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

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, here I agree with you.

Because these weapons must be ‘held’ ‘in your hand’, they cannot be unarmed attacks.

On the other hand, heh, two-weapon fighting sucks, and needs rethinking anyway.

Mainly, spending a bonus is too expensive.

Right. So, since all of the rules that refer to weapons being written as if a weapon is an external object you hold and manipulate in your hands, treating unarmed strikes as weapons creates some weird, unintended interactions. The easy solution to these oddities is to just say that unarmed strikes are attacks and not weapons. Unfortunately, by the time WotC realized this, the book had already been published and the only two kinds of attacks that existed in the system were “weapon attacks” and “spell attacks.” Rather than leave these odd interactions in place or re-write all of the language surrounding weapons and attacks, they made the call to treat unarmed strikes as an exception to the general rule that “weapon attacks” must be made with weapons. Is the wording unintuitive? Yes. Does it function as intended? Also yes. I’m sure if they could do the whole thing over again, the opposite of spell attacks would be something like “physical attacks” or “martial attacks” to eliminate the unintuitive wording. But that ship sailed about five years ago.

 

[Yaarel]

Right. So, since all of the rules that refer to weapons being written as if a weapon is an external object you hold and manipulate in your hands, treating unarmed strikes as weapons creates some weird, unintended interactions. The easy solution to these oddities is to just say that unarmed strikes are attacks and not weapons. Unfortunately, by the time WotC realized this, the book had already been published and the only two kinds of attacks that existed in the system were “weapon attacks” and “spell attacks.” Rather than leave these odd interactions in place or re-write all of the language surrounding weapons and attacks, they made the call to treat unarmed strikes as an exception to the general rule that “weapon attacks” must be made with weapons. Is the wording unintuitive? Yes. Does it function as intended? Also yes. I’m sure if they could do the whole thing over again, the opposite of spell attacks would be something like “physical attacks” or “martial attacks” to eliminate the unintuitive wording. But that ship sailed about five years ago.

When it specifically says ‘in your hand’, to me it means, not the hand itself. In other words an implement.

When it says any kind of weapon, then it includes hands, feet, teeth, etcetera.

 

[Charlaquin]

When it specifically says ‘in your hand’, to me it means, not the hand itself. In other words an implement.

When it says any kind of weapon, then it includes hands, feet, teeth, etcetera.

That’s a fine baseline assumption from which to write rules surrounding weapon attacks. But it’s not the one 5e’s rules were written with.

 

[Azzy]

I mean, yeah. Don’t have Unarmed Strikes be weapons. Easy.

Assuming one wanted them treated as weapons for puposes of things like magic weapon, et al., that would be a poor choice to fix the situation.

 

[Charlaquin]

Assuming one wanted them treated as weapons for puposes of things like magic weapon, et al., that would be a poor choice to fix the situation.

Which means it’s a pretty safe assumption that WotC didn’t want them treated as weapons for those purposes.

 

[Salthorae]

Which means it’s a pretty safe assumption that WotC didn’t want them treated as weapons for those purposes.

Indeed, as indicated in that long sting of quotes I put up last night.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you punch someone with it it's a weapon, and one that is actually quite effective. Knights actually trained in punching with gauntleted fists, and knuckle dusters/knuckle spikes are just gauntlets with the defensive bits removed.


If those gloves are made of metal or otherwise make your attack effective then yes it does.

Patently absurd.

It’s an unarmed attack. Full stop.

 

[Salthorae]

An important fighting style is a sword in the mainhand and grappling with the offhand. This would normally allow various unarmed attacks as well.

Once you have Extra attack at level 5 there is no reason you couldn’t wield a sword in one hand and grapple with the other if it is free.

Grapple can replace any attack in the Attack action, it just requires a free hand.

Once you have them grappled you can still attack with your weapon OR and unarmed strike.

If you’re not a monk or Tavern Brawler, your Unarmed Strike is just dealing way less damage than your weapon.

Sure, you can’t do this until level 5 RAW with errata, but why should someone be capable of everything at levels 1-4. It’s why we level up. To learn to do more things.

 

[Charlaquin]

Patently absurd.

It’s an unarmed attack. Full stop.

I dunno, caestūs, knuckledusters, push daggers, I’d call those all weapons, so I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to call a gauntlet a weapon. I would not call body parts weapons though.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Spiked Armor exists in 5e. It does modify a specific unarmed attack, if you have the correct training.

So there is some precedent on the subject (whether or not it's good precedent I'm not so sure.)