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

[Yaarel]

Just a point of clarification: this is not a thing that exists, under any legal system.

The Human Body: A Deadly Weapon?

Learn what's considered to be a deadly weapon and whether a body part fits this description.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Human Body: A Deadly Weapon?

Learn what's considered to be a deadly weapon and whether a body part fits this description.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

But courts in several states like Texas, Ohio, and Kentucky have determined the human body to be a deadly weapon under certain circumstances.

That's a long way short "any legal system".

And those "certain circumstances" boil down to "if your class is Monk".

 

[DammitVictor]

Chuck Norris has to register EVERY PART of his body as a separate lethal weapon.

I was only referring to human law. Plus, Chuck Norris once murdered me with his hyoid bone.

 

[Parmandur]

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).

That's precisely why the game doesn't consider them weapons, though.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Now I'm picturing a Fighter subclass and a new fighting style homebrew idea... one step behind the Monk for unarmed die type.

Fighting Style: Brawling - your unarmed strikes now deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage and can use either strength or dexterity for attack and damage.

Subclass: Brawler

• Spoiler: Brawler Draft 1

  3rd - you gain proficiency in either Acrobatics or Athletics, and your proficiency modifier is doubled for one of these.
  [*]3rd - when you make an Attack you with an Unarmed Strike, you can make another attack with an Unarmed Strike as a bonus action.
  [*]7th - Float like a Butterfly, Sting like a Bee (stolen from Cavalier Warding Maneuver + some):
  

  • At 7th level, you learn to fend off strikes directed at you. If you are hit by an attack, you can roll 1d8 as a reaction. Roll the die, and add the number rolled to the your AC against that attack. If the attack still hits, you have resistance against the attack’s damage.
    
    You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Constitution modifier (minimum of once), and you regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
  • Your Unarmed Strikes ignore Resistance to Bludgeoning damage.

  [*][*]10th - Improved Brawler
  

  • At 10th level, your Unarmed strike damage increases to 1d6, and when you take the Attack action, you can start a grapple as a bonus action if you hit. Your Unarmed Strike damage increases to 1d8 at 18th level.

  [*][*]15th - Precision Striker
  

  • At 15th level your Unarmed Strikes score a critical hit on a 19 or 20.
  • Damage Immunity to Bludgeoning is reduced to Resistance for your Unarmed Strikes

  [*][*]18th - Superior Brawler
  

  • Your Unarmed Strike damage increases to 1d8
  • In combat, you get a special reaction that you can take once on every creature’s turn, except your turn. You can use this special reaction only to make an opportunity attack, and you can’t use it on the same turn that you take your normal reaction. (Stolen from Cavalier again)

  [*]

Actually I kind of like it, except the bypassing of resistance and immunity to Bludgeoning damage.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Just like a rules lawyer to bring a fist to a sword fight.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Arnwolf666]

You are correct, despite the weirdness that follows. But, as in most things "legal" it gets complicated. And, of course, I am discussing 'Murika.

Every state ("jurisdiction") has its own criminal law, and in addition there is federal criminal law that you can be subject to (dual sovereign). As a general rule, there are various statutes (or however your state calls it legislation) that criminalize certain conduct, and that discuss "deadly weapons."

The issue becomes what is a deadly weapon; in a general sense, most states define it as some variation of an object that can cause serious death or injury. This can be anything from a gun (duh) to an axe to a boat (yep) to a rake (sure) to a dog (um, okay) to your fist.

Now, there are jurisdictions that specifically define a deadly weapon as EXTERNAL to the human body.

So, aside from jokes about the inestimable Chuck Norris, what are people talking about when they say that their hands have to be registered as deadly weapons? Well, two things!

1. Pop culture canard. It's an old urban myth, that I have seen traced back to various sources (50s wrestling, pro boxers, GIs in okinawa, etc.). It's repeated in movies and TV shoes on occasion. However, it's not COMPLETELY a canard anymore. See below!!!!

2. Conflating the idea of "registering" (the myth) with the all-too-real charging (sometimes overcharging by prosecutors) under the proper state statute as a "deadly weapon" (aka, can cause serious death or injury); this has happened recently in Texas with an MMA fighter. There's a decent law review article on it here-

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi

It does a good job explaining the differences between various states, and, more importantly, surfaced the first evidence I have ever seen of a place that requires you to register yourself! That's right. GUAM! It's unclear how serious this original effort was, as it was a recent law, it's a $5 fee, and it gives you a nice certificate for, um, framing ... but still.

Yes, you can now get registered to show that "the hands, feet, or other parts of the body are used as weapons[.]" and that you are an "an expert in the art of karate or judo, or any similar physical ar[t] in which the hands and feet are used as weapons[.]" 10 Guam Code Ann. sec. 62100, 62104.

So the unarmed fighter will have different abilities depending on the jurisdiction the fight takes place. Got it. Works for me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

LOL your prerogative of course. You don't consider fangs and claws weapons either then? That's fine

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

Nice counterpoint.

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

Yep, and that works for them. I am not certained with a non-monk brawler and a need for magical weapons via unarmed strikes. If a player wants to play an unarmed combatant, a brawler, wrestler, or martial artist, there should be other options than a monk as the monk class features don't necessarily match the concept. A fighter, barbarian, ranger or rogue could all fill the niche nicely (my earlier comment about the lack of a rogue "thug" as one option).

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

And even in the early printings of 5E if you remember correctly. That was the origin of my OP after all, that between my two copies of the PHB, the errata and revision of unarmed strikes nerfed them.

 

[Arnwolf666]

This is an argument that goes nowhere. You either do as WotC says or you house rule. What the rules should be is up to anyone depending on the game they want to play.