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

[Arnwolf666]

You make it sound as thought putting in a table rule is worse than using a rule from the book? Why is that? To my mind book rules and house rules have no value judgement as to be better or worse than the other.

House rules are necessary because the rules can not please everyone. Some people want the more gritty and some want the more wuxia. It just depends on the type of game u like. Far easier to let players customize than try to write a rule for every possibility, which would probaly look like our current legal code.

 

[Jer]

You make it sound as thought putting in a table rule is worse than using a rule from the book? Why is that? To my mind book rules and house rules have no value judgement as to be better or worse than the other.

No actually my point is what they choose to errata. Why? It's supposed to be rulings not rules, so there was no need to clarify this with a big expansive and confusing bit of errata. Any table that thinks it's dumb that you can enchant your fists to be flaming +1 weapons would not be doing it, and anyone who thinks its awesome would be.

If you're going to present your edition as a "simpler edition" where you emphasize "rulings not rules" then this kind of thing is just ... pointless. Unless this is some kind of game breaking exploit (it isn't - there's no way the math breaks down if you enchant someone's fists instead of enchanting their sword) then leave it up to the tables to decide and move on. You don't need to errata it at all, and the fact that they think they had to is why I give it the side-eye.

 

[DND_Reborn]

House rules are necessary because the rules can not please everyone. Some people want the more gritty and some want the more wuxia. It just depends on the type of game u like. Far easier to let players customize than try to write a rule for every possibility, which would probaly look like our current legal code.

Sure, but I, for one, would rather have the more engaging and fun version as the default rule and simply let DMs not use it if they don't like it. They added the options for multiclassing and feats, for example, and those are easy enough to not use if you don't want to. Instead of having a richer in-depth rule option as the default and just not use it, the tables who want it have to do all the legwork.

It reminds me once again how half-done 5E feels in many ways. I like it overall, but it is frustrating at times.

 

[GlassJaw]

I'm also frustrated that the devs (seemingly intentionally) chose not to clarify unarmed combat, or at least not provide viable non-monk unarmed options. There is definitely a place for the pit fighter or burly wrestler archetype.

But yeah, it wasn't a space - mechanically or thematically - the devs wanted to enter. I think it was the wrong decision because the RAW creates ambiguity.

 

[Umbran]

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.

If unarmed attacks were particularly effective, in general... swords and maces would not be necessary. Just in terms of genre expectations - if you want to kill Gorgoroth, the huge, ancient, acid-spewing dragon, does punching him to death really make a lot of sense? Maybe, just maybe, you wanna stick something pointy into ol' Gorgoroth, no?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If unarmed attacks were particularly effective, in general... swords and maces would not be necessary. Just in terms of genre expectations - if you want to kill Gorgoroth, the huge, ancient, acid-spewing dragon, does punching him to death really make a lot of sense? Maybe, just maybe, you wanna stick something pointy into ol' Gorgoroth, no?

Stuff Gorgoroth, try tackling a thug with a kitchen knife with your bare hands and you are toast if you are not a superhero.

Punch a guy in metal armour or a beast with thick hide and you will take more damage than they do.

 

[Mistwell]

No contradiction... So, it is a melee weapon attack made without a weapon

Uh, yeah. I'd say we're deep in Government Double Speak if "It's a melee weapon attack made without a weapon" is viewed as "not a contradiction"

 

[Salthorae]

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

Hah! This just plays to the OP because we are posting almost completely opposite things on this thread while saying "it's simple"

I disagree with your base statement (see my post above). Per the errata and Sage Advice: weapon attacks are attacks with melee-weapons. Special exception, Unarmed Strikes count as melee weapon attacks, but they are not weapons.

My understanding of that is that anywhere it says "weapon attack" and not specifically "melee weapon attack", you can't use Unarmed Strikes to trigger a "weapon attack" effect, unless it specifically say "melee weapon attack".

They are different. I do think it's simple if it does take a bit of thought through at first.

 

[Umbran]

Stuff Gorgoroth, try tackling a thug with a kitchen knife with your bare hands and you are toast if you are not a superhero.

Punch a guy in metal armour or a beast with thick hide and you will take more damage than they do.

Agreed. I made it Gorgoroth because it is hard to argue with a huge, ancient, acid-spewing dragon. I mean, if you don't wanna get eaten, anyway

 

[Charlaquin]

2015, yes. Clarification only, no.

Unarmed Strikes used to be on the weapon list under equipment - they were explicitly, no-doubt-at-all weapons.

I remember that being the case in the playtest, but not in the original print run of the PHB. I could be misremembering though.