They don't want you using things like Magic Weapon, Booming Blade, or Green Flame bade on your unarmed strikes. Probably a few other spells/abilities as well.
Monk Unarmed Strike
They don't want you using things like Magic Weapon, Booming Blade, or Green Flame bade on your unarmed strikes. Probably a few other spells/abilities as well.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
An unarmed strike is, by definition, not striking with a weapon. Trying to twist that around is going to give you a headache. A goal of the 5e rules design is to be able to guess at the rule and be right most of the time.
If you didn't read the rules at all and were just asked:
"Can a Monk use Stunning Strike with Unarmed Strike?"
and
"Can a Kensai choose Unarmed Strike as their special weapon?"
What would your answers be?
I think the vast majority of people would guess the correct answers.
Now, could they have described the difference between weapon and spell attack differently? Yes. But, when the distinction is relevant it should be easy enough to guess at anyway.
I can think of 2 reasons.
1. Theme. It's weird to treat the body as an object which can be enchanted, etc.
2. Rules are supposed to be simple enough that they can be guessed at. A rule that makes the character's body count as a separate weapon would be confusing.
If you didn't read the rules at all and were just asked:
"Can a Monk use Stunning Strike with Unarmed Strike?"
and
"Can a Kensai choose Unarmed Strike as their special weapon?"
What would your answers be?
I think the vast majority of people would guess the correct answers.
Now, could they have described the difference between weapon and spell attack differently? Yes. But, when the distinction is relevant it should be easy enough to guess at anyway.
I can think of 2 reasons.
1. Theme. It's weird to treat the body as an object which can be enchanted, etc.
2. Rules are supposed to be simple enough that they can be guessed at. A rule that makes the character's body count as a separate weapon would be confusing.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
There is another point on Green Flame Blade: it has a material component - the weapon. I don't believe you can use part of your body as the material component of a spell.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
Calling your unarmed strike a weapon doesn't work well, it is an exception to too many rules for weapons as objects (can't be disarmed, don't need a hand to hold, can't draw it, etc.)
But the language describing attacks could be better. Maybe instead of "weapon attacks" and "spell attacks" they could have used "physical attacks" and "magical attacks." So you could use a weapon or an unarmed strike to make a physical attack, I think that would be a little easier to comprehend.
The distinction between unarmed strikes and natural weapons is also kind of confusing.
But the language describing attacks could be better. Maybe instead of "weapon attacks" and "spell attacks" they could have used "physical attacks" and "magical attacks." So you could use a weapon or an unarmed strike to make a physical attack, I think that would be a little easier to comprehend.
The distinction between unarmed strikes and natural weapons is also kind of confusing.
Li Shenron
Legend
It's there mainly so that nobody is tempted to think that you can enchant your body parts or use special abilities with them. In addition, "unarmed strike" is not even a specific body part, it's rather a movement that can refer to any body part.
TBH I think it could have been easier to just say explicitly that SS and other monk abilities can be used with it. SS is actually more meant for unarmed strikes than weapons, and it is odd that you have to look at rules in scattered places to figure it out.
The kensai OTOH is meant to be a monk specialized in manufactured weapons.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
What makes you say that? Just curious. I'd have said it was meant equally for either.
Li Shenron
Legend
They may have changed the concept purposefully, but in 3e the stunning effect was strictly with unarmed strikes. That's where I think the idea originated, but I am not sure if maybe the older 1e monk also had stunning abilities.
In addition, stunning is a sort of shock, and somewhat more believable with a bludgeoning weapon than e.g. a dagger or javelin or sickle. But I rather see the current rule as a generous offer that makes you use also those if you want, it's not a big deal.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
The AD&D monk did indeed stun, but only with unarmed strikes ("open hand combat"). In fact a high level monk had a reasonable chance to outright kill an opponent with an unarmed strike.
Anyway, I now understand your comment thanks!
Bradley Hindman
Explorer
And why would enchanting your fists (or feat, or whatever) be a bad idea? Since there aren't any real rules for crafting magic items, I'd say that the process is up to the DM. Personally, I think a quest to get your fists enchanted sounds like a lot of fun. And I can't think of any balance reasons why it would cause a huge problem. Sure, you can't be disarmed, but there are plenty of other attacks that have that property (hey you! Cantrips).
Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems like a whole lot of unnecessary distinctions and rules have been put in place to restrict how punches and kicks (really monks) interact with the rest of the combat system. If I am missing some broken combination, please let me know.
psychophipps
Explorer
It can cause issues with abilities like smiting and that ridiculous Hexblade thing that acts like Smiting turned to "11" with the knob broke off, but isn't Smiting.
