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

[DND_Reborn]

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

What is precisely? Specifying the body-part affected? If so, that is why I said "even if you had to go to the point." I, as a DM, wouldn't have to. I wouldn't care. Story-wise I could describe it however I wanted.

Who's the master?

(Obviously, this would be a monk... but just as easily could be a fighter with magic weapon cast on him. If you know the movie, you know any strike they did "glowed" for the good guy. )

 

[Parmandur]

What is precisely? Specifying the body-part affected? If so, that is why I said "even if you had to go to the point." I, as a DM, wouldn't have to. I wouldn't care. Story-wise I could describe it however I wanted.

Who's the master?
View attachment 114481

(Obviously, this would be a monk... but just as easily could be a fighter with magic weapon cast on him. If you know the movie, you know any strike they did "glowed" for the good guy. )

You do you: but they changed the rule precisely because they wanted to keep the standard narrative expectations clear.

 

[Arnwolf666]

D&D features creatures that cannot be harmed without magical weapons. Without some kind of magical or spiritual way of turning its fists magical such a class would not be viable in a standard D&D game.

Maybe just not build a character around one weapon is the solution.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You do you: but they changed the rule precisely because they wanted to keep the standard narrative expectations clear.

What expectations? Changing unarmed strikes (and other natural weapons) to be considered weapons so they can be affected by any feature or spell that affects manufactured weapons doesn't change a thing. It works fine that way, is far simpler, and allows for much greater game play, narratives, and over all fun.

The "weapon" that is not a "weapon" errata and revision is what is restrictive and for many people confusing.

 

[Salthorae]

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

It’s my way of allowing them to bypass damage resistances without having magical or silver/cold iron/etc fists.

It accomplishes the same thing as saying their punches are magical but actually a little bit worse, because at 15th level they don’t ignore immunity on something like. lycanthrope, it just becomes resistance.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

My PHB does not have unarmed strikes listed as weapons. If it where, I would naturally assume it was an error, since in earlier editions of D&D unarmed strikes are not weapons and therefore are not affected by spells like Magic Weapon.

3rd edition had a category for "natural weapons" to cover claws, horns and fangs etc. these again where not considered actual weapons and therefore not subject to spells like Magic Weapon. They had spells specifically designed for them, like Magic Fang.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I found the easiest thing to do with the current rules including errata is introduce magic items that effect unarmed strikes. This evens the playing field with other martial classes using weapons.

Bloody Knuckles, spiked gauntlets, wrist blades are mundane weapons and can be effected by Magic Weapon etc or are already enchanted. They can be used just like any other weapon and also have a property where their damage dice and other bonuses can be used for unarmed strikes (for monks mostly)

I also have enchanted gloves or hand wraps that can effect unarmed strikes but still aren't weapons.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can understand that point, but I think that ruling on it is a matter of logic that is pretty apparent IMO. The style could have been clarified in the errata if there was any misunderstanding. Here's a stab at rewrites for Dueling that would solve the problems others have brought up.

Dueling (aka Single Weapon Style)
If you make all of your melee weapon attacks with the same weapon during your turn, you gain +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

This one requires you to give a bonus to a present roll based on a future action (or lack of action). The official ruling on Shield Bash pretty clearly establishes that WotC doesn’t like the rules to do that.

Dueling
When you make a melee weapon attack on your turn, you gain +2 bonus to damage with that weapon. Any additional weapon attacks you make on your turn must be with the same weapon, and also have the same +2 bonus to damage.

The second version is a bit wordier, but prevents potential abuse. Also, with these versions it doesn't matter what you have in your hand (empty, shield, torch, another weapon, etc.).

I’d call that a bug, not a feature. It changes the functionality of the style by making it possible to get the +2 damage while wielding a weapon in the off-hand. It also prevents characters with Extra Attack from making an attack with the +2 bonus first, then drawing a second weapon to make their Extra Attack with. It makes Dueling a choice you have to lock yourself into for a turn, instead of something determined on an attack-by-attack basis.

Also, the Dueling fighting style was just one example. My broader point was that considering Unarmed Strikes weapons could have some really weird side-effects, since the writers probably don’t always take that into consideration when writing rules that care about weapons. It’s not that they wanted to nerf Unarmed Strikes to protect the monk’s niche, it’s that they realized Unarmed Strikes being weapons would cause unintended rules weirdness like breaking Dueling.

Here’s another example, if Unarmed Strikes are weapons, characters with the Dual Wielder feat have the +1 AC for wielding two weapons on at all times.

 

[Salthorae]

Just a point of clarification: this is not a thing that exists, under any legal system. There are some governments that don't allow you to train in unarned combat if you have a criminal record, but there's nowhere on Earth where a person has to register their unarmed killing skills.

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

Just a point of clarification, it IS a thing that exists, as pointed out by @Yaarel and @lowkey13 in their posts, to have unarmed strikes count as deadly weapons in crimes in modern legal systems, at least the US and territories. I never said anything about having to register any skills...so I'm not sure why you brought that into the conversation?

It is amusing to me that you can do so in Guam, so thanks for that Lowkey13!

My point was, whatever the modern conception of highly trained unarmed combatants from a legal standpoint. unarmed strikes are not weapons. My point there was also in juxtaposition to a highly-skilled martial artist (Jackie Chan) saying that if you don't have a knife and the other person does, you're better off running.

How much more then if you're the only one in a sword fight without a sword or other weapon?

 

[Arnwolf666]

Why train people to use swords and expensive equipment if fists are just as deadly.