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

[Charlaquin]

So according to the designers, all of this 5e confusion, errata, and opaque jargon (‘melee weapon attack’) was for ... flavor?

No. In the original print run, Unarmed Strikes were weapons, which lead to a lot of unintended interactions with abilities that had not been designed with unarmed-strikes-as-weapons in mind. Silvered unarmed strikes, a dueling fighting style that can’t work under any circumstances, a two-weapon fighting feat that works at all times, the list goes on. By the time they caught it, it was far too late to change every instance of “melee/ranged weapon attack” to something like “melee/ranged martial attack.”

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yup. Spells like Magic Weapon (to choose a spell in the PHB and earlier editions of D&D) have always only targeted physical weapons, not body parts. Unarmed Strike was included in the list of weapons in the first printing of the PHB simply for convenient reference, not to indicate it was now considered a valid target for spells that target weapons. When the realised this had caused confusion for people unfamiliar with earlier editions of D&D they removed it and issued the errata. At this point changing the wording all the way through would have been too costly.

Now, there is no reason 5e couldn't follow 3rd edition and have more feats to support unarmed attacks. In 3rd edition you needed Improved Unarmed Strike (so you didn't get clobbered with an opportunity attack), Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike, and Weapon Specialisation: Unarmed Strike (Fighter only). I assume 5e didn't include these because they were considered trap options - even with the feats unarmed strike was still (slightly) worse than a dagger.

 

[Yaarel]

Yup. Spells like Magic Weapon (to choose a spell in the PHB and earlier editions of D&D) have always only targeted physical weapons, not body parts.

That seems like flavor.




Experienced D&D players who are familiar with the previous editions of D&D treat unarmed attack as a weapon.

The 3e Players Handbook Weapons Table lists:
‘Unarmed attack’ as a ‘Simple Weapon’.

Likewise the 4e Players Handbook Weapons Table lists:
‘Unarmed attack’ as a ‘one-handed’ ‘Improvised Melee Weapon’.

Unarmed attack is a type of weapon.

It seems like 5e initially supported the D&D tradition, but later changed for flavor reasons.



Also note, the 5e Dueling Fighting Style works fine when an ‘unarmed strike’ is not being ‘wielded’.

 

[Charlaquin]

That seems like flavor.



By the way, note the 3e Players Handbook Weapons Table.

‘Unarmed attack’ is a ‘Simple Weapon’.

It seems like 5e initially supported the 3e tradition, but later changed their minds for flavor reasons.

It’s functionality. And it’s a less glaring example than the ones I gave.

 

[Yaarel]

It’s functionality. And it’s a less glaring example than the ones I gave.

To me the most glaring example is the wording that ‘melee weapon attack’ is not a weapon.

I am amazed that the convolution of plain language is for the sake of ... flavor enforcement.



As for ‘silvered’ unarmed attack, punch while wearing a silver ring.

Again, flavor.

 

[Immoralkickass]

I assume 5e didn't include these because they were considered trap options - even with the feats unarmed strike was still (slightly) worse than a dagger.

But but but, Grappler feat...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That seems like flavor.

No, it rules.

Experienced D&D players who are familiar with the previous editions of D&D treat unarmed attack as a weapon.

The 3e Players Handbook Weapons Table lists:
‘Unarmed attack’ as a ‘Simple Weapon’.

It does. But if you read the rest of the rules rather than just looking at tables, you will see that it has additional rules for unarmed strikes, specifically that if you attempt an unarmed strike against an armed opponent you provoke an attack of opportunity.
And the spell descriptions make it clear that the you can't cast them unarmed strikes or natural weapons (or rays and eldritch blasts which are also "weapons" in 3rd edition for certain purposes) - there are separate spells which do target unarmed strikes and natural weapons.

In some editions you could combine a punch attack with Shocking Grasp, Chill Touch, Cause Light Wounds et all, but never Magic Weapon.

Likewise the 4e Players Handbook Weapons Table lists:
‘Unarmed attack’ as a ‘one-handed’ ‘Improvised Melee Weapon’.

I'm not familiar with 4e, but I suspect that if you read the rules rather than just look at tables you will find that there is rather more to it than that.

It seems like 5e initially supported the D&D tradition, but later changed for flavor reasons.

The tradition (I've been playing since 1980) is that spells that target weapons cannot target unarmed strikes.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To me the most glaring example is the wording that ‘melee weapon attack’ is not a weapon.

I am amazed that the convolution of plain language is for the sake of ... flavor enforcement.

It's not flavour, as already pointed out, is the consequence of an error that was to big to change all the wording.

As for ‘silvered’ unarmed attack, punch while wearing a silver ring.

that would make it and improvised weapon attack, not an unarmed attack.

 

[Yaarel]

that would make it and improvised weapon attack, not an unarmed attack.

The silver ring is what allows the punch to connect.

A ring by itself would normally do no damage.

Exactly like silver-plating a blade. The silver allows the blade to connect.

Metal foil by itself would normally do no damage.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The silver ring is what allows the punch to connect.

A ring by itself would normally do no damage.

If the ring does zero damage, the target takes zero damage.