D&D 5E Melee attacks/unarmed strikes?

[OzDragon]

Ok before I get started I know that Unarmed strikes to not count as Melee weapons.

Now that that is settled why can I make a melee attack with something that is not a melee weapon ( Unarmed strikes) ?
Before you bring up tavern brawler that turns mundane items into improvised weapons which count as melee weapons.

Also why are PC's with natural attacks held back in the melee weapon attack category when monsters are not?(yeah yeah yeah monsters are not PCs..but still why 2 sets of rules)
For those that don't know PCs with natural attacks those attacks are concidered as unarmed attacks.

This seems to me to not make sense. I'm of the opinion that if I'm doing damage with my fists, feet, claws or, bite I'm attacking with melee attacks.

Why does the distinction between melee weapons and unarmed strike exist? I can make melee weapon attacks and kill with both why is one concidered a weapon and the other not?







(on a side note: Why does the Order of the Lycan blood rite not continue on a monk/bloodhunter when the transformation ends)

 

[Voi_D_ragon]

Actually, if you check the PHB weapons table, the unarmed strike is listed. This makes your other points moot, apart from improvised weapons.

You can make a melee attack with something that is not a melee weapon and if it isn't a part of your body (in which case it would be an unarmed attack) it counts as an improvised weapon, and your DM adjudicates the damage and whether or not you add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll; Tavern Brawler simply ensures you will always add it no matter what improbable instrument you use to hit your enemies. You can make it because that's how it is in real life- you won't always have a (let's say knife or gun for real life pertinence) ready if you are attacked on the street, so a rock or steel pipe may just be all you can work with, and it's stupid to think "oh, that's not a weapon, there's no way I can utilize it to harm someone"

I have no idea what you are referencing with order of the Lycan or generally the last paragraph of your post.

But I hope this helps

 

[Li Shenron]

Actually, if you check the PHB weapons table, the unarmed strike is listed. This makes your other points moot, apart from improvised weapons.

That was removed after the early prints, exactly because it lead people to think that unarmed attacks techinically count as weapons.

 

[Voi_D_ragon]

That was removed after the early prints, exactly because it lead people to think that unarmed attacks techinically count as weapons.

Crap

 

[jaelis]

The point is that there are a few different definitions of "weapon" that they are trying to distinguish.

First there is the sense of an object designed and manufactured for combat that you attack with. That is the basic meaning in D&D. Your fists are not weapons in this sense because they are not manufactured, or even distinct objects really.

Second is the sense of anything you attack with. Your fists would of course count in this sense. This type of weapon gets labelled as either an improvised weapon (an object not designed for combat), a natural weapon (a body part 'designed' for combat), or an unarmed strike (a body part not designed for combat). This is clunky I agree, but is there a better solution?

So why did they want to distinguish these senses? Well you can do things with a manufactured weapon that you can't with a body part, like disarming or drawing. The weapon rules are a lot simpler if you assume that they apply to manufactured weapons. Natural attacks and unarmed strikes are useful to distinguish because it makes descriptions clearer. When a wolf attacks, it uses its bite, it would be weird to say it kicks you. But a person can fight with a kick, a punch, a bite, a headbutt, or many other ways. you don't want to deny that, but also don't want to call out every single body part as a natural weapon.

As for attacks, the phase "weapon attack" is meant to indicate a type of attack, not the object used to make the attack. It is using "weapon" in the broader sense. It contrasts with spell attack. So it includes any attack that is based on physical, rather than magical, effects. In particular, an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack: melee because it is in melee range, and weapon attack because it is physical. Again this is clunky, but it's hard to think of better language.

So: your body is an weapon in the general sense used for "weapon attack" but not in the specific sense of a manufactured item used for "weapon."

Hope that helps a little!

 

[OzDragon]

? Well you can do things with a manufactured weapon that you can't with a body part, like disarming or drawing.
Hope that helps a little!

You can most definitely disarm someone with body parts(martial arts).

It does help.

I think what gets me the most is that as a monk specifically the damage done by the strike. Your strikes start out at dagger damage and end up at two handed longsword damage. If i can inflict that kind of damage on someone with a kick, punch, bite, claw... how is that not a weapon?(this applies to "natural weapons" by Tabaxi and Lizardmen as well)

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

You can most definitely disarm someone with body parts(martial arts).

It's the other way around: you can be disarmed *of* a weapon. A sword can be knocked out of your hand, a dagger can be stolen, and so on. You can't be disarmed of unarmed attacks (not without the use of disintegrate, anyway .

