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

[NotActuallyTim]

No offense, but I think a Master of martial arts, who has been training for their entire life in unarmed combat, might know how to kick without breaking their foot (except on a critical failure of course). Or they just have bones made of iron at this point.

That's not what I said. What I said was that an unarmed strike is a weapon, but a foot isn't.

 

[Lanliss]

That's not what I said. What I said was that an unarmed strike is a weapon, but a foot isn't.

I specifically meant that as a response to the "the rest of the time" part of your statement, meaning I think monks are always prepared in such a way as to make their limbs dangerous. Thematically of course, not mechanically.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

I specifically meant that as a response to the "the rest of the time" part of your statement, meaning I think monks are always prepared in such a way as to make their limbs dangerous. Thematically of course, not mechanically.

Man. You must hang out with really boring monks.

 

[77IM]

I considered the original unarmed rules (as a simple weapon you might or might not be proficient in) to be fine. It seemed perfectly reasonable that a rough-and-tumble fighter would know how to throw a punch, whereas a sheltered and academic wizard would not.

I actually think unarmed strike should have been a martial weapon, for this very reason. And it should have a "Special" tag and an entry that basically says, "It's a part of your body and not a separate object so nonsensical rules (like silvering your fist or disarming your foot) don't work. Duh."

 

[Lanliss]

I actually think unarmed strike should have been a martial weapon, for this very reason. And it should have a "Special" tag and an entry that basically says, "It's a part of your body and not a separate object so nonsensical rules (like silvering your fist or disarming your foot) don't work. Duh."

But then you cut out possible builds like The Man with the Iron Fists, and where is the fun in that?

 

[CapnZapp]

Could anyone point me to the official rationale to (explanation and discussion about) the errata to unarmed?

I mean, I sure hope there is one, because nobody here seems to know why this incredibly convoluted change was made.

Thanks

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ryan92084]

Personally I don't think its a weird or convoluted change just unfortunate game term verbiage. It was a much simpler fix than having to put a disclaimer tag on every ability that required a weapon but didn't want to work with unarmed and less sloppy than a "commonsense" disclaimer on unarmed. Now if they want an ability to work with unarmed it can call for a melee weapon attack and if they don't it'll call for a weapon.

If the whole non weapon making a weapon attack is confusing for you just change "weapon attack" to "physical/mundane attack" in your head. Wouldn't be surprised if the creators wish they had.

 

[Al2O3]

One thing that is and probably should be prevented with unarmed strikes not being a weapon: Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade unarmed.

 

[CapnZapp]

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/17/so-a-monk-cant-use-unarmed-for-stunning-strike/

I think people are confusing themselves, again.

It's not a weapon (other than, "Meet my two lethal weapon, Fist and Other Fist.").

But it does count make melee weapon attacks.

If people still find it overly confusing (which it isn't), or feel it prohibits something they think should happen (which it shouldn't), just make the right rule at the table (which you should be doing anyway).

Thank you for responding.

However you merely illustrate my point: your link details the specifics of the change but does not explain why it was made.

Why did the designers feel the original rule had to be errataed? And how did they arrive at this particular fix? What other possible fixes were discarded?

Please, no speculation - only official info. Thanks.