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

[DND_Reborn]

Great back-and-forth posts everyone!

I will talk about this at our table on Saturday to get feedback from our DM and other players.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I definitely feel that there is conceptual space for a Fighter archetype of an unarmed martial artist. While the Monk was learning to manipulate Ki and contemplating their navel, these brawlers simply trained to beat people up as effectively as possible.

It has existed in previous editions of the game. But for my own sensibilities, at least, the question of "Why not train with a sword instead?" springs too readily to mind. You can give them numbers as balanced with armed combat as you like, but by in-universe logic, they're just handicapping themselves for no reason. (Monks, in contrast, are handicapping themselves for some spiritual reason.)

EDIT: On the other hand, I am totally behind feats and options that enhance unarmed combat as a sort of "plan B". Especially grappling.

 

[Flamestrike]

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

This.

A punch with a fist is a 'melee weapon attack' (as distinct from a melee spell attack or a ranged weapon attack') in games jargon.

But its not a melee attack 'with a weapon' as your fist is not a weapon.

While I can see how that can be confusing, I'm a little weirded out people dont see that distinction 4 years after it was explained in detail.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This.

A punch with a fist is a 'melee weapon attack' (as distinct from a melee spell attack or a ranged weapon attack') in games jargon.

But its not a melee attack 'with a weapon' as your fist is not a weapon.

While I can see how that can be confusing, I'm a little weirded out people dont see that distinction 4 years after it was explained in detail.

For myself anyway it wasn't an issue of confusion, it was an issue that the "explanation" removed several in-game features from working with unarmed strikes when IMO there was really no reason to do it. It is an unnecessary distinction and the word-jargon leads to confusion for some people, when features are applicable and when they aren't, leading to a further need for clarification...

Easy to understand:

• Natural weapons (including the humanoid "unarmed strike") are simple weapons.
• All creatures are proficient in natural weapons even if they do not have proficiency in simple weapons.
• Any feature or effect that can be applied to a weapon can be applied to a natural weapon as well.

All this does is open up a wide variety of cool and fun things to add to the game instead of restricting them. How is that a bad thing?

If I had played 5E years ago, I would have brought it up then.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Some people play the monk because they want the shaolin monk wuxia character. I think quite a few. There martial arts is supposed to beyond that of others.

I don’t think the two can exist in the same game. It’s pointless. Imho a system can’t have both be awesome. Again, just my opinion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Monk/Fighter (Battlemaster) is a perfect Brawler.

 

[Charlaquin]

For myself anyway it wasn't an issue of confusion, it was an issue that the "explanation" removed several in-game features from working with unarmed strikes when IMO there was really no reason to do it. It is an unnecessary distinction and the word-jargon leads to confusion for some people, when features are applicable and when they aren't, leading to a further need for clarification...

Easy to understand:

• Natural weapons (including the humanoid "unarmed strike") are simple weapons.
• All creatures are proficient in natural weapons even if they do not have proficiency in simple weapons.
• Any feature or effect that can be applied to a weapon can be applied to a natural weapon as well.

All this does is open up a wide variety of cool and fun things to add to the game instead of restricting them. How is that a bad thing?

Well, for one thing, it breaks the dueling fighting style. And I don’t mean it “breaks it” in the sense that it makes the fighting style overpowered, I mean it literally prevents the fighting style from functioning. “When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.” If your body is a weapon, you can never be wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons.

That’s the thing, a lot of people are assuming that this change was made to protect the monk’s niche and/or prevent characters from magically enhancing their unarmed strikes, and that assumption has largely gone unchallenged. But I don’t think it’s accurate at all. If that were the case, it wouldn’t have made it through both the open and closed play tests, as that’s when the niches that needed protecting were identified and the protective measures drafted, edited, and settled upon. I think the reason was to avoid situations like the above, where unarmed strikes would interact in game-breaking ways with the natural language of 5e. And again, in this instance I’m using “game-breaking” to mean that it actually causes dysfunction, not the vernacular “overpowered” meaning.

