Unarmed Strike discussions - again. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Citan

2015-06-11, 11:05 AM

Hi everyone !

Among other threads that caught my attention on this forum was this one discussing on a potential (or not) applicability of Sneak Attack to Unarmed Strike (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389479-Unarmed-Strike-Question&p=18585683#post18585683) (for a Monk/Rogue).

I initially planned to reply to it but it seems would be considered thread necromancy, so... New topic!

Sorry to unearth a months-old debate, but after reading the initial discussion I wanted to add my 2-cents.

Especially considering I'm gonna master my first DD5 campaign, and I have a hunch that one of my players is gonna want this kind of Monk/Rogue combo.

---------------

Ah, well, maybe the worst timing in my life...
Just saw the publication of rules errata (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?420680-player-handbook-errata-released) like, 5mn after posting this.

"Unarmed Strikes don't belong to Weapon table".
Well, this effectively washes away all hereunder questions, at least per official rules (I find it extremely limiting for many characters concepts I had though :/).

I guess no point in this thread anymore...:smallfrown:

-----------------

Sneak Attack with Unarmed Strike?
So... To sum things up, people were considering the "ruleability" of using Sneak attack with unarmed strike as a multiclass Rogue/Monk.

I really understand the points given on each side...
+ There is, from a "reality" point of view, no real reason why a kung-fu specialist couldn't use his body to deal damaging, "nearly piercing" attack. After all, while the Naruto manga emphasizes this very much, "internal" (disrupting organs) and "external" (breaking/cutting things) BOTH exist in real life.
+ The DEX as commont denominator between Monk, Rogue and all finesse weapons strongly suggest synergy.
+ It could make a perfectly justifiable build and bring an interesting multiclass.
- Be it good or bad, the official ruling gives very much place to doubt (and it has been discussed already) : unarmed =/= finesse hence no Sneak Attack "by the rules".
- As I see it, the description and skills on Monk tend to lean strongly towards real-like "internal" style, while piercing Sneak Attack would lean towards the external.

SO, what I would suggest would be a special Feat, that would require at least one (or maybe all three) requirements among...
- Having at least 6 levels in both classes (imo the most natural).
- Having STR AND DEX over 15.
- Having taken Assassin subclass.
Showing the dedication of the character to this mastery form, being more natural fluff-wise, and preventing players from being overpowered at low levels.

I'd also set some limits to the use of Sneak Attack...
1. Inability to use ki point on the same attack (since they are "internal" techniques and you're currently keen on "external" technique).
2. Disadvantage on attack roll if metally-armored enemy (like, "it wouldn't work on plate so I have to aim the head").

While I don't like bringing the 4eish system of feat (multiples, heavy requirement) I feel this could be a balanced solution.
What do you think?

Bonus questions about RAW
1. Could you confirm that "Unarmed Strike" is considered a melee weapon attack?
2. Could you confirm that, while the Monk CAN use DEX instead of STR, he may choose whichever as he likes for any monk attack (normal, Flurry of Blows)?

Thank you for reading (and maybe answering :)).

ruy343

2015-06-12, 10:41 AM

The section on Martial Arts under the monk class description answers question 2 (all monk weapons and unarmed strikes count as finesse weapons, but that doesn't preclude them from using strength).

To answer question 1: there's a way around this so that we don't even need to answer the question (although rule 0: it's obvious that it should count for a sneak attack). However, a monk can use a weapon for their first attack (such as a short sword) because it's a monk weapon. Therefore, you can avoid the whole problem by just landing that first attack (and you only get sneak attack damage on one attack/turn anyways).

I bet that the "unarmed strikes aren't weapons, but still are melee weapon attacks" thing will be cleared up in the latest printing of the PHB. Haven't seen it yet, so I don't know.

Arial Black

2015-06-12, 10:49 AM

According to both the pre- and post-errata rules, the monk weapons are definitely not finesse weapons! They can use either Dex or Str, and finesse weapons can also use either Dex or Str, but that does not mean that monk weapons are finesse weapons, even when being used by a monk.

This is a deliberate design choice.

Since Sneak Attacks must be done with either ranged weapons or finesse weapons, the monks weapons didn't qualify before the errata and still don't qualify now.

SharkForce

2015-06-12, 12:13 PM

short swords and daggers are definitely still finesse weapons, however, and are also monk weapons. at level 5, you get a second attack, and it also is not limited to being an unarmed strike. that is twice as many chances to land sneak attack as a single-classed rogue gets, so not bad at all imo.

Citan

2015-06-19, 04:56 AM

Thanks for your replies.

I really wanted to allow a "fist-only" Rogue/Monk though, hence the proposition of a high "multiclass-level" special feature. :)

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-19, 05:01 AM

Just going to point out, that I as a DM would Absolutely allow a multiclass Monk / Rogue in my campaign to have sneak attacks apply to his unarmed strikes. So sure, absolutely, RAW that does not work. But as with all things, talk with your DM, they are the final arbitrator of the universe regardless of RAW, and that is not such an unreasonable or overpowered thing.

MrStabby

2015-06-19, 05:52 AM

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-19, 10:29 AM

I think that allowing this maybe should depend on how generous you are being on other rogue/monk abilities - mainly thins like hiding. If hiding in combat is hard and if you go by a strict definition of what it means to be hidden then you can loosen up on the unarmed strikes thing.

Just don't ever allow monks to use quarterstaves as finesse weapons. I played a fighter monk rogue in our first 5th ed game and the DM allowed this... With fighting style and polearm mastery I was often able to get two sneak attacks per round with damage boost from the fighting style and an extra bonus action attack. In the end I had to retire the character as it was kind of ruining the game.

But that's just the thing- in 5E, Sneak Attack is explicitly "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll". Since they can only get it once per round, you're just giving them 4 chances per round to obtain that extra damage, instead of a max of 3 were they to do something like you described or TWF. The number of situations where 3 attacks are all going to miss is rare, so the balance impact is not very large.

MrStabby

2015-06-19, 11:13 AM

But that's just the thing- in 5E, Sneak Attack is explicitly "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll". Since they can only get it once per round, you're just giving them 4 chances per round to obtain that extra damage, instead of a max of 3 were they to do something like you described or TWF. The number of situations where 3 attacks are all going to miss is rare, so the balance impact is not very large.

The benefits of the quarterstaff are really not about what happens on your turn from extra attacks (although the bonus attack is nice for reliability). The big thing is reaction attacks that can come pretty easily. The other thing is that fighting style (great weapon fighting) letting you reroll bad damage dice is pretty huge when so much of your damage is coming from dice not from static modifiers.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-19, 11:48 AM

The benefits of the quarterstaff are really not about what happens on your turn from extra attacks (although the bonus attack is nice for reliability). The big thing is reaction attacks that can come pretty easily. The other thing is that fighting style (great weapon fighting) letting you reroll bad damage dice is pretty huge when so much of your damage is coming from dice not from static modifiers.

Agreed. Note however that whether you define a turn globally (from the top to the bottom of the initiative order) or individually (from the start of a creature's turn to the start of their next turn), reaction attacks from a Rogue are still part of the same turn, and can only be sneak attacks if they haven't already gotten one this turn.

Easy_Lee

2015-06-19, 11:55 AM

MrStabby

2015-06-19, 12:07 PM

I've found that the polearm mastery bit is only a major benefit for rogues in certain situations. The rogue has to have not used his reaction, must have a creature approach, must have advantage or an ally within 5' of the creature exactly when it approaches, and has to land the attack. In those kinds of situations, a normal rogue can often accomplish near the same by merely holding an action to attack a mob who comes within range, since the rogue likely had no way to qualify for SA at range if an ally was not already in range of the opponent anyway.

The actual number of extra SAs potentially granted by PM is no where near as high as some believe. It's definitely less than a 10% increase in damage for the rogue, in my experience.

It may have just been our DM or party but it was certainly getting problematic. The routine was pretty close to:

1) Run forward and hit something
2) Disengage as a bonus action (unless target dead)
3) Pull back next to a caster or other vulnerable person (possibly hiding if appropriate)
4) Either you have done damage and protected the caster or you have done double damage

There were usually enough summoned creatures/PCs around the place to ensure these attacks could be sneak attacks - and where there were not summoned creatures it was usually because the encounter didn't warrant spell slots being wasted.

Easy_Lee

2015-06-19, 12:23 PM

1) Run forward and hit something
2) Disengage as a bonus action (unless target dead)
3) Pull back next to a caster or other vulnerable person (possibly hiding if appropriate)
4) Either you have done damage and protected the caster or you have done double damage.

Approaching from the rogue's side, or from such an angle that the creature either enters the rogue's reach while not adjacent to one of the rogue's allies or does not enter the rogue's reach at all, prevents SA on the reaction attack. Since doing otherwise would be comparable to charging a phalanx on a battlefield, it does not seem unreasonable to me that creatures would figure this out.

MrStabby

2015-06-19, 12:38 PM

Approaching from the rogue's side, or from such an angle that the creature either enters the rogue's reach while not adjacent to one of the rogue's allies or does not enter the rogue's reach at all, prevents SA on the reaction attack. Since doing otherwise would be comparable to charging a phalanx on a battlefield, it does not seem unreasonable to me that creatures would figure this out.

This is true, but also not always possible. On a crowded battlefield weaving your way through combatants to get to the chosen flank of your opponent is often a way to take a lot of opportunity attacks. Sometimes this may be the correct course of action but if I caused an enemy to take two opportunity attacks to do this (and i can still use my reaction to make a normal (as in not sneak) attack I would be happy.

I think I need to stress that whilst I think your estimate of damage output increase is low at +10% I don't think it outrageous (I would guess somewhere between 15% and 25% myself). My comment is about the whole package - an increase of 2/3 damage per sneak attack die per attack, from great weapon fighting (plus you get its bonuses on your staff anyway), the ability to use polearm mastery on your weapon (even if you never get to make extra sneak attacks you are still able to use one of the best feats in the game where normally if you did you would get zero sneak attacks). All of this might not even be so bad if it was on a class like the champion built for combat/damage and not much else but on something like a rogue that has a huge amount of out of combat utility, fantastic movement and some great other combat abilities it can kind of suck a bit of the fun out of the game where other people cannot find an area to excel.

Easy_Lee

2015-06-19, 12:48 PM

This is true, but also not always possible. On a crowded battlefield weaving your way through combatants to get to the chosen flank of your opponent is often a way to take a lot of opportunity attacks. Sometimes this may be the correct course of action but if I caused an enemy to take two opportunity attacks to do this (and i can still use my reaction to make a normal (as in not sneak) attack I would be happy.

I think I need to stress that whilst I think your estimate of damage output increase is low at +10% I don't think it outrageous (I would guess somewhere between 15% and 25% myself). My comment is about the whole package - an increase of 2/3 damage per sneak attack die per attack, from great weapon fighting (plus you get its bonuses on your staff anyway), the ability to use polearm mastery on your weapon (even if you never get to make extra sneak attacks you are still able to use one of the best feats in the game where normally if you did you would get zero sneak attacks). All of this might not even be so bad if it was on a class like the champion built for combat/damage and not much else but on something like a rogue that has a huge amount of out of combat utility, fantastic movement and some great other combat abilities it can kind of suck a bit of the fun out of the game where other people cannot find an area to excel.

I'd say the bonuses are quite comparable to sharpshooter plus crossbow expert, particularly since that combination solves all range problems that the rogue might ever face and is also usable with skulker. To me, the trouble is not that these combinations exist, but that they only work for two specific weapon types. A form of crossbow expert which works with all ranged weapons and the same for polearm mastery and melee weapons would be a reasonable houserule to fix that imbalance.

SharkForce

2015-06-19, 02:45 PM

just stepping in to clarify something important.

from what i can tell, some people think that a turn and a round are the same thing. they are not. a turn starts when one person begins taking actions, and ends when they finish. that is a turn. a round is everyone doing that.

so sneak attack 1/turn means that the rogue can sneak attack once on their turn, and on someone else's turn provided they are given the opportunity to do so (opportunity attack, battlemaster maneuvers, feats, etc). the two do not interfere with each other.

Nod_Hero

2015-06-19, 02:49 PM

Agreed. Note however that whether you define a turn globally (from the top to the bottom of the initiative order) or individually (from the start of a creature's turn to the start of their next turn), reaction attacks from a Rogue are still part of the same turn, and can only be sneak attacks if they haven't already gotten one this turn.

I could be reading it wrong but I think you're implying that a round and a turn are the same thing, which they aren't.

EDIT: Sharkforce beat me to it. For clarification, read "The Order of Combat" section on page 189 of the Player's Handbook.

CNagy

2015-06-19, 02:53 PM

Agreed. Note however that whether you define a turn globally (from the top to the bottom of the initiative order) or individually (from the start of a creature's turn to the start of their next turn), reaction attacks from a Rogue are still part of the same turn, and can only be sneak attacks if they haven't already gotten one this turn.

A turn is an individual's place in the initiative order. A round is everyone acting in the order. You can only sneak attack once a turn, but you can sneak attack multiple times a round if the opportunity presents itself. Currently, the maximum seems to be 3: one your turn, on your second turn in the first round (for thief)/second action delayed (multiclass fighters with action surge), and as an attack made in reaction to some trigger on another person's turn.

Edit: ninja tag-team'd.

burninatortrog

2015-06-19, 03:10 PM

1. Could you confirm that "Unarmed Strike" is considered a melee weapon attack?

Yes. There are only two kinds of melee attack: melee weapon attack and melee spell attack.

2. Could you confirm that, while the Monk CAN use DEX instead of STR, he may choose whichever as he likes for any monk attack (normal, Flurry of Blows)?

Yes. Any character can use Strength for attack and damage rolls with any melee weapon or unarmed strike.

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-19, 04:26 PM

Yes. There are only two kinds of melee attack: melee weapon attack and melee spell attack.

No.

Unarmed strikes are not counted as weapons.

From Errata

Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows: “Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”

CNagy

2015-06-19, 06:46 PM

No.

Unarmed strikes are not counted as weapons.

