D&D 5E Are monks proficient in Unarmed Strikes?

[Lanliss]

When you are proficient in a weapon you add your proficiency bonus to that weapons to-hit and damage, correct? If so, is monk considered to be proficient in Unarmed strikes, and is thus able to add their bonus to the to-hit and damage of such an attack?
If a monk is not proficient in Unarmed strikes does this mean they have less chance to hit than a fighter of equal capability that is using a sword, or less chance than the same monk would be using a weapon?

Or am I wrong about the use of proficiency in the first place?

 

[pukunui]

As per the PHB errata, everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes. Furthermore, unarmed strikes are no longer considered weapons (but one still makes a "melee weapon attack" with an unarmed strike).

 

[Illithidbix]

Yes.
Unarmed strikes are listed under simple melee weapons.
Monks are proficient with all simple weapons.
And their Martial Arts class feature lets them use Dexterity instead of Strength to hit and damage with unarmed strikes.

On a side note: Whilst most classes are proficient with all simple weapons. Wizards and Sorcerers *aren't* proficient with all simple weapons: They are only proficient with: Daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaffs and light crossbows.

 

[Lanliss]

As per the PHB errata, everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes. Furthermore, unarmed strikes are no longer considered weapons (but one still makes a "melee weapon attack" with an unarmed strike).

Ah, I wonder if the mix up I am having is the reason they clarified it in the errata. Without the proficiency the monk would be much weaker.

 

[Curmudjinn]

To add to that, your proficiency bonus only applies to your attack roll, not damage.

 

[pukunui]

Could have been one of the reasons. They also didn't want various things like Sneak Attack to work with Unarmed Strikes, which is why they declassified them as weapons.

 

[Curmudjinn]

Could have been one of the reasons. They also didn't want various things like Sneak Attack to work with Unarmed Strikes, which is why they declassified them as weapons.

Exactly. The new term is exceptional nonweapon.

 

[CapnZapp]

This errata is exceptionally confusing and obtuse, that's for sure.

 

[Rune]

It's only confusing if you get hung up on game-jargon instead of thinking, do they really intend for my fist to be indistinguishable from a sword in all scenarios?" The fact that the errata uses confusing game-jargon to bring other confusing game-jargon in line with common narrative sense is an unfortunate necessity, but it is certainly possible to get to the same results without subjecting yourself to the jargon. Because, ya know, there are lots of effects in the game that are obviously meant to apply only while a weapon--and not a fist--is wielded.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Here is an article from 6 years ago, discussing the US Ninth Circuit Court's discussion of this topic (do hands count as weapons?).