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

[ClaytonCross]

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).

I completely agree this is why they did it. however, I do think if you have an open off hand and single handed weapon in your main hand, they should have the ability to use "Two-weapon fighting" and punch with the off hand. That's really my only complaint. Oddly Sneak Attack, which is the worst offender here as it "unarmed" does not have the Finesse or ranged qualifier. I think they could clear up a lot of this with just using physical melee, physical ranged, melee spell, and ranked spell. Then any ability requiring a weapon would be a "physical melee attack with a weapon" instead of "weapon melee attack" which also means unarmed strikes.

 

[Immoralkickass]

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.



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.

You're wrong. Its already established that 'melee weapon attack' don't require weapons, therefore 'weapon attack' is the same, but it can be either be a melee or ranged weapon attack.
To contrast, just go to either Booming Blade or GFB, it states that you must make a 'melee attack with a weapon.' Notice the difference in wording? Only that requires a weapon.

 

[Salthorae]

You're wrong. Its already established that 'melee weapon attack' don't require weapons, therefore 'weapon attack' is the same, but it can be either be a melee or ranged weapon attack.
To contrast, just go to either Booming Blade or GFB, it states that you must make a 'melee attack with a weapon.' Notice the difference in wording? Only that requires a weapon.

Melee weapon attacks do require weapons. Except in the specific exception of unarmed attacks. So thanks for the input.

 

[Fenris-77]

Niche protection as an idea only flies here if we actually believe it's the case. I really don't think that changing the unarmed strike rules would hurt the monk, in fact, rather the opposite.

 

[Jer]

Melee weapon attacks do require weapons. Except in the specific exception of unarmed attacks.

The fact that this sentence can be written and a) we all understand what it means and b) is actually the way the rules work is a pretty hefty indictment of something. Possibly of the 5th edition rules, possibly of the English language itself.

I just read that sentence again and I think I'm starting to understand how the books in a Call of Cthulhu game might drive the people who read them mad...

 

[Arnwolf666]

You guys sound like lawyers. It’s. It’s not difficult to understand. You either like the rules and play with them or you change the rules. It’s pretty cut and dry.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, it was pretty simple to understand before, until the "clarification" came out. Look at it this way:

Unarmed strikes were simple weapons. There is no reason other than niche protection and "game balance" to rule natural weapons and unarmed strike anything other than simple weapons. It makes sense for them to be simple weapons because they are part of the creature.

As far as niche protection goes, in 5E it can be thrown out the window. Most classes have spell-casting variant archetypes, and most casters have combat-oriented variants. There is already TONS of overlap, even without multiclassing.

For game balance, it isn't an issue really. There is nothing wrong with allowing anything you can do with a weapon in your hand applicable to an "open" hand. It fits a lot of fantasy genres and encourages diversity.

Weapons are already too limited as it is--most players pick the optimal weapons for damage based on their character build. Why use a dagger when you can use a rapier? Both are finesse weapons and the rapier can do twice the damage! Even if you use the variant speed factor rules, the weapons are the same. Other than exceptions such as having a more concealable weapon or something for the option of ranged (bows are better for that... so meh), why bother taking a dagger over a rapier (or even a shortsword). You could basically reduce the weapon table to a dozen or so options, that is what most people play IME.

So, I wanted an option for a brawler. Yeah, I know against most people say "play a monk" or pick up a sword, but in a game were you face a fair number of humanoids (like our table), a brawler should be a viable and fun option. The clarification and rewording in later prints hurts and complicates what was a simple idea.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, it was pretty simple to understand before, until the "clarification" came out.

The clarification came out about a year after the book was published, and has been in place, and has been the rule for the last four years.

It makes sense for them to be simple weapons because they are part of the creature.

Definition of a weapon: "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon".

That does not say "part of a creature".

in a game were you face a fair number of humanoids (like our table), a brawler should be a viable and fun option.

Why? On what basis? Realism?! Garbage! Genre expectations? No, everyone from Aragorn to Conan uses a sword. The genre aint called Fists and Sorcery.

You want to use fists, play a superhero RPG.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, it was pretty simple to understand before, until the "clarification" came out. Look at it this way:

Unarmed strikes were simple weapons. There is no reason other than niche protection and "game balance" to rule natural weapons and unarmed strike anything other than simple weapons. It makes sense for them to be simple weapons because they are part of the creature.

As far as niche protection goes, in 5E it can be thrown out the window. Most classes have spell-casting variant archetypes, and most casters have combat-oriented variants. There is already TONS of overlap, even without multiclassing.

For game balance, it isn't an issue really. There is nothing wrong with allowing anything you can do with a weapon in your hand applicable to an "open" hand. It fits a lot of fantasy genres and encourages diversity.

Weapons are already too limited as it is--most players pick the optimal weapons for damage based on their character build. Why use a dagger when you can use a rapier? Both are finesse weapons and the rapier can do twice the damage! Even if you use the variant speed factor rules, the weapons are the same. Other than exceptions such as having a more concealable weapon or something for the option of ranged (bows are better for that... so meh), why bother taking a dagger over a rapier (or even a shortsword). You could basically reduce the weapon table to a dozen or so options, that is what most people play IME.

So, I wanted an option for a brawler. Yeah, I know against most people say "play a monk" or pick up a sword, but in a game were you face a fair number of humanoids (like our table), a brawler should be a viable and fun option. The clarification and rewording in later prints hurts and complicates what was a simple idea.

A brawler is a viable option: make a Monk with the Soldier or Criminal Background, and fluff away any bits about being a "monk" per se (the Class would have been better off if they called it "Martial Artist" alas). A Monk is simply an unarmed combatant with a point-buy based spread of extra combat options.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Never say nobody. Methinks these rules adjustments were the result of a critical mass of rulings rising up the ranks until WotC noticed that so many people had to make the ruling. This made a straight-up rule necessary. It happens, and this one coincides with the clear original intention of the rule.