pukunui
Legend
What happens if someone in the group gets a newer printing of the PHB that has the errata incorporated into the text?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Monk unarmed strike count as weapons?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
That player should secretively swap his new book for the DMs old one, so that the DM now has the proper erratd rules without even realizing it.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Then use disarm against a monk.
Zardnaar
Legend
We would use it. I have the errata, DM doesn't care.
pukunui
Legend
It's future-proofing more than anything else.
CapnZapp
Legend
I happen to think it is a cluster[emoji34] [emoji34] [emoji34] that violates natural language and creates headaches. Put simply: it's a rules lawyery fix.
There must be a better approach. Even if more text changes would be necessary.
The Grassy Gnoll
Explorer
The errata says:
“Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an un-armed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”
It's intent is clear. "Instead of X you can do Y" is the same as "You can do Y instead of X".
Reversing the sentence, it reads "You can use an un-armed strike to make a melee weapon attack instead of using a weapon".
Thus unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks for the purposes of the OP's question. Or would do if the DM wasn't being strangely obstinate.
The issue arises because of the phrase "melee weapon attack" but it exists to differentiate between melee attacks from spells ("melee spell attacks") and from not-spells (hence "melee weapon attack").
I'm not sure what other term would cover it, tbh. "Melee physical attack", maybe? Though that sounds strange.
Simpler to acknowledge that, while you can use your fists (or head, elbow, knee, foot) as a weapon (by using them to physically attack someone), it doesn't make them an actual weapon.
“Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an un-armed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”
It's intent is clear. "Instead of X you can do Y" is the same as "You can do Y instead of X".
Reversing the sentence, it reads "You can use an un-armed strike to make a melee weapon attack instead of using a weapon".
Thus unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks for the purposes of the OP's question. Or would do if the DM wasn't being strangely obstinate.
The issue arises because of the phrase "melee weapon attack" but it exists to differentiate between melee attacks from spells ("melee spell attacks") and from not-spells (hence "melee weapon attack").
I'm not sure what other term would cover it, tbh. "Melee physical attack", maybe? Though that sounds strange.
Simpler to acknowledge that, while you can use your fists (or head, elbow, knee, foot) as a weapon (by using them to physically attack someone), it doesn't make them an actual weapon.
Curmudjinn
Explorer
In short, tell your DM to allow it and not be a jerk. It doesn't make sense for a monk to not use it in that way. A DM ruling against fairness and fun is being a jerk.
