1
\$\begingroup\$

I have a Ranger3 Blood Hunter3 in a CoS campaign. The ranger multi-classed into bloodhunter for flavor and role play. He has chosen Order of the Lycan.

One of the abilities allows them to make 1d6(scaling with level) unarmed strikes. How should I handle the use of the spell Hunters Mark while using the unarmed strike?

I know that monks can make unarmed strikes in lieu of weapon attacks but would that trigger Hunter's Mark? Also would this roll over to the Blood Hunter homebrew class as well?

Hunter Mark reads "you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit with a weapon attack" Can I concider the Blood Hunter unarmed strikes to be weapons?

Thank you both for your answers and insight on my inquiry. I guess this is being flagged a duplicate and in a way it may be. The other post didn't come up on my search regarding the Blood Hunter or Hunters Mark and unarmed strikes. I'm going to let this get mark duplicate and link over to the other page. Thanks again.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ what's a blood hunter? \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60
    Jul 13 '16 at 12:03
2
\$\begingroup\$

Hunters Mark should apply from my reading of it. Mercer's Order of the Lycan class reads under Predatory Strike that, "Your unarmed strikes are considered a single weapon in regard to your Crimson Rites feature." Under the Blood Hunter class the Crimson Rite could only be applied to a weapon, so if the Order of the Lycan (clearly specialised in close unarmed combat) can use Crimson Rite abilities unarmed then it stands to reason that the Ranger's Hunter's Mark should also apply. In fact, Crimson Rite AND Hunter's Mark could be used in conjunction by my reading of it - although DM might want to consider asking for Concentration checks to maintain Hunter's Mark at same time as Crimson Rite given that the rite does inflict damage to invoke - and from a RP point of view could conceivably be expected to cause ongoing pain during its use.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I didn't read it that way before now. I guess just figured it meant both hands would be effected by the right where as when duel wielding short swords the rite would need to be invoked separately for each weapon. Thank you \$\endgroup\$
    – user30185
    Jul 13 '16 at 10:48
3
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, unarmed strikes count as weapon attacks and will trigger Hunter's Mark.

From the latest version of the Player's Basic Rules:

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).

Note that the implication here is that instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "none of which count as weapons" -> to me, this means that clearly, it is not a weapon attack, but instead an unarmed strike. (the implication seems to be that instead of a melee weapon attack you can make an unarmed strike, and not that instead of a melee weapon attack you can use an unarmed strike to make the melee weapon attack. \$\endgroup\$
    – Patta
    Jul 13 '16 at 8:52
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Patta It sounds to me like it means it's a melee weapon attack made with a non-weapon. Which is a very weird psuedo-state. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 13 '16 at 9:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ I do remember reading this in a twitter post at some point but I thought it was in regard to monks in particular. Thank you \$\endgroup\$
    – user30185
    Jul 13 '16 at 10:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Patta its the verb being used that throws it in the direction doppelgreener states, by my reading. "You can use an unarmed strike" then begs the parallel from the earlier clause "you can use an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack." Consider if, instead, it had been worded "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can make an unarmed strike...." \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60
    Jul 13 '16 at 12:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Miniman Wow, I get the exact opposite reading from your quote. It says you can replace "using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack" with an unarmed strike. The melee weapon attack is not occurring, the unarmed strike is. There's nothing there that labels an unarmed strike as a melee weapon attack. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 13 '16 at 20:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .