The difference between a melee weapon attack, attack with melee weapon, and melee attack with a weapon in D&D 5E, and why it matters. https://twitter.com/AngryManTV/status/1390743449721319428

Multiple people are asking me unironically to explain this, so I will. Fair warning: I will take more than one tweet. If you jump in with "Well actually there's also" and it's something I'm going to say, I will block you.

And same thing if you jump in with "Well actually" and it's not something I was going to say because it's wrong, I will block you.

Preamble: 5th edition of D&D inherited a lot of the creative genes of 4th edition, among them a focus on exception-based design mechanics and an attempt to be "programmatic" in the logic of its definitions.

"Exception-based design" means rules are simple and complications are included elsewhere, as exceptions that modify it.

For instance, where melee weapons are defined, the rule says they are used to attack foes "within 5 feet of you".

There are exceptions to this! But the rule doesn't say, "within 5 feet of you, unless it's like a polearm or whip, in which case it might be farther."

It just says "within 5 feet of you" and then there's another rule regarding weapons with the "reach" tag.

So you only have to learn the simplest version of the rule, which is that melee weapons = 5 feet attack range, unless and until you're dealing with a weapon that is an exception to it, and then you have to know that weapon's rule.

So a melee weapon attack is a melee attack made with a weapon. That's its definition.

And then there are other forms of attack whose definitions specifically say they are considered melee weapon attacks, like unarmed strikes.

*In practice*, "melee weapon attack" is a tag that is attached to basically every form of attack that is made through mundane means and without involving some kind of projectile.

There's no rule that says that. But the rules that exist amount to more or less that.

Now, what if you need to refer to a melee attack that is definitely being made with a weapon? That's a "melee attack with a weapon". This is a purely descriptive term that lays out the exact qualifications for what it applies to: a melee attack, with a weapon.

If you've got a class feature that says it applies to your "melee weapon attacks" then you can use it with unarmed strikes, or if you have a form that has natural weapons (which are a category distinct from weapons), you can use that feature with them...

...because both unarmed strikes and natural weapon attacks are defined as melee weapon attacks, even if the inherent definition of melee weapon attacks doesn't include them.

On the other hand, if you've got a class feature that activates when you "make a melee attack with a weapon", you can't use it with unarmed strikes or natural weapons, because those are melee weapon attacks... without a weapon.

Now, if you think this seems ad hoc and poorly thought out, you're not wrong, and there's some evidence the nomenclature was not fully worked out at launch time, as the Paladin class has a feature called "divine smite" that refers to melee weapon attacks...

...and the text of the features refers to properties of an actual weapon, leading to the official ruling that this ability does require an actual physical weapon, even though the label "melee weapon attack" would include attacks that don't have one.

Oh, and the third thing I mentioned? Attack with a melee weapon? Like "melee attack with a weapon", it's purely descriptive and tells you what the qualifiers are: an attack, with a melee weapon. A dagger is a melee weapon. Throwing it is an attack. It counts.

So if you have "advantage on attacks with melee weapons", you can use that advantage when you throw a dagger or hammer to make a ranged attack. That's also a "ranged weapon attack", but not an "attack with a ranged weapon" or a "melee weapon attack".

The thing about the programmatic logic is that things you might think are implied or bilaterally connected... aren't. Things do what they say.

For instance, the dueling style gives you +2 to damage with a melee weapon if you're wielding it in one hand and no other weapons.

You might think "So I can't use a shield, then." But it doesn't say that. You might think "It's a bonus to melee attacks." Doesn't say that either.

Another example: rogues have features like sneak attack that apply when using a weapon with the finesse property. The finesse property allows you to use Dexterity when making attacks with a melee weapon.

So you have to use Dex to sneak attack? Doesn't say that. Strength works!

Monks have a special ability that allows them to use Dexterity for unarmed strikes and several non-finesse weapons. That makes them "finesse attacks" and means a dual class Monk/Rogue can sneak attack, right?

Nope. No such thing as a "finesse attack". It's a weapon property.

And while the Monk feature has the same *effect* as the finesse property on a weapon does, it's *not* putting the finesse property on the weapon.

Same deal with Druid/Rogues who wild shape into animals that attack using Dex. No weapon with finesse property, no sneak attack.

Now, will the game break if you decide to simplify things and just ignore these distinctions? No, not in the sense of becoming unplayable. It may allow a character who is really good at leveraging the synergies they allow to outperform the rest of the table.

If the deal is that nobody at your table cares enough about rules minutiae to keep this straight even as it applies to their characters, though, then there's probably not going to be an issue with tearing down some of the balance firewalls they built in with these distinctions.

A lot of these distinctions are about cordoning of the number of different classes special sauce can be poured over a single attack or whatever, either through hard limits or introducing inefficiencies.

The programmatic logic means they don't have to a big red underlined injunction that says "BUT YOU CANNOT COMBINE A MONK'S MARTIAL ARTS WITH A ROGUE'S SNEAK ATTACK, BECAUSE THAT'S POTENTIALLY BUSTED."

Instead they make the rules for applying each class feature work out so that you can only use the Rogue's sneak attack with a monk weapon that a Rogue could already sneak attack with.

And honestly, the amount of damage points that are shaved off by not letting a Monk/Rogue sneak attack with more weapons is minimal. It's more that 5E, having watched in mingled awe and fear of the dumpster-diving munchkins of 3E, got really paranoid about min-maxing.

So there's a lot of stuff in 5E that is firewalled off from interacting with other stuff just on the bare basic principle that you don't have to figure out all the balance implications of layering things if they can't be layered.

E.g., no matter how many cool things you have from your six classes that you can do as a bonus action on your turn, you will never ever in a million years get to take more than one bonus action in a turn. You're always picking at most one of them.