Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
The Hydra would beg to differ.
D&D 5E PHB Errata Nerf Unarmed Strikes!? WHY??? :(
TheCosmicKid
Hero
@Leatherhead Hercules killed the hydra with his club and some torches. Perhaps you're thinking of the Nemean Lion?
Greenstone.Walker
Adventurer
Another difference between unarmed attacks (and also natural weapons) and actual weapons is that weapons can be disarmed. A battlemaster fighter can cause you to drop your sword; they can't really make you drop your feet or horns. A jailer can confiscate your dagger but not your fists.
Some things really don't make sense when applied to body parts. An eldritch knight fighter can't summon their knees and a blade pact warlock can't conjure their forehead as a pact weapon.
The phrasing is forced, but it is consistent.
A "weapon" is something on the weapon tables, used in the correct manner. If you can pick it up and drop it, but it is not on the weapon tables (e.g. a frying pan) or you are using it in an incorrect manner (e.g. hitting someone with a bow) then it is an "improvised weapon." If it is part of your body (e.g. horns, elbows, fists) then it is a "natural weapon".
Rolling a d20 to strike a foe with a part of your body or with a held item is a "melee weapon attack". Rolling a d20 to hit a foe with something launched or thrown is a "ranged weapon attack".
Some things really don't make sense when applied to body parts. An eldritch knight fighter can't summon their knees and a blade pact warlock can't conjure their forehead as a pact weapon.
The phrasing is forced, but it is consistent.
A "weapon" is something on the weapon tables, used in the correct manner. If you can pick it up and drop it, but it is not on the weapon tables (e.g. a frying pan) or you are using it in an incorrect manner (e.g. hitting someone with a bow) then it is an "improvised weapon." If it is part of your body (e.g. horns, elbows, fists) then it is a "natural weapon".
Rolling a d20 to strike a foe with a part of your body or with a held item is a "melee weapon attack". Rolling a d20 to hit a foe with something launched or thrown is a "ranged weapon attack".
Tony Vargas
Legend
What if they're trolls, though? Might come in handy.
Salthorae
Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
I see what you did there...
Nobody does this. Nobody makes a Pact Blade warlock and says "instead of a sword, my pact blade is my forehead." And if someone decided to do it (possibly because one of my smart-alec players is reading this) as a DM I'd have options:
1. "Okay Derrick, you can do that. A headbutt does 1d4 damage - write it down."
2. "I mean, if you want to I guess, but why? Why would you do that?"
3. "Anyone else have a problem with Derrick using his forehead as a pact weapon? No? Okay - 1d4 damage and let me know if you change your mind."
4. "No Derrick, you're only asking cause you saw that post on enworld and you know how much you regretted the last joke character you made. So, no."
Rulings, not rules. If a rule leads to a stupid result the table can say no. But trying to cover every corner case is just a waste and not how this edition was supposed to be designed.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
Perhaps not, but I do know people who what to cast Magic Weapon on the claws of a Druid in Brown Bear form.
I do tell them that has no effect because while "Claw" is a melee weapon attack the claws themselves are "natural weapons" not a "weapon".
So I do appreciate the clarity provided the errata, even though I would have preferred the language to be clearer from the beginning.
While I on the other hand would say "that's rad" and let them do it. Even with this errata. Because it's rad, doesn't break anything, and is well within the parameters of what my table would consider the fiction of the world we're playing in.
But the original rule actually already supported both of our rulings, and I strongly prefer the simpler to the more complex myself these days.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I'm a little late to the thread, but we've always ruled this in the way described by the Errata. In my mind, "unarmed" means "not armed," and therefore "not using a weapon," so I've always ruled that unarmed strikes were not weapon attacks. (shrug)
I do understand how some folks might interpret it differently, though.
I do understand how some folks might interpret it differently, though.
Bacon Bits
Hero
Stop listening to Crawford. None of the rulings you find are necessary. You do not need any of them to play the game. Your table should always rule the way your table wants to play. That's why the Sage Advice Compendium starts out with the nice little blurb:
Crawford is a good designer and writer, but that doesn't mean his opinions on how the game should work matter at your table. You're explicitly told that even official rulings are not mandatory and not necessary. Never follow a ruling that your table agrees is not fun or not worthwhile. There are no prizes for perfectly mimicking Crawford's version of the rules. This is not Magic: The Gathering. The rules are intended to be shaped to the campaign, not the other way around.
Crawford is a good designer and writer, but that doesn't mean his opinions on how the game should work matter at your table. You're explicitly told that even official rulings are not mandatory and not necessary. Never follow a ruling that your table agrees is not fun or not worthwhile. There are no prizes for perfectly mimicking Crawford's version of the rules. This is not Magic: The Gathering. The rules are intended to be shaped to the campaign, not the other way around.
Similar Threads
