Multiclass features not interacting as they should. (Monk/Spores Druid for example)

[MayContainSalt]

I was pretty excited for BG3 full release when they said that multi-classing was coming to the game as i thought it never would. So i made a character concept of a Open Hand monk with a Circle of spores druid to empower the flurry of blows with the "Symbiotic Entity" feature from Spored druid. The Symbiotic Entity allows your attacks to deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage when you hit an enemy with a "WEAPON ATTACK". For those who don't know unarmed strikes while they are not actually made with weapons are still considered a melee weapon attack, the term "weapon attack" is used to differentiate between a spell based attack and a non spell based attack, to prove my point the Players handbook of 5th edition D&D (which BG3 is based off of) states:

"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."

Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. If they weren't then everyone has been playing monks wrong for god knows how many years. The point to all of this is that in BG3, flurry of blows, and unarmed strikes from the martial arts feature and in general DO NOT gain the benefit of abilities/features requiring weapon hits. If this is indicative of the translation of the rules I am very not liking the idea of testing out multi-class builds for fear of wasting hours of my time.

-TLDR Monks unarmed strikes and flurry of blows are not considered weapon attacks even though they should be. This actually locks monk out of quite a few multiclass builds which is a shame as they already do not have many good options. Have anyone else experienced class interactions that don't work?

[Nice2Rabbis]

I’m also a spore monk and this bummed me out a bit. I would really not be surprised if this was an oversight and it gets patched. Here’s hoping!

[hannibal_pjv]

Hard to say. But yeah at current state they don´t count unarmed srtikes as weapon attacks, but they are own category of their own… But because monk is ”OP” it needs to be nerfed ;)
I also hope that they change it. Have you asked this in Larian forum?

[Typha]

This sounds like an oversight-type bug.

[Draescan]

Unarmed strike is made distinct from a normal melee attack both in the tabletop and in the game. If this were a tabletop game I'd be telling you no too. Most DM's would as it's not a weapon attack, it's an unarmed strike, that uses a weapon attack roll to determine accuracy. It's no different from an improvised weapon in this regard. Monks just get bonuses from their class with unarmed, that doesn't make them weapons.

Extended: If they were, ANY spell or effect that targets the melee weapon you're using would also apply, not JUST symbiotic entity.

[Draescan]

All that to say, this particular instance doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility for the rules not allowing it, however that isn't to detract from other class combos. Have any other examples?

Stunning Strike has 2 forms, unarmed stunning strike, and melee weapon stunning strike. It's even distinct in this case.

[Typha]

Originally posted by Draescan:

Unarmed strike is made distinct from a normal melee attack both in the tabletop and in the game. If this were a tabletop game I'd be telling you no too. Most DM's would as it's not a weapon attack, it's an unarmed strike, that uses a weapon attack roll to determine accuracy. It's no different from an improvised weapon in this regard. Monks just get bonuses from their class with unarmed, that doesn't make them weapons.

Extended: If they were, ANY spell or effect that targets the melee weapon you're using would also apply, not JUST symbiotic entity.

Actually, yeah I agree with this assessment.

[Nice2Rabbis]

Originally posted by Draescan:

Unarmed strike is made distinct from a normal melee attack both in the tabletop and in the game. If this were a tabletop game I'd be telling you no too. Most DM's would as it's not a weapon attack, it's an unarmed strike, that uses a weapon attack roll to determine accuracy. It's no different from an improvised weapon in this regard. Monks just get bonuses from their class with unarmed, that doesn't make them weapons.

Extended: If they were, ANY spell or effect that targets the melee weapon you're using would also apply, not JUST symbiotic entity.

Respectfully, I disagree. The specifics of symbiotic entity in the rule book are:

Your melee weapon attacks deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to any target they hit.

Unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks. What they don’t count as are attacks with a melee weapon. For example, the text from paladins divine smite:

Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage

Though you can use the smite as a melee weapon attack (which unarmed strikes are) there is no actual weapon for the smite’s damage to be added too. It’s a subtle but important distinction. Similar logic justifies the fact that unarmed strikes cannot trigger rogue sneak attacks. I’m aware this seems a little arbitrary, but the internal logic of the game was created with these distinctions in mind, even if the language is a little vague. More about that at this link:

https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/unarmed-strike-5e/#Are_Unarmed_Strikes_Weapons

All this discussion is a little muddy because the actual text of the Larian symbiotic entity is so incredibly vague it almost sounds like ANY source of damage would increase with symbiotic entity. The feature needs more attention no matter how you slice it.

[MayContainSalt]

The reason I believe symbiotic entity should work on unarmed strikes as I have stated in the post is because stunning strike itself words that it needs a weapon attack to trigger. Of course at the end of the day Larian has the final say as its their interpretation of the rules. If modding support is as big as it was in Divinity 2 then hopefully we can mod the game to how we want to interpret the rules.

[Nagosh]

Originally posted by Draescan:

Unarmed strike is made distinct from a normal melee attack both in the tabletop and in the game. If this were a tabletop game I'd be telling you no too. Most DM's would as it's not a weapon attack, it's an unarmed strike, that uses a weapon attack roll to determine accuracy. It's no different from an improvised weapon in this regard. Monks just get bonuses from their class with unarmed, that doesn't make them weapons.

Extended: If they were, ANY spell or effect that targets the melee weapon you're using would also apply, not JUST symbiotic entity.

They have explicitly stated that unarmed strikes are considered melee weapon attacks. Any effect that states "melee weapon attack" will also apply to unarmed strikes, e.g. druid spores, barbarian rage, etc. This is an oversight from Larian and I hope they get it fixed or a mod out there fixes it.