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

[Yaarel]

It’s still not just flavor. Again, Unarmed Strikes as weapons makes the Dueling fighting style non-functional and makes the dual-wielder Feat always on. It causes various unintended interactions in terms of actual mechanical effect, not just flavor. And again, by the time they caught it, it was too late to change the name of “melee weapon attacks.” I’m sure if WotC could go back and launch 5e again with the benefit of hindsight, the attack types would be like “melee/ranged spell attack” and “melee/ranged martial attack” or something to remove the weirdness of unarmed strikes being “melee weapon attacks” without being weapons. But unarmed strikes being weapons makes the rules function counter to design intent.

When unarmed strike is a weapon, the Dueling Fighting Style works exactly correctly.

If you have a sword ‘in your hand’, and dont ‘wield’ the unarmed strike, then you get the +2 damage bonus to the sword attacks.

Dueling works exactly the way it should, when unarmed strike is a weapon.

 

[Yaarel]

A weapon is any tool used to attack an enemy. That is what a weapon is. If you attack an enemy with anything that is not part of your body you are using a weapon.

By you own definition a punch is not a weapon because if you punch a wall, or a rock, or someone in metal armor it does not do any damage.

A punch can do damage, especially when adding a Strength bonus to it.

Normally, when someone is wearing a helmet, you can still punch the jaw, and so on. Better armor just means more coverage and higher AC to hit. A hit does damage.

 

[Yaarel]

[extra]

 

[Charlaquin]

When unarmed strike is a weapon, the Dueling Fighting Style works exactly correctly.

If you have a sword ‘in your hand’, and dont ‘wield’ the unarmed strike, then you get the +2 damage bonus to the sword attacks.

Dueling works exactly the way it should, when unarmed strike is a weapon.

Are you sure that’s the ruling you want to go with? Cause by that logic there’d be no way to make an unarmed strike as a TWF bonus action (even if they were light or you had the dual-wielder Feat).

 

[DND_Reborn]

By you own definition a punch is not a weapon because if you punch a wall, or a rock, or someone in metal armor it does not do any damage.

Actually, it does 1 + STR mod damage.

Seriously, though, people punch holes in walls (I have done this myself), break rock (also done this), but hitting people in metal armor is something I haven't done yet (though I am sure others have).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Are you sure that’s the ruling you want to go with? Cause by that logic there’d be no way to make an unarmed strike as a TWF bonus action (even if they were light or you had the dual-wielder Feat).

Maybe I am just missing your logic, but how so?

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe I am just missing your logic, but how so?

“When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.”

Either you are “holding” your unarmed strike when you’re not wielding another weapon in the hand, in which case you’re never wielding only one weapon and can never benefit from the Dueling fighting style, or you aren’t, in which case you don’t meet the requirements to make a TWF Attack. Can’t have it both ways.

 

[Azzy]

“When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.”

Either you are “holding” your unarmed strike when you’re not wielding another weapon in the hand, in which case you’re never wielding only one weapon and can never benefit from the Dueling fighting style, or you aren’t, in which case you don’t meet the requirements to make a TWF Attack. Can’t have it both ways.

That'd be easy to reword.

 

[Charlaquin]

That'd be easy to reword.

I mean, yeah. Don’t have Unarmed Strikes be weapons. Easy.

 

[Yaarel]

“When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.”

Either you are “holding” your unarmed strike when you’re not wielding another weapon in the hand, in which case you’re never wielding only one weapon and can never benefit from the Dueling fighting style, or you aren’t, in which case you don’t meet the requirements to make a TWF Attack. Can’t have it both ways.

Yeah, here I agree with you.

Because BOTH of these weapons must be ‘held’ ‘in your hands’, they cannot be unarmed attacks.

On the other hand, heh, two-weapon fighting sucks, and needs rethinking anyway.

Mainly, spending a bonus action is too expensive.

The rewrite can (and should) keep unarmed attacks in mind.

An important fighting style is a sword in the mainhand and grappling with the offhand. This would normally allow various unarmed attacks as well.