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

[DND_Reborn]

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?

I know it has been this way for a while. I was a bit shocked to realize by chance I got a 1st printing along with a later one within the last year.

But I never even starting looking into this until one of the other players is going to run an adventure. From some other threads I thought it would be fun to play a brawler/grappler-type. Sure, a monk is an obvious choice, but the class does not fit the concept as many of the features aren't geared appropriately.

So, yeah, I would still be like "Where is the brawler? A "thug" rogue? A "bruiser" fighter? etc. I can homebrew archetypes to fit the bill (as others have) so that isn't the issue.

If unarmed strikes are not weapons, then the character can't benefit from many of the class features I listed in the OP. Unarmed strikes are already weaker with low damage, so now they are even less appealing. As I have said in other posts, I don't expect them to rival weapons in many ways, and as we know a grappler-type has options, but to really work there is a lot of investment, moreso than is necessary in other build-types.

I am working on my character, following a valor bard, for two reasons:
1. the bard class follows my character concept/backstory nicely
2. valor bards are "fightery" enough to allow me some combat ability, and the spells will help him be viable in other ways.

My biggest gripes are for things like TWF. If I had a dagger in both hands, I could use my bonus action to make a second attack. SO WHY CAN'T I PUNCH TWICE??? It makes NO sense. Unarmed attacks would definitely be "light" if you consider them weapons still. Again, it wouldn't make any sense NOT to have them be light. Of course, Monks get this ability and theirs is even better because they get to add their ability score modifier to the damage, a non-monk would need Two Weapon Fighting style to do that.

FYI I believe completely you are sincere in our discussion. As I said in the OP, I know our table can house-rule things however we want--so that was never the problem. My question was why make the change, because nothing I see makes it really necessary. I would guess something came up at some point, but I really don't see the need. IMO the change only makes the game more restrictive and complex--two things definitely contrary to 5E design philosophy!

 

[Yaarel]

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.

It shows up every now and then, a distinction between ‘hold’ versus ‘use’/‘wield’.

For example, in Xanathars Guide, the Kensei Monk Agile Parry gets +2 AC if ‘holding’ a weapon, as opposed to ‘wielding’ it to attack.



In the case of the Fighter Fighting Style, Dueling, the natural weapon isnt being ‘wielded’ to attack, so the one-weapon attack gains the +2 damage bonus.

 

[Immoralkickass]

My biggest gripes are for things like TWF. If I had a dagger in both hands, I could use my bonus action to make a second attack. SO WHY CAN'T I PUNCH TWICE??? It makes NO sense. Unarmed attacks would definitely be "light" if you consider them weapons still. Again, it wouldn't make any sense NOT to have them be light. Of course, Monks get this ability and theirs is even better because they get to add their ability score modifier to the damage, a non-monk would need Two Weapon Fighting style to do that.

I could never get my head around this too. Then again, this is a game which the 'Heavy' property of a weapon is depending on the size of the creature, not the Strength score.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I could never get my head around this too. Then again, this is a game which the 'Heavy' property of a weapon is depending on the size of the creature, not the Strength score.

LOL good point! And of course, every heavy weapon is ALSO two-handed. (Well, at least in one of my PHBs, I don't know about the other it isn't handy...).

FYI here is our table's weapon list. We removed two-handed and incorporated that into the Heavy property. Of course, for us, Heavy weapons do +1.5 x Str mod bonus damage (round down).

 

[Salthorae]

My question was why make the change, because nothing I see makes it really necessary. I would guess something came up at some point, but I really don't see the need. IMO the change only makes the game more restrictive and complex--two things definitely contrary to 5E design philosophy!

Ultimately the why according to Jeremy Crawford is that it was never intended to be represented as a weapon in the first place:

Unarmed strikes never should have appeared as weapons, hence the correction.

They clearly did NOT want Unarmed Strikes being used with rules that had RAI meant only to apply to weapons:

The unarmed strike mistake caused a number of problems in the system. See Dueling in the fighter for one example.

