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

[Salthorae]

Why train people to use swords and expensive equipment if fists are just as deadly.

Well, they're not reliably so unless you... train with them. So you're training either way. Realistically's harder/more time consuming to train someone to be deadly with their body than to put armor on someone to protect them and tell them to stick the pointy end in someone else wearing armor (which is how most conscript armies work(ed)).

Even then they're not AS deadly as evidenced by the d4 for damage that both Tavern Brawler and Monk start out with... equivalent to a dagger. While a Barbarian or Fighter can start with 1d12 or 2d6 damage.

Also, and I know I keep referring back to it, but a trained & lifelong martial artist's advice (Jackie Chan) in the video I referenced earlier, is to run from a knife-wielder if you can and you're unarmed yourself. So... there's that.

 

[Azzy]

My PHB does not have unarmed strikes listed as weapons.

Then you must not have a 1st printing.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Nothing about my suggestion removes the Fighter's weapon and armour proficiencies. Most brawlers would still be more effective wearing armour and using a weapon for their main attack.

The concept is a fighter who can hold their own reasonably well unarmed or unarmoured, but whose main strength is combining striking, shoving and wrestling with weapon attacks. Can't get your sword through your opponent's armour? Slam them into the ground and start unscrewing their head! Need to go all-out on a particular group of foes? Bring your feet, elbows, head, knees and anything else you have to bear as well as your axe.

The unarmoured defence is not going to be hugely useful for most brawlers outside of the sort of situation where they would excel, and likewise weapons are often going to be doing more damage than their unarmed strikes in most cases.

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.

Or you could do what other martial classes do and hit it with a magic weapon.



As an interesting point to consider for those to whom exact wording is important, if unarmed strikes are not considered weapons, would resistance or immunity against attacks from nonmagical weapons even protect against them?
The wording is pretty clear.

 

[Arnwolf666]

a

Nothing about my suggestion removes the Fighter's weapon and armour proficiencies. Most brawlers would still be more effective wearing armour and using a weapon for their main attack.

The concept is a fighter who can hold their own reasonably well unarmed or unarmoured, but whose main strength is combining striking, shoving and wrestling with weapon attacks. Can't get your sword through your opponent's armour? Slam them into the ground and start unscrewing their head! Need to go all-out on a particular group of foes? Bring your feet, elbows, head, knees and anything else you have to bear as well as your axe.

The unarmoured defence is not going to be hugely useful for most brawlers outside of the sort of situation where they would excel, and likewise weapons are often going to be doing more damage than their unarmed strikes in most cases.

Or you could do what other martial classes do and hit it with a magic weapon.



As an interesting point to consider for those to whom exact wording is important, if unarmed strikes are not considered weapons, would resistance or immunity against attacks from nonmagical weapons even protect against them?
The wording is pretty clear.

this is the type of lawyer stuff that ruins games.

 

[BookBarbarian]

As an interesting point to consider for those to whom exact wording is important, if unarmed strikes are not considered weapons, would resistance or immunity against attacks from nonmagical weapons even protect against them?
The wording is pretty clear.

Heh, I would love to see a player realize they can punch a werewolf to death

Edit: or better yet, headbutt

 

[cbwjm]

As an interesting point to consider for those to whom exact wording is important, if unarmed strikes are not considered weapons, would resistance or immunity against attacks from nonmagical weapons even protect against them?
The wording is pretty clear.

It would because they have updated resistances and immunities to be nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage instead of bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons. I think it was because of cases like this that they made that change.

 

[Salthorae]

It would because they have updated resistances and immunities to be nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage instead of bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons. I think it was because of cases like this that they made that change.

Yes, pretty sure they made the change in the same Errata release.

The exact wording is now

Global - Damage Resistances/Immunities. Throughout the book, instances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immunities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.”

They removed the weapon portion as soon as Unarmed Strikes were rendered not weapons any longer per the Rules.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This one requires you to give a bonus to a present roll based on a future action (or lack of action). The official ruling on Shield Bash pretty clearly establishes that WotC doesn’t like the rules to do that.

I’d call that a bug, not a feature. It changes the functionality of the style by making it possible to get the +2 damage while wielding a weapon in the off-hand. It also prevents characters with Extra Attack from making an attack with the +2 bonus first, then drawing a second weapon to make their Extra Attack with. It makes Dueling a choice you have to lock yourself into for a turn, instead of something determined on an attack-by-attack basis.

Also, the Dueling fighting style was just one example. My broader point was that considering Unarmed Strikes weapons could have some really weird side-effects, since the writers probably don’t always take that into consideration when writing rules that care about weapons. It’s not that they wanted to nerf Unarmed Strikes to protect the monk’s niche, it’s that they realized Unarmed Strikes being weapons would cause unintended rules weirdness like breaking Dueling.

Here’s another example, if Unarmed Strikes are weapons, characters with the Dual Wielder feat have the +1 AC for wielding two weapons on at all times.

Both of those Dueling options were off the cuff. But as you say it is just one example. For someone trained in unarmed strikes (which unfortunately now due to the errata is EVERYONE... another mistake IMO) and taking the Dual Wiedler feat, I am fine with them gaining a +1 bonus to AC. It isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

And that is my point. Nothing I am suggestion, however much it might require some rethinking of some things, isn't going to break the game. As you pointed out even with Dueling, it won't make the making overpowered, which would be primarily my concern if that was the case.

Why train people to use swords and expensive equipment if fists are just as deadly.

Because for the vast majority of people, fists aren't as deadly. Even for a dedicated brawler build, your damage might not be as much, but depending on the build/ feat selection/ etc., you have more options and can control the battlefield in ways you can't with a sword.

Heh, I would love to see a player realize they can punch a werewolf to death

Edit: or better yet, headbutt

Any monk over 6th level with enough luck can do it now anyway. I would NOT want to take that away from monks--that is a mystical part of the class. Any other brawler build would need a spell or magical item to be able to damage a werewolf.

Yes, pretty sure they made the change in the same Errata release.

The exact wording is now

They removed the weapon portion as soon as Unarmed Strikes were rendered not weapons any longer per the Rules.

Yep, but they wouldn't have had to change it if they hadn't errataed unarmed strikes and natural attacks in the first place...

 

[Bacon Bits]

Opening a case with this sophistic sort of distinction is always a red flag for me.

Alright, then let's step it back.

What is the Dungeons & Dragons rule or definition of "wield"? Player's Handbook, DMG, MM, Xanathar's, I don't care. Find me the definition of what it means to wield a weapon as defined by the game.

Then we can discuss how inferences are or are not appropriate.

 

[Salthorae]

Yep, but they wouldn't have had to change it if they hadn't errataed unarmed strikes and natural attacks in the first place...

True, but at least they were thorough in the ripple changes that needed to be made when they did it!

The change is made and the Errata has been in for 80% (and climbing) of the life of the game at this point, whether it is loved by some or not. I really think this is only a problem if people come across 1st printing PHB's like you seem to have received on one of your two copies. If you'd never seen Unarmed Strike on the Weapon table, would you still have honestly seen this as an issue?

I'm genuinely curious. If you could put yourself in a state of mind where Un. Strikes were always not weapons would you have these issues or would you have approached the Brawler concepts with that knowledge and rules interaction in mind so it would have been a non-issue?