D&D 5E PHB Errata Nerf Unarmed Strikes!? WHY??? :(

[TheCosmicKid]

That's true only if you're not capable of any inferences of logic or reasoning at all. That is to say, interpreting this rule is only a problem if you're a computer.

It's possible to hold a melee weapon and not wield it, correct? Say a sword that's sheathed and held by the blade, or you're grasping the wrong end of a mace, or even that you're holding a staff except it's as a spell focus and not a weapon. So there's already a difference between possessing a weapon -- even if it's to hand -- and wielding it.

Opening a case with this sophistic sort of distinction is always a red flag for me. And yeah, looking ahead, it appears that your "inferences of logic or reasoning" are somehow going to lead to the conclusion that you can use fighting style that's all about fighting with one weapon while fighting with two weapons. "Oh, but he's not fighting with two weapons, he's just holding one!" Why is he holding it if he doesn't intend to fight with it? Being able to hold a weapon in each hand grants the character a material advantage in the form of being able to switch weapons without having to draw or sheathe them. Requiring him to really, truly, only have one weapon in hand may annoy a powergaming player, but it does meaningfully improve the game quality by forcing him to make a tactical decision rather than just have all his options available at once.

So much for that. Now explain to me again what all this lawyering about "wielding" a weapon versus "holding" it has to do with unarmed strikes, with which you do neither?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Opening a case with this sophistic sort of distinction is always a red flag for me. And yeah, looking ahead, it appears that your "inferences of logic or reasoning" are somehow going to lead to the conclusion that you can use fighting style that's all about fighting with one weapon while fighting with two weapons. "Oh, but he's not fighting with two weapons, he's just holding one!" Why is he holding it if he doesn't intend to fight with it? Being able to hold a weapon in each hand grants the character a material advantage in the form of being able to switch weapons without having to draw or sheathe them. Requiring him to really, truly, only have one weapon in hand may annoy a powergaming player, but it does meaningfully improve the game quality by forcing him to make a tactical decision rather than just have all his options available at once.

So much for that. Now explain to me again what all this lawyering about "wielding" a weapon versus "holding" it has to do with unarmed strikes, with which you do neither?

The duelling style explicitly does not prevent you from holding something in the other hand. You can, for example, hold a shield, or a baseball bat. And the rules allow you to attack with said shield or baseball bat, instead of attacking with the weapon in your main hand.

Or you could have a shield in one hand and a baseball bat in the other, and make an improvised weapon attack with either.

Personally, I suspect the situation would rarely occur, but if it troubles you, I suggest you require the player to designate "main hand" and "off hand". If they attack with the "off hand" weapon/object the duelling style does not apply, and they don't add their attribute bonus to damage unless they have the dual wielding style.

 

[Yaarel]

I agree the technical term ‘wield’ matters.

In other words:
• If you only wield one weapon, which is ‘in your hand’, then you get the +2 bonus.
• But if you wield two weapons, including punching or kicking with a natural weapon, then you dont.

Even so, I would prefer clearer language that avoids gotcha jargon.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, for one thing, it breaks the dueling fighting style. And I don’t mean it “breaks it” in the sense that it makes the fighting style overpowered, I mean it literally prevents the fighting style from functioning. “When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.” If your body is a weapon, you can never be wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons.

That’s the thing, a lot of people are assuming that this change was made to protect the monk’s niche and/or prevent characters from magically enhancing their unarmed strikes, and that assumption has largely gone unchallenged. But I don’t think it’s accurate at all. If that were the case, it wouldn’t have made it through both the open and closed play tests, as that’s when the niches that needed protecting were identified and the protective measures drafted, edited, and settled upon. I think the reason was to avoid situations like the above, where unarmed strikes would interact in game-breaking ways with the natural language of 5e. And again, in this instance I’m using “game-breaking” to mean that it actually causes dysfunction, not the vernacular “overpowered” meaning.

I can understand that point, but I think that ruling on it is a matter of logic that is pretty apparent IMO. The style could have been clarified in the errata if there was any misunderstanding. Here's a stab at rewrites for Dueling that would solve the problems others have brought up.

Dueling (aka Single Weapon Style)
If you make all of your melee weapon attacks with the same weapon during your turn, you gain +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

OR

Dueling
When you make a melee weapon attack on your turn, you gain +2 bonus to damage with that weapon. Any additional weapon attacks you make on your turn must be with the same weapon, and also have the same +2 bonus to damage.

The second version is a bit wordier, but prevents potential abuse. Also, with these versions it doesn't matter what you have in your hand (empty, shield, torch, another weapon, etc.).

