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

[DND_Reborn]

What the errata means is that, instead of using a weapon in a melee weapon attack, you can replace it with an unarmed strike (which means it still is a melee weapon attack).

If an ability states 'an attack with a melee weapon', then it requires a weapon.

Its confusing and dumb, but there's the rules.

So, the idea was basically this (as an example):

Since an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, you could use Divine Smite on it. However, since it does not count as a weapon, you cannot use Sacred Weapon on it.

Wow, let's just make things needlessly confusing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

Well, for myself I have been playing less than a year for 5E, and this is the first time I've explored unarmed strike options... so it is very much news to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

OK, my own assumption was the opposite of the OPs, in that I was already assuming that, since it doesn't say "weapon" anywhere with regards to unarmed strikes even within Martial Arts, that they weren't weapons. I naturally assumed this meant, for example, that combining Monk and Battle Master with an eye to using no weapons wouldn't work (your Battle Master shenanigans only work if you're using a WEAPON).

So, under this, does that mean it actually WOULD work?

No. Melee weapon attack is just the category unarmed strikes fit into, as opposed to melee spell attack, or ranged weapon/spell attack. Note that monsters with attacks like bite, claw, stomp, etc. are also considered melee weapon attacks. Unarmed Strike is just another special melee weapon attack that characters can make without a weapon.

 

[Leatherhead]

OK, my own assumption was the opposite of the OPs, in that I was already assuming that, since it doesn't say "weapon" anywhere with regards to unarmed strikes even within Martial Arts, that they weren't weapons. I naturally assumed this meant, for example, that combining Monk and Battle Master with an eye to using no weapons wouldn't work (your Battle Master shenanigans only work if you're using a WEAPON).

So, under this, does that mean it actually WOULD work?

Here is some Sage Advice:

What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?
It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.

Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, the idea was basically this (as an example):

Since an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, you could use Divine Smite on it. However, since it does not count as a weapon, you cannot use Sacred Weapon on it.

Wow, let's just make things needlessly confusing.

It’s less confusing when you realize a giant rat’s Bite is also a melee weapon attack.

There are precisely four kinds of attack in 5e: melee weapon, ranged weapon, melee spell, and ranged spell. Certain creatures have the ability to make certain melee weapon attacks without actually having a weapon. Unarmed Strike is one such attack.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No. Melee weapon attack is just the category unarmed strikes fit into, as opposed to melee spell attack, or ranged weapon/spell attack. Note that monsters with attacks like bird, claw, stomp, etc. are also considered melee weapon attacks. Unarmed Strike is just another special melee weapon attack that characters can make without a weapon.

And this was what started me down this dark and windy road... I checked on the stat block for monks as opponents:

and for Unarmed Strike is says it is a melee weapon attack, but then the PHB errata seemed to contradict it.

 

[Charlaquin]

And this was what started me down this dark and windy road... I checked on the stat block for monks as opponents:

View attachment 114428

and for Unarmed Strike is says it is a melee weapon attack, but then the PHB errata seemed to contradict it.

No contradiction. It is not a ranged weapon attack, nor a melee or ranged spell attack, so melee weapon attack is the only other option for what kind of attack it can be. But “fist” is not a weapon. So, it is a melee weapon attack made without a weapon, just like a bear’s claw attack is.

 

[Immoralkickass]

It’s less confusing when you realize a giant rat’s Bite is also a melee weapon attack.

There are precisely four kinds of attack in 5e: melee weapon, ranged weapon, melee spell, and ranged spell. Certain creatures have the ability to make certain melee weapon attacks without actually having a weapon. Unarmed Strike is one such attack.

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.

 

[LordEntrails]

I checked on the stat block for monks as opponents:

Don't use NPC/monster stat blocks for determining what PCs can and can not do. NPCs do not use PC rules. NPCs can do what their stat blocks say, they do not have classes and are not PCs.

So, an NPC monk's attack could be anything the stat block says it is (a melee weapon attack or anything else). That means absolutely nothing as far as PC attacks are concerned.

To put it another way, the name of an NPC ability (action or anything else) does not mean it is the same as a PC ability of the same name. You could have 10 different NPCs all with an "unarmed strike" and each and every one of them can be different, and none of them mean that a PC ability of the same name works the same way.

 

[SkidAce]

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!