clarified. Okay, great -- except, what kind of clarification is "you can't hold anything in your hands" if all you really want to say is no more or less than "you make a melee attack" when using the Soul Knife. And here one's curiosity (well, maybe just mine) prompts them to ask if perhaps there are melee attacks that would not be covered, because they are not intended to be covered by this rather uniquely phrased prohibition. And upon reading Bestial Claws, not to mention the talent Blade Meld, it turns out that, yes, there absolutely are such attack options. Hence, finally, the question of the OP.

[Tiadoppler]

You cannot hold a bow while using soul knife. You cannot drink a potion while using soul knife. Soul knife is not a physical item, but it does make full use of your hands, similar to the way a wizard's hands must be kept free if he wishes to use somatic components of a spell. This is a real limit. In no way does it imply that you could do extra damage if you somehow could hold another weapon simultaneously.

Blade Meld would prevent you from using Soul Knife for a minute. You cannot create your Soul Knife if your hands are occupied.

When you make an attack, you have to choose what weapon you attack with. D&D is not a perfect simulation of reality, nor does it try to be. It's a rough set of general rules, in which actions are discrete events and do not always interact the way you might expect from reading the fluff and spell descriptions.



Try comparing the Bestial Claws action with the Brute Strike action. Bestial Claws is an attack that does a specific amount of damage. Brute Strike adds damage to your next strike. They are phrased differently because those two things are different effects.

Brute Strike is not an attack, it grants additional damage to another attack.

Bestial Claws is an attack, it does not grant additional damage to another attack.




But, at the end of the day, the ruling's up to the DM at the table, not me. At least, until the class actually comes out and we get to see the finalized wording.

[Cheshire Cat]

You cannot hold a bow while using soul knife. You cannot drink a potion while using soul knife. Soul knife is not a physical item, but it does make full use of your hands, similar to the way a wizard's hands must be kept free if he wishes to use somatic components of a spell. This is a real limit. In no way does it imply that you could do extra damage if you somehow could hold another weapon simultaneously.

Blade Meld would prevent you from using Soul Knife for a minute. You cannot create your Soul Knife if your hands are occupied.

When you make an attack, you have to choose what weapon you attack with. D&D is not a perfect simulation of reality, nor does it try to be. It's a rough set of general rules, in which actions are discrete events and do not always interact the way you might expect from reading the fluff and spell descriptions.

One sees the point here about further relevant tactical considerations vis-a-vis holding objects. And if this is taken to negate any circumstantial support I might claim for the instructions anticipating my reading, so be it. Perhaps I should be asking what the written rules are that address the scenario of a character that takes a melee attack action while wielding (whether "for an instant" or otherwise) two or more melee weapons with/in the same hand that issues the attack? Does such a rule even exist? Is there another class that may likewise be said to issue an attack while being doubly-armed, but where clarification is made that, in so many words, states no special consideration is to be given when making an attack move? If so, I'm interested to see it. As it might seal the deal more than anything. For legitimate a priori negation requires actual precedent. Otherwise, we deny what may be legitimately exceptional or exotic simply because that is what it is. That is fallacious.


Try comparing the Bestial Claws action with the Brute Strike action. Bestial Claws is an attack that does a specific amount of damage. Brute Strike adds damage to your next strike. They are phrased differently because those two things are different effects.

Brute Strike is not an attack, it grants additional damage to another attack.

Bestial Claws is an attack, it does not grant additional damage to another attack.

I don't disagree with what you describe. It is not, however, to my mind a matter of whether Bestial Claws' description should have to grant a bonus to damage for the sake of the Soul Knife order. It is an Immortal discipline, not a Soul Knife discipline; having disciplines qualify all the contingencies applicable to its abilities when utilized by each and every other non-associated order would quickly degenerate into an absurdly cumbersome, if not unreadable, morass of bulky descriptions. The intro/description of each order should be able to broadly address the matter of most contingencies that arise in the use of other disciplines simply by ensuring the attributes of an order are given clear, straightforward, and complete definitions such that the player will be able to seamlessly follow the rules of their order to appropriate abilities of any given discipline. Moreover, if necessary, an order's description can preemptively clarify any specific matter(s) that are the source of confusion.


But, at the end of the day, the ruling's up to the DM at the table, not me. At least, until the class actually comes out and we get to see the finalized wording.

Yes, definitely yes here.

[Quietus]

It also doesn't specify that it takes any action at all, so it can be done without even taking a reaction.

Any time an ability doesn't specify what type of action it requires, it defaults to being one action. The phrasing you would want in order to combine this with an attack with a held weapon would be, "When making a melee weapon attack, you may spend..."

[Tiadoppler]

Perhaps I should be asking what the written rules are that address the scenario of a character that takes a melee attack action while wielding (whether "for an instant" or otherwise) two or more melee weapons with/in the same hand that issues the attack? Does such a rule even exist? Is there another class that may likewise be said to issue an attack while being doubly-armed, but where clarification is made that, in so many words, states no special consideration is to be given when making an attack move?


No special consideration is needed.

When you make an attack, you are not attacking with a specific hand, or the contents of a specific hand, you are attacking with a weapon you have equipped. That is how it's written in the PHB and DMG: "a weapon", not 'one or more weapons' or 'the contents of a hand of your choice'. Even if you have an additional weapon equipped for an instant, you have to pick which one you use for each attack roll.

D&D5e mechanics don't care what hand a weapon is in, as long as it's legally equipped. If it's equipped, it's an option for your attack. If it's not equipped (a two-handed weapon held in one hand), it's not an option for your attack.




Any time an ability doesn't specify what type of action it requires, it defaults to being one action. The phrasing you would want in order to combine this with an attack with a held weapon would be, "When making a melee weapon attack, you may spend..."

I agree completely, I was simply commenting on how imprecisely that specific power was worded.

[carrdrivesyou]

I just want to point out that Cheshire Cat (OP) has the eloquence in speech that would make Vaarsuvius jealous. I congratulate you on a job well done with your mastery of the English language! IT's quite refreshing compared to the "new speak" of the younger folk this day and age.