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

[Gladius Legis]

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".

This is very, very wrong.

"Weapon attack" is a broad category that includes both "melee weapon attack" and "ranged weapon attack." If something specifies "weapon attack," that means it can be done as either a melee or ranged one. It's clearly a more inclusive category, not meant to exclude anything that could've been done as a melee weapon attack.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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

First edition of the 5E PHB had unarmed strikes in the weapons table. I've still got it on my shelf.

 

[Xetheral]

So the end result is that the definition of "melee weapon attack" is a melee attack with a weapon (1), or without a weapon (2), but not with a spell (3), unless the spell says otherwise (4).

Citations
(1) Crawford tweet
(2) PHB errata and MM
(3) Inference from Crawford tweet and PHB 194
(4) E.g. Booming Blade (requiring a "melee attack with a weapon", which is defined to be a melee weapon attack per the first part of the definition)

I understand how specific-beats-general works, and I can appreciate how that concept helps by permitting broad functional rules with specific exceptions (such as the Clear Path to the Target as the general rule for spells, with exceptions for spells like Sending). But I think the "melee weapon attack" debacle nicely shows the chaos that can result when the designers use specific-beats-general to create exceptions to a defined game term rather than to a functional rule.

Also, with regards to the "wording minutiae" comment at the end of Crawford's tweet: he's correct under the (oft-ignored) rules for hyphenating compound adjectives. However, I think it was unwise to make the scope of every ability that requires a "melee weapon attack" hinge on the lack of a hyphen. Many readers won't know the rules for compound adjectives, and even those that do can't be sure whether the text was written precisely enough that the lack of a hyphen was purposeful.

 

[Salthorae]

This is very, very wrong.

"Weapon attack" is a broad category that includes both "melee weapon attack" and "ranged weapon attack."

Says what source?

So far as I know there are melee weapon attacks (which includes Unarmed Strikes as a specific exception even though they are not weapons) and Ranged weapon attacks.

There is no “weapon attack” broader category that I’ve seen in 5e. Any time it says “weapon attack” you need to be using a weapon.

 

[Charlaquin]

So the end result is that the definition of "melee weapon attack" is a melee attack with a weapon (1), or without a weapon (2), but not with a spell (3), unless the spell says otherwise (4).

Citations
(1) Crawford tweet
(2) PHB errata and MM
(3) Inference from Crawford tweet and PHB 194
(4) E.g. Booming Blade (requiring a "melee attack with a weapon", which is defined to be a melee weapon attack per the first part of the definition)

I don’t think (3) is correct. Or at least, it’s redundant, As far as I know, Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade are the only spells that allow you to make a melee Attack with a weapon as part of the spell effect. As well, there are a couple of spells that create a melee weapon with which you can make Attacks, and those attacks are appropriately melee weapon attacks.

 

[Gladius Legis]

There is no “weapon attack” broader category that I’ve seen in 5e. Any time it says “weapon attack” you need to be using a weapon.

No, when it says "weapon attack," that means you can do it either as a melee or a ranged attack. That's how it's always worked with most Battle Master maneuvers, for example. It is clearly not meant to exclude anything that already worked with "melee weapon attack."

That's just simple common sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

Says what source?

So far as I know there are melee weapon attacks (which includes Unarmed Strikes as a specific exception even though they are not weapons) and Ranged weapon attacks.

There is no “weapon attack” broader category that I’ve seen in 5e. Any time it says “weapon attack” you need to be using a weapon.

It’s unclear. The rules don’t explicitly define “weapon attack.” It seems to be a use of natural language, which could either be a shorthand for “melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack,” or could be literally referring to an attack made with a weapon. Seems worth tweeting Crawford about if one cares what the RAI is on this matter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Disappointing. 5e was meant to be simple & dumb, not confusing & dumb.

I think they could have done it clearer, but I think the intent was to make sure you didn't enchant your fists (with weapon properties, or other things) , or add fire damage to them etc, etc.
Vicious Flaming Fists of Radiance!

I recall something like that from 3e. This time around, I suspect it had more to do with the wording of some of the Combat Styles, feats &c, which turn on whether you're holding a weapon in one hand or two hands or each hand or with a shield. That and niche protection for the monk, of course, heaven (or nirvana or whatever) forbid a non-monk punch someone out.

 

[Salthorae]

No, when it says "weapon attack," that means you can do it either as a melee or a ranged attack. That's how it's always worked with most Battle Master maneuvers, for example. It is clearly not meant to exclude anything that already worked with "melee weapon attack."

My point is that "weapon attack" excludes Unarmed Strike, because they are not weapons. But they can be used anywhere it says "melee weapon attack" because that is what the explicit exception is for them. They are not weapons, so can't be used for "weapon attack" triggers. They are "melee weapon attacks" so can be used for those triggers.

I agree that any weapon can be used for "weapon attack" triggers. Key word weapon, ranged or not, but they are two different things.

It’s unclear. The rules don’t explicitly define “weapon attack.” It seems to be a use of natural language, which could either be a shorthand for “melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack,” or could be literally referring to an attack made with a weapon. Seems worth tweeting Crawford about if one cares what the RAI is on this matter.

I think they were very clear and explicit in their use of language for these things. I don't personally require any further clarification on the matter because I think it is clear.

When it says "weapon attack" to trigger something, your attack has to use a weapon, ranged or melee. Unarmed strikes aren't weapons, so don't trigger those conditions.

When it says "melee weapon attack" then it can be triggered by anything that counts under that category, which includes melee weapons and unarmed strikes per the specific exception in that entry.

It's just like squares and rectangles. All Unarmed Strikes are included under the Melee Weapon Attack bucket (because what else could they be?), but not all "weapon attacks" allow Unarmed Strikes (because they're not weapons).

I dont' think it's really that confusing in the language they use. The only confusion is that the original printings have Unarmed Strikes on the weapons table.

 

[Charlaquin]

Disappointing. 5e was meant to be simple & dumb, not confusing & dumb. I recall something like that from 3e. This time around, I suspect it had more to do with the wording of some of the Combat Styles, feats &c, which turn on whether you're holding a weapon in one hand or two hands or each hand or with a shield. That and niche protection for the monk, of course, heaven (or nirvana or whatever) forbid a non-monk punch someone out.

Also while it may or may not have been intended, the change makes the rules for unarmed strikes consistent with how various monster attacks like bite and claw work.