D&D 5E Errata Unarmed Strike

[Fralex]

Just different. They are not finesse, light, two-handed etc. You can't be disarmed. You can't use it for unarmed attack nor sneak attack.

It seems needlessly complex to create an entirely new class of weapon that only applies to one thing. Couldn't they have just given it the Special quality and briefly explained in a footnote that Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon, not a regular weapon, and is different from them in the following ways?

 

[Inconnunom]

It seems needlessly complex to create an entirely new class of weapon that only applies to one thing. Couldn't they have just given it the Special quality and briefly explained in a footnote that Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon, not a regular weapon, and is different from them in the following ways?

If unarmed strike is using natural weapons, then why couldn't minotaurs use their 1d10 horns for flurry of blows? Now you have to specify somewhere else where you can and can't use abilities. It just open up another whole can of worms.

I didn't make the rules. I just logically interpret their intentions.

 

[Fralex]

If unarmed strike is using natural weapons, then why couldn't minotaurs use their 1d10 horns for flurry of blows? Now you have to specify somewhere else where you can and can't use abilities. It just open up another whole can of worms.

I didn't make the rules. I just logically interpret their intentions.

Well, just for the sake of answering your question, this would be covered by the Marial Arts feature specifying, as it does now, that you can only use it with unarmed strikes and monk weapons. But yeah, it's fine, thanks for explaining how the errata works. I just feel like there could've been a more intuitive way to handle it. :V

I'm not really sure what my emoticon means

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the Errata Rules could Not bei clearer. Unarmed strikes replace weapons when making melee weapon attacks. Thus are by Definition weapon attacks. Why are you trying to find errors that are not there?

 

[Coredump]

Awesome! Now to release errata for the errata. [emoji2]

No. it is in the errata, but people are more intent on impersonating Chicken Little "Oh Noes, the Rules are falling!!"

Check the errata you are complaining about, third column under Combat - Melee Attacks.

The rules work just fine....

 

[cmad1977]

The fact that this is so difficult for so many is an embarrassment to our hobby.

 

[famousringo]

The fact that this is so difficult for so many is an embarrassment to our hobby.

No need to be so high and mighty about it. Confusion is a typical result of needlessly complex design.

 

[Crothian]

The fact that this is so difficult for so many is an embarrassment to our hobby.

I honestly don't think the Savage World fans, just to name one other group of the hobby, are embarrassed at all about this. I think that they might chuckle at it though.

 

[Thyrwyn]

There are ranged spell attacks in the MM that are not the result of a spell. You can use a melee weapon to make a ranged weapon attack.

All attacks are either (ranged or melee) (spell or weapon) attacks. They do not require spells or weapons to be used. They just are what they are.

 

[Coredump]

No need to be so high and mighty about it. Confusion is a typical result of needlessly complex design.

It is also a typical result of people going off without reading the entire errata, and others trying to create problems that don't exist.