D&D 5E Are monk's unarmed attacks weapon attacks?

[Kobold Stew]

There you go. Thanks.

Contrary to their statement on the nature of errata, this actually is a different decision than what the PHB says, though, isn't it? (Note that they also needed to nerf Tavern Brawler and the weapons table.) And it's awkward with the wording of the horns rules in the waterborne UA, and the Aarakocra in the Elemental Evil supplement, both of which were clearly written before the change of mind.

 

[Wik]

The funny thing is, the monk took this sort of cursed sword, and for the first bit of combat, everyone thought "whoa, that's an awesome weapon!". So he tried to give it to the fighter, and realized he couldn't... and that's when everyone went "uh oh".

I've ruled that his attacks count as weapons, because, well, he's a monk... a living weapon! This means that half of his attacks are at disadvantage, which sucks. It's kind of funny, because he is the WORST person in the party to have this weapon as a result. My evil GM XP doubled the moment the player said "Sure, I'll attune to the weapon!".

I can see the idea behind the ruling, but it does seem a bit finicky. My gut is telling me to keep my ruling as is, but I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Li Shenron]

A curse is a curse, it works regardless of rules semantics.

In this case, I would even go further and give disadvantage to any attacks (including e.g. spells) other than using this cursed weapon.

 

[Azurewraith]

The funny thing is, the monk took this sort of cursed sword, and for the first bit of combat, everyone thought "whoa, that's an awesome weapon!". So he tried to give it to the fighter, and realized he couldn't... and that's when everyone went "uh oh".

I've ruled that his attacks count as weapons, because, well, he's a monk... a living weapon! This means that half of his attacks are at disadvantage, which sucks. It's kind of funny, because he is the WORST person in the party to have this weapon as a result. My evil GM XP doubled the moment the player said "Sure, I'll attune to the weapon!".

I can see the idea behind the ruling, but it does seem a bit finicky. My gut is telling me to keep my ruling as is, but I'm not entirely sure.

If your keeping the ruling i would put some subtle hints in as a way to remove the curse from the weapon weather this leaves it inert or a +1weapon is up to you. As is the monk is pretty neutered to the point where he cant be fun to play.

I would make it run something like head to temple of jinxes in the temple everything is at disadvantage including the mobs have some sort of nasty effect on rolls of 1 and a roulette like door system where there where say 6doors in a chamber with something different behind each one and one empty door make all doors lead to the same spot the variable being how beat up the party are.

 

[Wik]

If your keeping the ruling i would put some subtle hints in as a way to remove the curse from the weapon weather this leaves it inert or a +1weapon is up to you. As is the monk is pretty neutered to the point where he cant be fun to play.

The monk's not neutered at all. One of his class abilities is substantially weaker, sure, but sometimes bad things happen as a result of your choices. He's aware of this, and enjoying it.

And I'll be running it as is, once he removes the curse. The weapon IS intelligent, evil, and is gonna be a blast to play.

I would make it run something like head to temple of jinxes in the temple everything is at disadvantage including the mobs have some sort of nasty effect on rolls of 1 and a roulette like door system where there where say 6doors in a chamber with something different behind each one and one empty door make all doors lead to the same spot the variable being how beat up the party are.

Or, you know, the party can cast Remove Curse.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I guess it depends on whether you think the weapons curse is more like abandonment issues (I must always be used) or jealousy (you must not use another weapon).

Also curses are more fun if they can be removed through some action rather than just casting remove curse. This item seems like it might want someone in particular dead. Remove curse might let you drop the weapon, but resolving the curse might give you a more powerful item.

 

[Wik]

I guess it depends on whether you think the weapons curse is more like abandonment issues (I must always be used) or jealousy (you must not use another weapon).

Also curses are more fun if they can be removed through some action rather than just casting remove curse. This item seems like it might want someone in particular dead. Remove curse might let you drop the weapon, but resolving the curse might give you a more powerful item.

Sure. And I usually fully agree. But sometimes, just allowing a remove curse can be an easy way to keep the game moving. I'll make a few rolls to make sure that the weapon gets a "Saving throw", so that in the future, I can do something a bit more fun that leads to an adventure.

 

[Azurewraith]

Well they could cast remove curse i suppose but wheres the fun in that. I bet your the kind of guy that goes and sees the local doctor instead of wandering into the local wood and just eating a bunch of stuff pffffft