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

Xetheral

Three-Headed Sirrush
I don’t think (3) is correct. Or at least, it’s redundant, As far as I know, Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade are the only spells that allow you to make a melee Attack with a weapon as part of the spell effect. As well, there are a couple of spells that create a melee weapon with which you can make Attacks, and those attacks are appropriately melee weapon attacks.

3 is necessary because otherwise the combination of 1 (with a weapon) and 2 (without a weapon) would include every attack, including spells.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I think that would also work (there might be a corner case somewhere, but I can't think of one). Either way, it highlights what a mess the definition of "melee weapon attack" has become.
I wouldn’t call one rule with one clause that there are exceptions when specified a mess. It’s unintuitively worded, but it’s not really that hard to understand if you’re not trying to waste your day on it.
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
If unarmed attacks were particularly effective, in general... swords and maces would not be necessary. Just in terms of genre expectations - if you want to kill Gorgoroth, the huge, ancient, acid-spewing dragon, does punching him to death really make a lot of sense? Maybe, just maybe, you wanna stick something pointy into ol' Gorgoroth, no?
If I'm suspending my disbelief to the point where Bilbo with a shiv can cause lethal damage to Gorgoth by poking him in his foot, then I can easily incorporate Hercules punching him to death.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
This time around, I suspect it had more to do with the wording of some of the Combat Styles, feats &c, which turn on whether you're holding a weapon in one hand or two hands or each hand or with a shield.

Actual game breaking wording, or just "oh we didn't mean for that to happen and now some people might be D&Ding wrong" wording? Unarmed strikes are so pathetic most of the time compared to weapon strikes that I can't think of how this could be a problem outside of how it impacts the fiction of the game, which the table is supposed to be responsible for these days with the whole "rulings not rules" philosophy.

That and niche protection for the monk, of course, heaven (or nirvana or whatever) forbid a non-monk punch someone out.

Niche protection as a concept is steadily losing it's appeal for me...
 


Tony Vargas

Legend
Actual game breaking wording, or just "oh we didn't mean for that to happen and now some people might be D&Ding wrong" wording?
Not either, really, just that it might be rendered confusing or inconsistent.

Of course, as a solution, the treatment of unarmed attacks /is/ confusing & inconsistent, anyway. :🤷:

Niche protection as a concept is steadily losing it's appeal for me...
Frankly, at this point, it feels out of place. Niche protection has been steadily eroded since 3.0, really. But 5e had a few mandates that amounted to it, particularly for the put-upon fighter & rogue, so we have the Knock spell being comically loud so it can't be said to obviate Thieves' Tools proficiency (even though anyone can pick that up through a background), and the fighter's mandate to be "best at fighting" (without magic, and with weapons).
 
Last edited:


If I'm suspending my disbelief to the point where Bilbo with a shiv can cause lethal damage to Gorgoth by poking him in his foot, then I can easily incorporate Hercules punching him to death.
Hercules has way more Strength than is allowed to a D&D PC.

And that Strength would still be better applied with a weapon like a club.

Which is why the mythological Hercules uses a club.
 

Remove ads

Top