An unarmed strike is a nonweapon [you can't silver a fist] that can make a melee weapon attack.

The rule on unarmed strikes specifically states that they can be used to make a weapon attack (a process). They still don't count as a weapon (an object).

If a game feature says it works with a melee weapon, it means an actual melee weapon. As of the Player's Handbook errata, the rules don't consider your body to be a melee weapon.

It is a deliberate design framework and choice they are making and stating for 5e & D&D in general in terms of class boundaries, weak as they may appear in this day and age:

The monk, not the rogue, is designed to be the class that deals more damage with unarmed strikes. Classically, the rogue stabs you in the back. This is largely about preserving different character archetypes that are part of D&D's legacy. Multiclass stacking is also a factor.

Again, it's about character archetypes. Multiclass stacking, which is only a factor if an optional rule is used, doesn't drive our design, but we consider it. Classically, rogues don't stab you or shoot you with their knees.

Our design is driven by story and legacy. Balance supports them. But story and legacy reign.

But even the designers admit it's not perfect!

It’s not ideal, but it’s what we’ve got for now.

peoples confusion in this area is justified and using less confusing language in future editions would be helpful to avoid this confusion.

...

I agree

Some, Twitter, Links, For, The, Above, Quotes (confusingly and with apologies, these links are not in quote order. Sorry!)

 

[coolAlias]

The thing that really gets me about the rule is how inconsistent it feels when interacting with the monk class - for example, Stunning Strike triggers on a melee weapon attack, and clearly this is meant to work with the monk's unarmed strikes, so one might logically conclude that anything that triggers on a melee weapon attack would function just as well with an unarmed strike (at least from a monk).

But then you get people arguing about things like the half-orc's Savage Attacks - if an unarmed strike is not a weapon, does it have a weapon die? Maybe, if you're a monk or have Tavern Brawler, but that's still up for debate, and Gygax help you if you're neither and your unarmed strike only does 1 point of damage - surely that's not a die of any kind, right? What if you used alter self to give your unarmed attack a damage die?

The convoluted nature of unarmed combat and its interactions with other rules seems to fly in the face of the basic design principals of 5e.

At our tables, we at least allow Savage Attacks to work with any unarmed strike, even if it does only 1 point of damage, because to rule otherwise seems unnecessarily punishing to half-orcs for no apparent balance reason.

 

[Yaarel]

So according to the designers, all of this 5e confusion, errata, and opaque jargon (‘melee weapon attack’) was for ... flavor?

 

[Emirikol Prime]

Thanks for the permission slip, but Gygax already granted me that back in 1980.

Durrr. I was telling you it’s obvious that you can do it and that your post was meaningless.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

See that is why this rule doesn’t exist when I DM. Wanna smite-Sneak Attack with your fist as a monk/Paladin/rogue? Okay.

It doesn’t hurt system balance, so I don’t care. You’re playing a version of Iron Fist that fights dirty. I dig it. Have fun with it.

Or a simpler build, a rogue/shadow monk. The only thing getting boosted other than flavor in that combination is chances per round of landing a Sneak Attack. Big deal.

 

[Charlaquin]

My biggest gripes are for things like TWF. If I had a dagger in both hands, I could use my bonus action to make a second attack. SO WHY CAN'T I PUNCH TWICE??? It makes NO sense. Unarmed attacks would definitely be "light" if you consider them weapons still.

Except even when Unarmed Strikes were weapon’s, they weren’t light...

Again, it wouldn't make any sense NOT to have them be light. Of course, Monks get this ability and theirs is even better because they get to add their ability score modifier to the damage, a non-monk would need Two Weapon Fighting style to do that.

Characters without specialized Martial Arts training (i.e. monk levels) being unable to make unarmed strikes as a bonus action makes sense enough to me. Attacks are pretty abstract to begin with, and unarmed strikes even more so as they represent attempts to lash out with the body, which may well involve more than just one punch. At any rate, “[thing] doesn’t make sense” in an RPG just means “I am unwilling to come up with an explanation for [thing] or accept any that are offered.”