D&D 5E PHB Errata Nerf Unarmed Strikes!? WHY??? :(

[DND_Reborn]

So, I've spent some of my leisure time this weekend exploring options for a grappler build and find that the PHB Errata really nerfs unarmed strikes:

Melee Attacks (p. 195). The third paragraph now reads, “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). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”

Since the bolded part means unarmed strikes are not weapons, there are a LOT of things this limits:

Half-Orc Savage Attacks
Two-Weapon Fighting (even if you consider Unarmed Strikes "light)
Barbarian Frenzy (Path of the Berserker) and Divine Fury (Path of the Zealot)
Bard Blade Flourish (College of Swords)
Cleric War Priest (War Doman)
Fighter Dueling Fighting Style
Fighter Two-Weapon Fighting Style
Fighter Maneuvers (Battlemaster, affects several of them)
Paladin Divine Smite
Ranger Horde Breaker (Hunter)
Ranger Dread Ambusher (Gloom Stalker)

Of course there are several more... Considering how little damage unarmed strikes do under most circumstances, why the heck did WotC decide to make them even less appealing???

Obviously we can house-rule all this any way our table decides to, so I am more wondering why you might think this change to unarmed strikes was warranted?

Thoughts?

 

[Salthorae]

So you’d use a weapon to two weapon fight?

Take either tavern brawler or a level of monk if you’re concerned about the change to damage.

Not being weapons... makes sense, you know since they’re not weapons?

 

[Immoralkickass]

Its a non-issue. How often does a non-monk use unarmed strikes anyway? Most of the things listed are not affected by the change, whether they are weapons or not.

Unarmed strikes might not count as weapons, but they still count as melee weapon attacks.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So you’d use a weapon to two weapon fight?

Take either tavern brawler or a level of monk if you’re concerned about the change to damage.

Not being weapons... makes sense, you know since they’re not weapons?

I guess you're missing the point.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Its a non-issue. How often does a non-monk use unarmed strikes anyway? Most of the things listed still dont work, whether they are weapons or not.

Unarmed strikes might not count as weapons, but they still count as melee weapon attacks.

How can they? If they don't count as weapons, they can't be melee "weapon" attacks...

 

[Immoralkickass]

What the errata means is that, instead of using a weapon in a melee weapon attack, you can replace it with an unarmed strike (which means it still is a melee weapon attack).

If an ability states 'an attack with a melee weapon', then it requires a weapon.

Its confusing and dumb, but there's the rules.

 

[Leatherhead]

Of course there are several more... Considering how little damage unarmed strikes do under most circumstances, why the heck did WotC decide to make them even less appealing???

It's a case of the dreaded sacred cow, niche protection, that somehow made it past the previous editions. They wanted it so Monks, and only Monks, had exclusive rights to effectively punch people. Any possible damage boosting loophole (such as Sneak Attack) was denied by making unarmed strikes not count as a weapon. Additionally, this arbitrary designation future-proofed any later printed material that might have circumvented this ban (such as Greenflame Blade).

 

[SanjMerchant]

What the errata means is that, instead of using a weapon in a melee weapon attack, you can replace it with an unarmed strike (which means it still is a melee weapon attack).

If an ability states 'an attack with a melee weapon', then it requires a weapon.

Its confusing and dumb, but there's the rules.

OK, my own assumption was the opposite of the OPs, in that I was already assuming that, since it doesn't say "weapon" anywhere with regards to unarmed strikes even within Martial Arts, that they weren't weapons. I naturally assumed this meant, for example, that combining Monk and Battle Master with an eye to using no weapons wouldn't work (your Battle Master shenanigans only work if you're using a WEAPON).

So, under this, does that mean it actually WOULD work?

 

[Charlaquin]

Is this news to anyone? This errata came in 2015, and IIRC, even then it was a clarification, not a change.

 

[darjr]

It is confusing, sort of at first blush.