A weapon can be picked up and put down. It can be bought and sold. It must be created by a crafter. Without maintenance it can fall into disrepair. None of these statements apply to unarmed attacks.

Additionally, a weapon must be wielded, which introduces a type of action economy based on how many hands you have.

I agree that the phrasing is poor but I'm not sure what I would replace it with. Maybe the word "strike", as in "melee strike" and "ranged strike"? That way you would make a "melee strike with a weapon" or a "melee strike with a spell" or a "melee strike with a body part".

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is also another option for those that are able to house rule their own games as they like... which is that you can ignore all of the distinctions and play manufactured weapons, natural weapons, improvised weapons, unarmed strikes, monk weapons, rogue weapons etc. etc. all exactly the same. The distinctions were added to the same for flavor purposes in some cases (rogue weapons, monk weapons), and some because it just might "feel wrong" otherwise (improvised weapons being as good as real, manufactured, sharpened metal weapons designed for killing.)

But in truth... you can strip out the entire system and just say "If you attack with Strength you can do 1d8 with a one-handed, 1d12 with a two-handed, or 1d6 with two strikes if you dual-wield" and then FLUFF whatever those "weapons" are in whatever fashion you want. A maul? A giant trunk of a tree? Two fists? A spear and the horns on your head? Fluff it whichever way seems cool to you, and then if/when you ever have a point when some attack does something odd-- like "disarm" you-- make a ruling at the time as necessary. Just make sure you are playing with people who don't get so hung up on "winning" the combat mini-game that they try and create some bizarre wielding option with their fluff and then try and argue why nothing should EVER "affect" them game mechanically. Because those people shouldn't be using a system such as this. If someone is going to argue the mechanics, they should use the mechanics as designed by the game.

 

[Hriston]

Ok before I get started I know that Unarmed strikes to not count as Melee weapons.

Now that that is settled why can I make a melee attack with something that is not a melee weapon ( Unarmed strikes) ?

Your character can punch, kick, elbow, knee, headbutt, etc. a target just like a real person can. These actions are resolved as melee weapon attacks because the game doesn't need a separate system for punching someone other than the one it has for hitting someone with a sword.

Also why are PC's with natural attacks held back in the melee weapon attack category when monsters are not?(yeah yeah yeah monsters are not PCs..but still why 2 sets of rules)

This appears to be a misconception. The attacks monsters can make with their natural weapons are weapon attacks, whether they are melee weapon attacks, or ranged weapon attacks in the case of something like a shooting tail spike. Similarly, an attack a PC makes with an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, so there aren't two sets of rules here.

For those that don't know PCs with natural attacks those attacks are concidered as unarmed attacks.

Correct, the aarakocra's talons, for example, are explicitly stated to be unarmed strikes, so an aarakocra monk could use them for martial arts.

This seems to me to not make sense. I'm of the opinion that if I'm doing damage with my fists, feet, claws or, bite I'm attacking with melee attacks.

You are. That is, when you use your unarmed strike, just like when you use your sword, you make a melee weapon attack. There's no difference in that respect.

Why does the distinction between melee weapons and unarmed strike exist? I can make melee weapon attacks and kill with both why is one concidered a weapon and the other not?

A weapon, as it has been defined, is a manufactured object designed for making attacks in combat. An unarmed strike is part of a creature's body. If no specific natural weapon is called out, it follows the base rules for unarmed strikes.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Now that that is settled why can I make a melee attack with something that is not a melee weapon ( Unarmed strikes) ?

The distinction lies between "Melee weapon attack", and "Attack with a melee weapon".

"Melee" attack indicates the range: that the attack is taking place in melee, within the reach of the weapon.
"Weapon" attack indicates that it is a physical attack rather than for example a spell attack.
Neither of those prevent an unarmed strike from being used. Only those effects that require a "with a melee weapon" do not allow unarmed strikes to count.

This seems to me to not make sense. I'm of the opinion that if I'm doing damage with my fists, feet, claws or, bite I'm attacking with melee attacks.

You are. The rules don't say that you're not.

Why does the distinction between melee weapons and unarmed strike exist? I can make melee weapon attacks and kill with both why is one concidered a weapon and the other not?

Because weapons are wielded, can be disarmed, can be affected by magic independently etc. Thus they are distinct from body parts.

(on a side note: Why does the Order of the Lycan blood rite not continue on a monk/bloodhunter when the transformation ends)

I've no idea. Is that a DMsGuild thing? Pretty sure its not official 5e product.