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

[Jer]

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.

I doubt it. I suspect that they made a ruling like TSR did back in the day - because someone theorycrafted a question and they felt compelled to answer it. This was half the problem with the attitude around 2nd edition - "Sage Advice" in Dragon magazine. "Let's come up with stupid scenarios that nobody is actually going to do and then pretend like they're gamebreaking things and not things that the DM is just going to give you an evil eye over and say 'Thanks Derrick for pointing that out - you get a cookie for figuring out how to make a couple of rules interact to make something stupid out of them. Now never speak of it again because it's stupid and you know it.'"

This is the attitude that eventually led to 3e, where you needed everything codified like it was some kind of fantasy physics engine instead of a set of game rules. I was hoping that 5e would leave that attitude behind.

 

[Parmandur]

I doubt it. I suspect that they made a ruling like TSR did back in the day - because someone theorycrafted a question and they felt compelled to answer it. This was half the problem with the attitude around 2nd edition - "Sage Advice" in Dragon magazine. "Let's come up with stupid scenarios that nobody is actually going to do and then pretend like they're gamebreaking things and not things that the DM is just going to give you an evil eye over and say 'Thanks Derrick for pointing that out - you get a cookie for figuring out how to make a couple of rules interact to make something stupid out of them. Now never speak of it again because it's stupid and you know it.'"

This is the attitude that eventually led to 3e, where you needed everything codified like it was some kind of fantasy physics engine instead of a set of game rules. I was hoping that 5e would leave that attitude behind.

I mean, this is a 4 year old bit of Errata, and came out a year after the game had been released. The OP is itself sufficient proof that people have been trying to make PCs that go against the original rule intention, hence the Errata.

 

[Salthorae]

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.

Since this thread started I've been playing around with a build that looks like it can really be that Brawler concept, though it certainly has a Captain America feel to it.

Barbarian (Berserker) 4/Fighter (Cavalier) X with Tavern Brawler, Grappler, & Shield Master

The only thing it's really missing to get that Cap feel is a throwing returning shield, but mechanically I think it works out and is a viable melee combatant, especially if you're mostly facing humanoids.

You're 4 points of damage on average behind a great axe per hit not factoring in GWM. But other than that and not having magical/silver weapons to overcome some damage resistances you're still a viable Tank who can defend his companions (Cavalier features + Protection Fighting Style), can grapple and restrain foes, and can lock down movement of opponents (Cavalier features).

If you grabbed a magical/silver shield, the Improvised Weapon proficiency of Tavern Brawler might/should let you overcome those while attacking with your shield as an improvised weapon depending on your DM!

You have those three feats by 8th level with V. Human. Alternatly you could start with Tavern Brawler and pump Str first then pick up the other feats later in the build. Berserker gives you the bonus action attack option while raging so you don't necessarily miss the Extra attack that doesn't come until Fighter 5. I did the math and going to fighter 11th for Extra Attack (2) vs. more Barbarian to increase your Rage Damage actually works our roughly the same. Fighter gives you more ASI and more lock down effects you can play with though.

You want to use fists, play a superhero RPG.

I was trying to think on the way home what the class I'd come up with above reminded me of with his punching and his shield. I was ashamed to admit that I didn't realize for a least one whole block that it was Cap himself.

Though, I don't see a problem with representing Super's character build/concepts in D&D. I did a whole Avengers build set using 3.5 rules when that movie came out.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean, this is a 4 year old bit of Errata, and came out a year after the game had been released. The OP is itself sufficient proof that people have been trying to make PCs that go against the original rule intention, hence the Errata.

No, I am going against the errata. I want the original rule back and think it is simpler and works better for brawler builds.

 

[Arnwolf666]

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.



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".



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.

I wouldn’t go that far. That’s what house rules are for. Customization for your setting.

 

[Parmandur]

No, I am going against the errata. I want the original rule back and think it is simpler and works better for brawler builds.

Even easier for a brawler build, make a Monk and file off any mystical serial numbers. Easy-peasy.

 

[Arnwolf666]

No, I am going against the errata. I want the original rule back and think it is simpler and works better for brawler builds.

I don’t like it either. They are not going to change it for us. House rule it or find a different game. Even if they did it would take years. So what are you going to do in the mean time. House rule it or find another game.

 

[Salthorae]

Even easier for a brawler build, make a Monk and file off any mystical serial numbers. Easy-peasy.

To a degree.

I mean at higher levels you start to get wonky abilities for a "brawler" like Tongue of the Sun and Moon, and Empty Body. Most others are hand waveable though. Some are borderline for me, why does my brawler have Evasion? Why do they have such increased speed?

But yeah, for the most part, Monk is the easiest way to go to do it without 3rd party stuff.

 

[Parmandur]

To a degree.

I mean at higher levels you start to get wonky abilities for a "brawler" like Tongue of the Sun and Moon, and Empty Body. Most others are hand waveable though. Some are borderline for me, why does my brawler have Evasion? Why do they have such increased speed?

But yeah, for the most part, Monk is the easiest way to go to do it without 3rd party stuff.

The more martial arts stuff, like evasion, still makes sense. Good fighting practice is good fighting practice: dance like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

The more preternatrual stuff...well, that's epic tier levels. Probably won't come up, if it does, explanations can be found, or substitutions made.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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.

Alternatively, I love a good Barbarian with Tavern Brawler.