D&D features creatures that cannot be harmed without magical weapons. Without some kind of magical or spiritual way of turning its fists magical such a class would not be viable in a standard D&D game.

True, but the designers have said repeatedly that the game was designed to be played without magical items at all. There are spells which make weapons magical, and no reason why those spells can't affect unarmed strikes. Monks already have the feature at 6th level that makes their unarmed strikes magical. Builds without the monk class would have to find alternative means (a spell or something).

Another way to look at it is such creatures become scarier (not a bad thing IMO) and maybe the only way to deal with them is magic.

Finally, while my point was to make a "non-monk" brawler for my character (I am leaning towards Valor Bard at the moment), that doesn't mean he can't use other weapons. Be assured, he will have weapons for throwing at range, and might one day have a magical sword or something for those times when brawling isn't a good option.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

True, but the designers have said repeatedly that the game was designed to be played without magical items at all.

In which case, I'm sure the DM would not include any monsters that can only be hurt by magical weapons. However, I'm sure they would not design a subclass which was only viable if the DM chose to leave out a large section of the monster manual.

There are spells which make weapons magical, and no reason why those spells can't affect unarmed strikes.

There are spells that make weapons magical (e.g. Magic Weapon) and there are spells that make unarmed strikes magical (e.g. Shocking Grasp). You can't cast Magic Weapon on a body part, you can't cast Shocking Grasp on a sword.

Monks already have the feature at 6th level that makes their unarmed strikes magical. Builds without the monk class would have to find alternative means (a spell or something).

The whole point was based on the idea of a non-magical brawler subclass. But the truth is, without magic a fist is useless.

Finally, while my point was to make a "non-monk" brawler for my character (I am leaning towards Valor Bard at the moment), that doesn't mean he can't use other weapons. Be assured, he will have weapons for throwing at range, and might one day have a magical sword or something for those times when brawling isn't a good option.

If you have a weapon, USE IT. There is no situation in which a fist is going to be more effective than a weapon. If that where true proto-humans would never have invented weapons. See: 2001 A Space Odyssey.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DammitVictor]

Hands aren't weapons, even if people trained in unarmed combat are considered weapon by the modern legal system.

Just a point of clarification: this is not a thing that exists, under any legal system. There are some governments that don't allow you to train in unarned combat if you have a criminal record, but there's nowhere on Earth where a person has to register their unarmed killing skills.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In which case, I'm sure the DM would not include any monsters that can only be hurt by magical weapons. However, I'm sure they would not design a subclass which was only viable if the DM chose to leave out a large section of the monster manual.

It wouldn't be. I already told you how to get around the issue.

There are spells that make weapons magical (e.g. Magic Weapon) and there are spells that make unarmed strikes magical (e.g. Shocking Grasp). You can't cast Magic Weapon on a body part, you can't cast Shocking Grasp on a sword.

If you consider unarmed strikes as weapons, just as natural weapons are weapons, there is no reason why magic weapon couldn't affect unarmed strikes--even if you had to go to the point of specifying when the spell is cast how it is working (your punches, your kicks, your elbows, your forehead, whatever). Personally, I would just allow it to apply universally and not worry about it.

The whole point was based on the idea of a non-magical brawler subclass. But the truth is, without magic a fist is useless.

There are several martial artists of all varieties that would disagree about how useless a fist is. In a magical game setting, a fist could be magical and wouldn't be useless. As I already said, the monk class's Ki-Empowered Strikes does this RAW, allowing spells to affect other classes makes it a non-issue.

Also, a LOT depends on the nature of your game. Our table has mostly humanoid opponents (well over half of the encounters), so unarmed strikes can be very viable.

If you have a weapon, USE IT. There is no situation in which a fist is going to be more effective than a weapon. If that where true proto-humans would never have invented weapons. See: 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Unarmed strikes can be weapons and should be considered so as per the original rules IMO. There are plenty of situations where a fist is more effective than a weapon. Try using a whip on someone who is fighting you in hand-to-hand. Likewise, weapons can be very much more effective (you can't throw your fist at a flying dragon).

By your argument, only the most effective weapons should ever be used, and generally people gravitate towards them, but often enough players choose other weapons because they aren't just about min-maxing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you consider unarmed strikes as weapons

I don't. I never have and never will. A weapon is an artefact, a manufactured object.

There are several martial artists of all varieties that would disagree about how useless a fist is.

And ther are lots of people who are full of b*llocks.

In a magical game setting, a fist could be magical and wouldn't be useless.

Indeed, there is a whole class dedicated to the concept.

Unarmed strikes can be weapons and should be considered so as per the original rules IMO.

Sure. Original as in 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition.