D&D 5E (2014) PHB Errata Nerf Unarmed Strikes!? WHY??? :(

[Azzy]

Which means it’s a pretty safe assumption that WotC didn’t want them treated as weapons for those purposes.

Which is irrelevent to the desires of some of the people in this thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which is irrelevent to the desires of some of the people in this thread.

And if the thread was presented as “Brainstorming house rules to improve unarmed fighting” or “What if we made unarmed strikes back into weapons” or something, I would have been happy to leave those folks to discuss those matters. But instead, it was presented as a question, “why did WotC nerf unarmed strikes in the errata?” and that’s what I’ve been attempting to answer.

 

[coolAlias]

I would not call body parts weapons though.

Tell that to the police - my fists, feet, elbows, knees, even my head are all licensed as deadly weapons! - Chuck Norris

 

[Arnwolf666]

There’s just different camps of people. I actually want stricter rules on unarmed attacks. I don’t want them being able to damage a lion, elephant, gorilla, or even a chimpanzee.

I actually enjoy reading what different people want in the game out of unarmed fighting.

 

[Azzy]

And if the thread was presented as “Brainstorming house rules to improve unarmed fighting” or “What if we made unarmed strikes back into weapons” or something, I would have been happy to leave those folks to discuss those matters. But instead, it was presented as a question, “why did WotC nerf unarmed strikes in the errata?” and that’s what I’ve been attempting to answer.

True, but I think the thread has evolved beyond that point and now has become two sides are just talking past each other. :/

 

[coolAlias]

There’s just different camps of people. I actually want stricter rules on unarmed attacks. I don’t want them being able to damage a lion, elephant, gorilla, or even a chimpanzee.

I actually enjoy reading what different people want in the game out of unarmed fighting.

In the DMG they provide a few ideas on how to tweak the game to fit a specific theme such as Wu Xia, Epic Heroism, etc.

It would have been cool if they had also introduced different levels of unarmed combat prowess for different themes - from one that would suit your table (perhaps disallow the Monk class?) to one that goes all the way to Dragon Ball Z.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Several people have responded why WotC changed their initial stance on unarmed strikes several years ago, so I am quite content with the reasoning for the change (even if, personally, I don't agree with it).

I think the revision is very limiting in the spirit of the game, imagination, flavor, and fun. While certain issues would arise from having unarmed strikes "weapons" again, I don't think any of those would be insurmountable. All that being said, I also agree unarmed strikes should be limited when facing a foe with a weapon unless the character has more advanced training (monk, tavern brawler, or grappling come to mind).

One of the major advantages the designed gave unarmed strikes in 5E was the fact that no OA is allowed by the target if they wield a weapon (or have natural weaponry in the sense of fangs, claws, etc.). Oddly enough, this is one change I don't like in some respects. It does go against realism. Like Jackie Chan (and my own teacher) said, "if you are facing a person with a knife, run if you can, fight if you must."

In the spirit of more advanced training, I think unarmed strikes by more "normal" people should either be with disadvantage (you are being cautious) or allow the defender an OA if they have a weapon in hand or natural weapon (other than their own unarmed strike). A simple trade-off would be if someone has advanced training, their unarmed strikes are considered weapons in all respects, and therefore can attack normally and do not provoke an OA. If you think in terms of getting advanced training, it will likely cost you a feat or maybe add a fighting style (as suggested by Salthorae) or taking levels in monk.

Personally, I think the cost would be worth the benefits and allow the flexibility to make a better brawler character. Also, as I think I mentioned once our table has a LOT of humanoid opponents, with only an occasional "monster". So, I am not as worried about punching a lion or kicking an elephant and hurting them much. I wouldn't expect it.

Then again, the more I play D&D, the less I like characters who are "heroes." For the most part, a 1st level fighter has better than a 50/50 chance to kill a lion... Granted, I am assuming the fighter would have a good AC (say 18 from armor, shield, and a bit of DEX) and is a sword and board type. Still, it seems sort of... oh, wrong?

 

[coolAlias]

Then again, the more I play D&D, the less I like characters who are "heroes." For the most part, a 1st level fighter has better than a 50/50 chance to kill a lion... Granted, I am assuming the fighter would have a good AC (say 18 from armor, shield, and a bit of DEX) and is a sword and board type. Still, it seems sort of... oh, wrong?

While I agree with you that it is fun to at least start out a little less on the heroic end of the spectrum, 50/50 odds are pretty terrible when it's your life on the line - rare is the person that would even consider it let alone actually go out and attempt it.

So in that sense, I'd say D&D modeled armored dude with spear (or sword) and shield vs. lion pretty well, wouldn't you?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I dunno, caestūs, knuckledusters, push daggers, I’d call those all weapons, so I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to call a gauntlet a weapon. I would not call body parts weapons though.

Daggers are a weapon. The others are a grey area.

A gauntlet is clothing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Daggers are a weapon. The others are a grey area.

A gauntlet is clothing.

Knuckledusters are unquestionably weapons. If you don’t agree, try taking one on an airplane and see what happens. A gauntlet is definitely not clothing, at minimum it’s armor. But, when used to punch someone? It’s as much of a weapon as a cestus is. It’s basically a metal cestus. If you want to argue that neither is a weapon, that’d be a stronger argument, but given that the point of a cestus is to increase the harm done by a punch, same as a knuckleduster or a push dagger, I would still disagree.