It’s because “attack” isn’t specific enough. Everything in DnD is either a weapon attack (typically a physical attack using whatever weapon you have equipped) or a spell attack. In general parlance, “I punch the kobold” translates to “I use Unarmed Strike to make a weapon attack on the kobold.” But that doesn’t mean the Unarmed Strike is a weapon. Since generic attacks aren’t allowed in the rules, you have to designate it as a weapon attack, instead of a spell attack. Oftentimes, the distinction is because there are certain spells or effects that use your weapon as a spell focus, or trigger when making/taking weapon/spell attacks.
For instance, Booming Blade requires brandishing a weapon to channel the spell before you make a weapon attack. The spell component literally lists “a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp, which the spell does not consume.” Then if you hit with the weapon attack, the spell triggers. So your fists could make a weapon attack (using Unarmed Strike) but would not count as a valid weapon for the spell. Even if you could convince the DM that your hand is worth at least 1 silver piece, it still wouldn’t be a melee weapon. So you wouldn’t be able to cast the spell if you were unarmed.
Still sounds like a badly chosen name to me. Calling a category “weapon attack” when not all attacks within it are attacks with weapons makes it wide open to misinterpretation, especially when in some cases it’s relevant whether a weapon is used or not. The fact that it took you two long paragraphs to explain the difference between a weapon attack and a weapon attack with a weapon illustrates this rather nicely.
Distinguishing “spell/nonspell” or “spell/weapon/unarmed” would’ve solved the issue without this whole “weapon but not really” song and dance routine.
![Dual Wielding [Dungeons & Dragons]](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/cac0f467-f0d7-4bd4-a82d-65eace9616a2.webp){kind=link}
It’s because “attack” isn’t specific enough. Everything in DnD is either a weapon attack (typically a physical attack using whatever weapon you have equipped) or a spell attack. In general parlance, “I punch the kobold” translates to “I use Unarmed Strike to make a weapon attack on the kobold.” But that doesn’t mean the Unarmed Strike is a weapon. Since generic attacks aren’t allowed in the rules, you have to designate it as a weapon attack, instead of a spell attack. Oftentimes, the distinction is because there are certain spells or effects that use your weapon as a spell focus, or trigger when making/taking weapon/spell attacks.
For instance, Booming Blade requires brandishing a weapon to channel the spell before you make a weapon attack. The spell component literally lists “a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp, which the spell does not consume.” Then if you hit with the weapon attack, the spell triggers. So your fists could make a weapon attack (using Unarmed Strike) but would not count as a valid weapon for the spell. Even if you could convince the DM that your hand is worth at least 1 silver piece, it still wouldn’t be a melee weapon. So you wouldn’t be able to cast the spell if you were unarmed.
Still sounds like a badly chosen name to me. Calling a category “weapon attack” when not all attacks within it are attacks with weapons makes it wide open to misinterpretation, especially when in some cases it’s relevant whether a weapon is used or not. The fact that it took you two long paragraphs to explain the difference between a weapon attack and a weapon attack with a weapon illustrates this rather nicely.
Distinguishing “spell/nonspell” or “spell/weapon/unarmed” would’ve solved the issue without this whole “weapon but not really” song and dance routine.