Are Melee Spell Attacks Melee attacks?

[nickl_2000]

I'm trying to figure out my level 8 feat and mobile is an option for my Moon Druid.

Will Primal Savagery, which uses a melee spell attack, count for the melee attack requirement for the lack of AoOs from mobile?

[Cybren]

Unless i'm missing some interaction, that seems like it should work? A melee attack includes both melee spell attacks and melee weapon attacks.

[Willie the Duck]

I believe it is a melee attack, but is not an attack action (the reason why 2-weapon fighters and minotaurs are not fans of the SCAG cantrips).

[nickl_2000]

Unless i'm missing some interaction, that seems like it should work? A melee attack includes both melee spell attacks and melee weapon attacks.


I believe it is a melee attack, but is not an attack action (the reason why 2-weapon fighters and minotaurs are not fans of the SCAG cantrips).

Thanks to you both. Mobile states

• When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.

So given that Primal Savagery and Thorn Whip makes a Melee Spell attack, which is still a melee attack, and that mobile doesn't require an attack action it should apply. That helps my decision making

[Mortis_Elrod]

It works. Using it myself to make a build centered on being transformed into a magical monster as a spellcaster. Primal savagery is key to this.

[strangebloke]

It's one of the worst bits of word salad in the 5e rules.

All attacks are either ranged attacks or melee attacks.

All attacks are weapon attacks or spell attacks. A weapon attack can be with a natural weapon or an unarmed strike, as with a monk.

however, unarmed strikes are not weapons. (unclear on natural weapons, actually, I think they're not really weapons either)

An attack action may or may not include attacks. (you can shove, but things like TWF require you to make attacks with weapons.)

It's a headache.

[AvvyR]

It's one of the worst bits of word salad in the 5e rules.

All attacks are either ranged attacks or melee attacks.

All attacks are weapon attacks or spell attacks. A weapon attack can be with a natural weapon or an unarmed strike, as with a monk.

however, unarmed strikes are not weapons. (unclear on natural weapons, actually, I think they're not really weapons either)

An attack action may or may not include attacks. (you can shove, but things like TWF require you to make attacks with weapons.)

It's a headache.

Nailed it. This terrible wording issue causes the overwhelming majority of confusion and misinterpretation on rules that I see.

And to confirm, natural weapons (and improvised weapons) don't count as "weapons," same as unarmed strike.

[Joe the Rat]

Now all I have to do is find a good use for someone up to 30' away being unable to make opportunity attacks against me.
Nailed it. This terrible wording issue causes the overwhelming majority of confusion and misinterpretation on rules that I see.

And to confirm, natural weapons (and improvised weapons) don't count as "weapons," same as unarmed strike.
That's only an issue when a weapon is a key element (melee weapon attack vs. attack with a melee weapon)
All they really needed to do to explain this was to make a chart. One chart, that's it. Whole thing sorted.

[strangebloke]

Now all I have to do is find a good use for someone up to 30' away being unable to make opportunity attacks against me.
That's only an issue when a weapon is a key element (melee weapon attack vs. attack with a melee weapon)
All they really needed to do to explain this was to make a chart. One chart, that's it. Whole thing sorted.

Eh, I think they could forgo the chart if they just made things a bit simpler.

Add 'unarmed strike' to the simple weapon table, with an addendum that natural weapons count as weapons. Change the name of the 'attack' action to the 'fight' action or something more generic. (to eliminate confusion over attack actions that contain no attacks.)

Well, and just get rid of all of the bonus action economy. Mearls says it's the biggest thing he wishes he could change and I sorta agree.

Instead of

"On your turn, when you make a melee weapon attack with a light weapon as part of the attack weapon and you are holding a light weapon in your other hand, you may make an attack with the offhand weapon as a bonus action."

You would get:

"On your turn, if you are wielding a light weapon in each hand, you may take the two-weapon-attack action. You make all attacks you would as part of the attack action, and also make an attack with your offhand weapon."

The idea is to get rid of all the weird conflicts of bonus action economy that don't really make sense, since a bonus action doesn't represent anything from a simulationist point of view.