 

[Salthorae]

Now I'm picturing a Fighter subclass and a new fighting style homebrew idea... one step behind the Monk for unarmed die type.

Fighting Style: Brawling - your unarmed strikes now deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage and can use either strength or dexterity for attack and damage.

Subclass: Brawler

• Spoiler: Brawler Draft 1

  3rd - you gain proficiency in either Acrobatics or Athletics, and your proficiency modifier is doubled for one of these.
  [*]3rd - when you make an Attack you with an Unarmed Strike, you can make another attack with an Unarmed Strike as a bonus action.
  [*]7th - Float like a Butterfly, Sting like a Bee (stolen from Cavalier Warding Maneuver + some):
  

  • At 7th level, you learn to fend off strikes directed at you. If you are hit by an attack, you can roll 1d8 as a reaction. Roll the die, and add the number rolled to the your AC against that attack. If the attack still hits, you have resistance against the attack’s damage.
    
    You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Constitution modifier (minimum of once), and you regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
  • Your Unarmed Strikes ignore Resistance to Bludgeoning damage.

  [*]10th - Improved Brawler
  

  • At 10th level, your Unarmed strike damage increases to 1d6, and when you take the Attack action, you can start a grapple as a bonus action if you hit. Your Unarmed Strike damage increases to 1d8 at 18th level.

  [*]15th - Precision Striker
  

  • At 15th level your Unarmed Strikes score a critical hit on a 19 or 20.
  • Damage Immunity to Bludgeoning is reduced to Resistance for your Unarmed Strikes

  [*]18th - Superior Brawler
  

  • Your Unarmed Strike damage increases to 1d8
  • In combat, you get a special reaction that you can take once on every creature’s turn, except your turn. You can use this special reaction only to make an opportunity attack, and you can’t use it on the same turn that you take your normal reaction. (Stolen from Cavalier again)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I definitely feel that there is conceptual space for a Fighter archetype of an unarmed martial artist. While the Monk was learning to manipulate Ki and contemplating their navel, these brawlers simply trained to beat people up as effectively as possible.

D&D features creatures that cannot be harmed without magical weapons. Without some kind of magical or spiritual way of turning its fists magical such a class would not be viable in a standard D&D game.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Well, for one thing, it breaks the dueling fighting style. And I don’t mean it “breaks it” in the sense that it makes the fighting style overpowered, I mean it literally prevents the fighting style from functioning. “When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.” If your body is a weapon, you can never be wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons.

That's true only if you're not capable of any inferences of logic or reasoning at all. That is to say, interpreting this rule is only a problem if you're a computer.

It's possible to hold a melee weapon and not wield it, correct? Say a sword that's sheathed and held by the blade, or you're grasping the wrong end of a mace, or even that you're holding a staff except it's as a spell focus and not a weapon. So there's already a difference between possessing a weapon -- even if it's to hand -- and wielding it.

It's very clear from the phrasing of duelist that you're intended to be only making attacks with one handed melee weapons to get the benefit. It doesn't matter what your other hand is actually doing, as long as you only get the damage bonus when you're only making attacks with the one weapon.

Furthermore, we should examine whether or not a given interpretation is broken or overpowered. Say we have a Fighter/Rogue with a shortsword and a hand crossbow. Is what the Fighter/Rogue doing -- holding a hand crossbow and never firing it -- a meaningful benefit? Not really. Would duelist fighting style be broken if it allowed a Fighter/Rogue to get +2 to his melee attacks while holding a hand crossbow, as long as he never uses it in the same round as he benefits from the fighting style? No. Not appreciably. He could just drop it, and he could say he has a leather thong so it hangs like a bandoleer, meaning it's no big deal to recover it. Does the game quality meaningfully improve by requiring these action gymnastics? Again, no, not really. We're not really adding anything to the game to interpret this fighting style as intentionally preventing this interpretation for balance purposes.

Even if we find a situation where it is overpowered, that still doesn't mean we need throw out every similar situation. Restrictions should be narrow as possible, not broadly limiting.