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

[ccs]

Is this news to anyone? This errata came in 2015, and IIRC, even then it was a clarification, not a change.

Nope. My group ignored it then & we're still ignoring it. Ruling things weapon/not weapon as makes sense for either the character or action at the time.

 

[ccs]

I think they could have done it clearer, but I think the intent was to make sure you didn't enchant your fists (with weapon properties, or other things) , or add fire damage to them etc, etc.

Vicious Flaming Fists of Radiance!

And yet enchanting ones fists - wether you're a monk or not - seems a very fantasy world type thing to do....

 

[Immoralkickass]

And yet enchanting ones fists - wether you're a monk or not - seems a very fantasy world type thing to do....

If i ever play a monk who can have flaming fists, i dont think i can resist the urge to yell SHORYUREPPA when i use flurry of blows.

 

[Charlaquin]

This should have been in the PHB/errata to make things clear, instead of having to read through all the rules and come up with a conclusion.
New players aren't going straight to the MM to see that difference, they go for the PHB.
Not the OP's fault, but because of how bad wotc is at writing rules, now we gotta have every returning player/new player/edition hopping player pop this question every now and then.

I’d argue that WotC is very good at writing rules, they’re just very bad at presenting them. But yeah, I agree this rule is extremely poorly communicated.

 

[Salthorae]

I guess you're missing the point.

No, I get your point, and while it is confusing a bit, I don't think it's as confusing as you're making it out to be.

As someone stated, there are only 4 categories, so Unarmed strikes have to fall into one of them. They fall into melee weapon attacks because that is the only bucket they can realistically fall into (not being ranged or spells), but they are not in fact "weapons"

• Half-Orc Savage Attacks - right
• Two-Weapon Fighting (even if you consider Unarmed Strikes "light) - agreed, that is why Monks have the ability to make an unarmed strike as a bonus action when they take the attack action specifically called out.
• Barbarian Frenzy (Path of the Berserker) - still works, it says "melee weapon attack" which unarmed strikes count as even though they're not weapons
• Divine Fury (Path of the Zealot) - doesn't here though, agreed
• Bard Blade Flourish (College of Swords) - agreed though I'm not sure why you want to use unarmed strikes with something called "Blade Flourish"?
• Cleric War Priest (War Doman) - agreed
• Fighter Dueling Fighting Style - agreed
• Fighter Two-Weapon Fighting Style - agreed
• Fighter Maneuvers (Battlemaster, affects several of them) - agreed
  • Maneuvers Unarmed Strikes do work with: Commander's, Evasive, Feinting, Lunging, Parry, Rally, Riposte, & Sweeping​
• Paladin Divine Smite - sure it works here, again it says melee weapon attack. Bring on the punchy smite time
• Ranger Horde Breaker (Hunter) - agreed
• Ranger Dread Ambusher (Gloom Stalker) - agreed

From the Sage Advice Compendium:

The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.

So any time you see "weapon" or "weapon attack", Unarmed strikes don't work. Any time you see "melee weapon attack" you can use unarmed strikes just fine.

If what you want is a melee brawler that is NOT a monk or someone without the Tavern Brawler feat... you're going to have to house rule or home brew. That is specifically the Monk's wheelhouse and right now RAW they don't want others treading on it. Let teh fighters fight and the monks brawl with unarmed strikes. It's what they're best at.

You could probably get away with a Barbarian (Berserker) as I noted above, though without the Tavern Brawler feat you're limited in what damage you can deal.

Heck, now I want to do a Barbarian (Berserker)/Monk multiclass with the Grappler feat, a more controlled Monk/Fighter (Battlemaster), or Monk/Paladin for those unarmed smites.

Those actually sound fun, or some combination of them

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The weird thing is, there is no imbalance caused by letting a Monk/Wizard using Booming Blade with their fist. It’s just there to keep anyone else from being effective unarmed. Which is complete nonsense.

 

[Charlaquin]

The weird thing is, there is no imbalance caused by letting a Monk/Wizard using Booming Blade with their fist. It’s just there to keep anyone else from being effective unarmed. Which is complete nonsense.

There’s nothing imbalanced about it, but it is pretty thematically weird. The point of the spell is to enable people to play mages who channel and direct their magic through a weapon, especially a sword. There’s nothing unbalanced about letting someone use it with an unarmed strike, but it doesn’t really fit conceptually without reskinning into some sort of powered-up punch. Which, like, if you want to do, go for it.

 

[Emirikol Prime]

Nope. My group ignored it then & we're still ignoring it. Ruling things weapon/not weapon as makes sense for either the character or action at the time.

You’re free to do whatever you like at your table.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There’s nothing imbalanced about it, but it is pretty thematically weird. The point of the spell is to enable people to play mages who channel and direct their magic through a weapon, especially a sword. There’s nothing unbalanced about letting someone use it with an unarmed strike, but it doesn’t really fit conceptually without reskinning into some sort of powered-up punch. Which, like, if you want to do, go for it.

Why would I reskin it at all? Do you reskin it to use it with a hammer?
I don’t see what’s thematically weird about channeling arcane power into your own body to hit things magically.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why would I reskin it at all? Do you reskin it to use it with a hammer?
I don’t see what’s thematically weird about channeling arcane power into your own body to hit things magically.

It’s not thematically weird per se, it just doesn’t fit the theme the spell is going for. It’s kind of like letting a rogue sneak attack with a handaxe - there’s nothing unbalanced about it, no mechanical reason not to allow it, but it goes against what those mechanics were designed to represent. There’s nothing wrong with that and no reason not to allow it if you think it’s cool, it’s just not part of the rules as written because that’s not how the people who wrote the rules envisioned it working.