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

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s not thematically weird per se, it just doesn’t fit the theme the spell is going for. It’s kind of like letting a rogue sneak attack with a handaxe - there’s nothing unbalanced about it, no mechanical reason not to allow it, but it goes against what those mechanics were designed to represent. There’s nothing wrong with that and no reason not to allow it if you think it’s cool, it’s just not part of the rules as written because that’s not how the people who wrote the rules envisioned it working.

I can’t even see eye to eye with you on the example, so I guess we just see these two mechanics very differently. (Also, handaxes aren’t actually as “hack and slash” a weapon as folks think. In my games it’s Finesse for a reason)

 

[Charlaquin]

I can’t even see eye to eye with you on the example, so I guess we just see these two mechanics very differently. (Also, handaxes aren’t actually as “hack and slash” a weapon as folks think. In my games it’s Finesse for a reason)

I don’t think we actually disagree, it’s just that you’re talking about ought while I’m talking about is. I see no reason not to allow sneak attack with handaxes (or clubs, or Spears, or... pick a weapon, really), nor do I see a reason not to allow booming blade or green flame blade with unarmed strikes. I’m saying the reason those things aren’t allowed by the rules as written is that the people who wrote the rules had something specific in mind for what those features represented in the fiction, and that didn’t include using them with the weapons (or lack of weapons) in question.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t think we actually disagree, it’s just that you’re talking about ought while I’m talking about is. I see no reason not to allow sneak attack with handaxes (or clubs, or Spears, or... pick a weapon, really), nor do I see a reason not to allow booming blade or green flame blade with unarmed strikes. I’m saying the reason those things aren’t allowed by the rules as written is that the people who wrote the rules had something specific in mind for what those features represented in the fiction, and that didn’t include using them with the weapons (or lack of weapons) in question.

Right. It’s just...and I mean this not as any sort of dig or anything, I’m not sure how “is” is a relevant response to a statement of “ought”.

I know the game is guided and informed by the biases and preferences and vision of the design team. I’m not interested in a discussion about that. I was speaking on how the game ought to run, and how there is no balance reason not to just change the rules in this case.

Thus, my assumption that you were arguing against what I was actually saying.

I know I’m being a bit snarky, here, but it’s a bit frustrating. I’m just not...ever...interested in arguments directed in response to me that aren’t about what I’m actually talking about.

 

[FarBeyondC]

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:



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?

About that list...

• Half-Orc Savage Attacks - This still works
• Two-Weapon Fighting (even if you consider Unarmed Strikes "light) - This doesn't work, go get martial arts if you want a bonus action unarmed strike
• Barbarian Frenzy (Path of the Berserker) and Divine Fury (Path of the Zealot) - Both these features still work
• Bard Blade Flourish (College of Swords) - All of these still work
• Cleric War Priest (War Doman) - This still works
• Fighter Dueling Fighting Style - This never worked. Ever.
• Fighter Two-Weapon Fighting Style - See Two-weapon fighting
• Fighter Maneuvers (Battlemaster, affects several of them) - All manuevers still work
• Paladin Divine Smite - Still works
• Ranger Horde Breaker (Hunter) - Still works
• Ranger Dread Ambusher (Gloom Stalker) - Still works

Melee weapon attacks (including unarmed strikes) are weapon attacks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right. It’s just...and I mean this not as any sort of dig or anything, I’m not sure how “is” is a relevant response to a statement of “ought”.

I know the game is guided and informed by the biases and preferences and vision of the design team. I’m not interested in a discussion about that. I was speaking on how the game ought to run, and how there is no balance reason not to just change the rules in this case.

Thus, my assumption that you were arguing against what I was actually saying.

I know I’m being a bit snarky, here, but it’s a bit frustrating. I’m just not...ever...interested in arguments directed in response to me that aren’t about what I’m actually talking about.

It’s cool, you don’t sound snarky. I misinterpreted your comment about there being no mechanical imbalance caused by it. It came across to me as saying “I don’t get why it’s written that way” rather than “Here’s why I run it differently.” My bad.

 

[ccs]

You’re free to do whatever you like at your table.

Thanks for the permission slip, but Gygax already granted me that back in 1980.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s cool, you don’t sound snarky. I misinterpreted your comment about there being no mechanical imbalance caused by it. It came across to me as saying “I don’t get why it’s written that way” rather than “Here’s why I run it differently.” My bad.

Ah, looking back I can see that! No worries.

Anyway, I think I actually am gonna talk to my fellow regular DM about letting unarmed strikes simply count as a weapon for most purposes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Half-Orc Savage Attacks - This still works

Kind of, but to no effect. A critical hit with an unarmed strike is a critical hit with a melee weapon attack, yes, but what Savage Attacks allows you to do when you critically hit with a melee weapon attack is roll one of the weapon’s damage dice an additional time. An unarmed strike is not a weapon, and doesn’t have damage dice without the tavern brawler feat or monk’s martial arts feature.

[*]Barbarian Frenzy (Path of the Berserker) and Divine Fury (Path of the Zealot) - Both these features still work

Divine Fury is debatable, since it says “weapon attack” rather than “melee weapon attack,” but personally I agree with your interpretation.

[*]Bard Blade Flourish (College of Swords) - All of these still work

Same problem here as Savage Attacks, these all cause “the weapon” to deal additional damage, and when making an Unarmed Strike, there is no weapon to apply this bonus to. Arguably the rest of the effect might still work?

[*]Cleric War Priest (War Doman) - This still works

(...)

[*]Fighter Maneuvers (Battlemaster, affects several of them) - All manuevers still work

(...)

[*]Ranger Horde Breaker (Hunter) - Still works
[*]Ranger Dread Ambusher (Gloom Stalker) - Still works

As with Divine Fury, arguably a “weapon attack” could refer to an attack with a weapon, rather than being shorthand for “melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack.” I tend to agree with your interpretation here, but there’s room for doubt.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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:



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?

Duh?

Not a nerf, a clarification. That was how I interpreted the rules even without the errata. Trying to punch someone armed with a sword wearing metal armour is stupid unless you have some kind of superpower (i.e. monk). 5e is actually far more generous than 3rd edition. Under 3rd edition rules the guy with a sword would get an opportunity attack if you threw a punch at him.

Actually, 5e is quite generous with regards to improvised weapons: persuade your DM that your knuckle duster is equivalent to a club and your brawler is good to go.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Well, for myself I have been playing less than a year for 5E, and this is the first time I've explored unarmed strike options... so it is very much news to me.

I would not question your time playing, but the age of the copy of the PHB you bought. This was official errata from 4 years ago, so it would appear this way in probably any printing of the PHB after the 2nd or 3rd printing So if you bought your copy new a year ago, it should have been at least a 5th or 6th printing. If you really have that old a copy, you may want to check the rest of the errata against your book.