Savage Attacking Monk?

[DarklordKyo]

I'm playing a Tavern Brawler Monk in my multi-player playthrough, and debating what to do next ASI.

Heard Savage Attacker was massively buffed, so, question, does it work with Unarmed Strikes?

[Socrates Jackson]

I'd been wondering that too...

[Orion Invictus]

What does the text say?

[Deleted *******]

monk is so broken...

[DarklordKyo]

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

What does the text say?

When making melee weapon attacks, roll the damage dice twice, and take the highest result.

[DarklordKyo]

Originally posted by EternalFun:

monk is so broken...

As a guy whose first D&D character was a Monk, I love it

[DreamPod9]

Originally posted by DarklordKyo:

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

What does the text say?

When making melee weapon attacks, roll the damage dice twice, and take the highest result.

Melee attacks, not "unarmed" attacks, right? Melee implies the use of a weapon.

[Fringehunter7719]

Originally posted by DreamPod9:

Melee attacks, not "unarmed" attacks, right? Melee implies the use of a weapon.

Normally, you'd think so, but in 5th Ed. D&D it doesn't work that way, for no solid reason.

In BG3 (from the dozen or so hits I tried), it seems that savage attacker doesn't trigger on unarmed strikes. You can see when it does trigger by the "reroll" notification in the combat log.

[GrandMajora]

Larian homebrewed the Monk Weapons to be anything the monk is proficient with, which does not have the Heavy property. So Savage Attacker can still be pretty powerful on a Monk. You just won't be using your bare hands to do it.

[Muffanzo]

the feat states weapon melee attacks. fists are not weapons so it doesn't work (sadly)

[Fringehunter7719]

Originally posted by Muffanzo:

the feat states weapon melee attacks. fists are not weapons so it doesn't work (sadly)

The issue is that savage attacker refers to a melee weapon attack. In the 5th edition rule set, this has been expressly clarified by the rules officials to include unarmed strikes. Whereas an attack with a melee weapon expressly does not include unarmed strikes.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/monk/97202-monk-unarmed-strikes-conflicts-in-sage-advice

Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?

Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack. The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.

(That's not the original link to the sage advice, but that link isn't working for me right now so I included this one with the same text instead).

Confusing as this is lots of D&D players have internalised the difference, not least because a monk's stunning strike requires a melee weapon attack as the trigger.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/monk#StunningStrike-235

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.

None of this really matters. BG3 is its own thing. But if people are looking to the rules to understand it, or coming in with background knowledge the change can be confusing, to say the least.

[DarklordKyo]

Originally posted by Fringehunter7719:

None of this really matters. BG3 is its own thing. But if people are looking to the rules to understand it, or coming in with background knowledge the change can be confusing, to say the least.

To be fair, while it's generally it's own thing, it still uses 5e as a base, albeit with significant homebrew when it comes to balancing and buffs.

[Fringehunter7719]

Originally posted by DarklordKyo:

To be fair, while it's generally it's own thing, it still uses 5e as a base, albeit with significant homebrew when it comes to balancing and buffs.

I totally agree. It's not unreasonable to come in with a baseline expectation that 5e terms are used in the way they are used in 5e.

Sadly, they aren't always and that adds a bit to the confusion in some cases.

[DarklordKyo]

Originally posted by Fringehunter7719:

I totally agree. It's not unreasonable to come in with a baseline expectation that 5e terms are used in the way they are used in 5e.

Sadly, they aren't always and that adds a bit to the confusion in some cases.

There are good aspects to that, though, namely, with Spirit Guardians.

Due to the wording, some argue that running towards the enemy doesn't count as them entering the aura for the first time in a turn.

In BG3, though, Larian ruled that it does count, and I enjoyed being a living wrecking ball, charging headfirst into enemies with my walking JoJo's reference of a Cleric/Divine Soul Sorcerer.

[Friends with Benedicts]

Originally posted by DarklordKyo:

Originally posted by Fringehunter7719:

None of this really matters. BG3 is its own thing. But if people are looking to the rules to understand it, or coming in with background knowledge the change can be confusing, to say the least.

To be fair, while it's generally it's own thing, it still uses 5e as a base, albeit with significant homebrew when it comes to balancing and buffs.

sometimes is not even Larian Homebrewing stuff but rather an unintentional bug or exploit.

[Fringehunter7719]

Originally posted by DarklordKyo:

There are good aspects to that, though, namely, with Spirit Guardians.

Due to the wording, some argue that running towards the enemy doesn't count as them entering the aura for the first time in a turn.

Yeah, that is the rule and intent.

https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Does moonbeam deal damage when you cast it? What about when its effect moves onto a creature? The answer to both questions is no. Here’s some elaboration on
that answer.

Some spells and other game features create an area of effect that does something when a creature enters that area for the first time on a turn or when a creature starts its turn in that area. On the turn when you cast such a spell, you’re primarily setting up hurt for your foes on later turns. Moonbeam, for example, creates a beam of light that can damage a creature who enters the beam or who starts its turn in the beam.

Here are some spells with the same timing as moonbeam for their areas of effect:
blade barrier
cloudkill
cloud of daggers
Evard’s black tentacles
forbiddance
moonbeam
sleet storm
spirit guardians

Reading the description of any of those spells, you might wonder whether a creature is considered to be entering the spell’s area of effect if the area is created on the creature’s space. And if the area of effect can be moved—as the beam of moonbeam can—does moving it into a creature’s space count as the creature entering the area? Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect.

Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise.

It's one of many areas of balance that Larian tossed out of the window. It multiplies the damage of one of the best spells in the game by at least two or three times over, on average.

I'm pretty sure they also changed the speed penalty effect as well, so it works like difficult terrain in game instead of how the tabletop ability describes its effect, though I believe almost everyone played that "wrong" anyway.