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

[Al2O3]

The official info related to the errata can probably be found in http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sage-advice-june2015

I am afraid you won't be satisfied with that one, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, I've read that.

To completely bork a simple concept just because a quirk of how monster language is phrased is weaksauce.

Very weak sauce.

If that's what made them panic enough to issue such half-baked errata, I recommend everyone (that's able to) to ignore this errata completely.

I mean, it's much easier and far more natural to simply go "of course unarmed attacks don't punch through magic resistance".

 

[Coredump]

this incredibly convoluted change was made.

Thanks

If that's what made them panic enough to issue such half-baked errata, I recommend everyone (that's able to) to ignore this errata completely.
.

I don't get this, I don't see anything convoluted or half-baked about this. To me it makes a lot more sense than it did before.

A 'weapon' is a thing, and item, a tool for destruction. When someone says "I found a crate of weapons", no one expects to see a bunch of cut off hands and feet and knees. A 'weapon' is a gun, or knife, or club, or sword, or..... Thus it makes sense to make a 'weapon attack' with an actual weapon. When you cast Magic Weapon, its on an actual weapon. When you 'silver a weapon', its adding silver to an actual weapon. When you fight with 'two weapons', it means a knife and sword, or two whips, or whatever.... it doesn't mean a boxing match.

An Unarmed Strike is called such because you are *unarmed*, meaning you have no 'arms', meaning you have no weapons. To try and claim that a 'weaponless attack' is somehow really a weapon.... that is convoluted. It is non-sensical to insist that a 'weaponless attack'(AKA Unarmed Strke) is a type of weapon.

So, to me at least, that all makes sense. But we also all know that a fist (or elbow, or foot, etc) can also be used to cause damage, similar to how a weapon works. Hence the rule/errata clarifying that you can use an Unarmed Strike when making a Melee Weapon Attack. That seems to follow everyone's common experiences and knowledge.... I don't see how that is at all convoluted.

 

[Azurewraith]

I don't get this, I don't see anything convoluted or half-baked about this. To me it makes a lot more sense than it did before.

A 'weapon' is a thing, and item, a tool for destruction. When someone says "I found a crate of weapons", no one expects to see a bunch of cut off hands and feet and knees. A 'weapon' is a gun, or knife, or club, or sword, or..... Thus it makes sense to make a 'weapon attack' with an actual weapon. When you cast Magic Weapon, its on an actual weapon. When you 'silver a weapon', its adding silver to an actual weapon. When you fight with 'two weapons', it means a knife and sword, or two whips, or whatever.... it doesn't mean a boxing match.

An Unarmed Strike is called such because you are *unarmed*, meaning you have no 'arms', meaning you have no weapons. To try and claim that a 'weaponless attack' is somehow really a weapon.... that is convoluted. It is non-sensical to insist that a 'weaponless attack'(AKA Unarmed Strke) is a type of weapon.

So, to me at least, that all makes sense. But we also all know that a fist (or elbow, or foot, etc) can also be used to cause damage, similar to how a weapon works. Hence the rule/errata clarifying that you can use an Unarmed Strike when making a Melee Weapon Attack. That seems to follow everyone's common experiences and knowledge.... I don't see how that is at all convoluted.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weapon?s=t

According to the dictionary anything can be a weapon. Isn't that what happens when you attain the highest rank in a martial art form you sign a register saying your body is now a lethal weapon? I could be wrong but that's how I understand it

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Isn't that what happens when you attain the highest rank in a martial art form you sign a register saying your body is now a lethal weapon? I could be wrong but that's how I understand it

http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=460

Nope.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[CapnZapp]

Coredump, you don't need to get it, you just need to get that others don't.

Other than that, the previous few replies speak volumes.

 

[Arial Black]

I don't get this, I don't see anything convoluted or half-baked about this. To me it makes a lot more sense than it did before.

A 'weapon' is a thing, and item, a tool for destruction. When someone says "I found a crate of weapons", no one expects to see a bunch of cut off hands and feet and knees. A 'weapon' is a gun, or knife, or club, or sword, or..... Thus it makes sense to make a 'weapon attack' with an actual weapon. When you cast Magic Weapon, its on an actual weapon. When you 'silver a weapon', its adding silver to an actual weapon. When you fight with 'two weapons', it means a knife and sword, or two whips, or whatever.... it doesn't mean a boxing match.

An Unarmed Strike is called such because you are *unarmed*, meaning you have no 'arms', meaning you have no weapons. To try and claim that a 'weaponless attack' is somehow really a weapon.... that is convoluted. It is non-sensical to insist that a 'weaponless attack'(AKA Unarmed Strke) is a type of weapon.

So, to me at least, that all makes sense. But we also all know that a fist (or elbow, or foot, etc) can also be used to cause damage, similar to how a weapon works. Hence the rule/errata clarifying that you can use an Unarmed Strike when making a Melee Weapon Attack. That seems to follow everyone's common experiences and knowledge.... I don't see how that is at all convoluted.

Agreed. This also illustrates why 'improvised weapons' are not weapons either. You don't open a crate of, say, candlesticks and exclaim that you have found a stash of weapons!

...unless you are in the library with Doctor Black while playing Cluedo...

 

[Coredump]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weapon?s=t

According to the dictionary anything can be a weapon. Isn't that what happens when you attain the highest rank in a martial art form you sign a register saying your body is now a lethal weapon? I could be wrong but that's how I understand it

Your link does not agree with you..... The definition says any "instrument or device"..... Which would be a knife, not an elbow.