From Errata

Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows: “Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”

They are not counted as weapons; they are still making a melee weapon attack. The slightly redundant construction of that errata would read "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack." This is so that unarmed strikes can still trigger effects that happen in response to melee weapon attacks (feats and abilities) but since they are not actual weapons, you can't enchant your hands nor will you find +3 Severed Fists of Defending or a Vorpal Leg in a treasure hoard.

All melee attacks are either melee weapon or melee spell. All ranged attacks are either ranged weapon or ranged spell. These are just categories.

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-19, 07:56 PM

They are not counted as weapons; they are still making a melee weapon attack. The slightly redundant construction of that errata would read "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack." This is so that unarmed strikes can still trigger effects that happen in response to melee weapon attacks (feats and abilities) but since they are not actual weapons, you can't enchant your hands nor will you find +3 Severed Fists of Defending or a Vorpal Leg in a treasure hoard.

All melee attacks are either melee weapon or melee spell. All ranged attacks are either ranged weapon or ranged spell. These are just categories.

No. You are making a melee attack not a melee weapon attack.

Unarmed strikes are not weapons and thus you can not make a melee weapon attack. It would be like saying that even though my sword is a sword I'm going to make a melee spell attack with it.

Elbeyon

2015-06-19, 08:14 PM

No. You are making a melee attack not a melee weapon attack.

Unarmed strikes are not weapons and thus you can not make a melee weapon attack. It would be like saying that even though my sword is a sword I'm going to make a melee spell attack with it.Just fyi CNagy is correct. Take a gander through the MM. Every physical, non-ranged & non-spell attack is labeled a melee weapon attack. All non-spell melee attacks are melee weapon attacks no matter the physical source.

For example:

Unarmed Strike (Vampire Form Only). Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 8 (1d8 + 4) bludgeoning damage. In stead of dealing damage, the vampire can grapple the target (escape DC 18).

Unarmed Strike. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft. ,one target. Hit: 6 (1d8 + 2) bludgeoning damage plus 9 (2d8) psychic damage. This is a magic weapon attack.

Unarmed Strike. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 4 (ld4 + 2) bludgeoning damage.

Touch. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (2d6) fire damage. If the target is a creature or a flammable object, it ignites. Until a creature takes an action to douse the fire, the creature takes 3 (1d6) fire damage at the end of each of its turns.

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-19, 08:32 PM

Just fyi CNagy is correct. Take a gander through the MM. Every physical, non-ranged & non-spell attack is labeled a melee weapon attack. All non-spell melee attacks are melee weapon attacks no matter the physical source.

For example:

Before the errata the unarmed strike was a weapon.

It is no longer a weapon.

So all those monsters (that were made pre-errata) that have an unarmed strike as a weapon attack was correct before the errata. Now unarmed strikes are not weapons.

You can only make a weapon attack with a weapon.

I think it is stupid and I think that unarmed strikes should be a simple light (finessable) weapon but I didn't make the rules for the game. I would love to see a legal character pull off a neck chop sneak attack, i really would. But unless I DM or play a non-AL/Fun friendly DM... It won't happen.

Edit Below

With the logic presented against me, I should be able to say I'm making a Melee Spell Attack with my sword. I then automatically become proficient with the sword (since you are proficient with all spells and this is a melee spell attack). I then roll 1d20 + Int + Prof Bonus versus the target's AC. On a hit I'll deal 2d6 + Int damage. This attack also ignores non-magical resistance and immunity because it is a melee spell attack and thus magical.

I'm a wizard with a greatsword, hear me roar. I don't even have proficiency with the greatsword but because it is a spell attack... I magically get the proficiency.

Elbeyon

2015-06-19, 08:38 PM

Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows: “Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”"Instead of using a weapon, you can use an unarmed strike" I don't see the issue at all. It's clarifying that unarmed isn't a weapon. That doesn't change the fact that it is a melee weapon attack.

Edit: For those of you that care about twitter. Link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/608792317227466752)
Jeremy Crawford, "You can make a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike, so a monk can use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike."

CNagy

2015-06-19, 09:26 PM

With the logic presented against me, I should be able to say I'm making a Melee Spell Attack with my sword. I then automatically become proficient with the sword (since you are proficient with all spells and this is a melee spell attack). I then roll 1d20 + Int + Prof Bonus versus the target's AC. On a hit I'll deal 2d6 + Int damage. This attack also ignores non-magical resistance and immunity because it is a melee spell attack and thus magical.

I'm a wizard with a greatsword, hear me roar. I don't even have proficiency with the greatsword but because it is a spell attack... I magically get the proficiency.

You don't get to declare that you can do something; you can do whatever your collection of class features, feats, abilities, ect, tell you that you can do. You have nothing telling you that you can swing your greatsword as a melee spell attack, so you cannot. In contrast, Flame Blade tells you that you can use your action to make a melee spell attack with it, so you can make a melee spell attack with it.

Arial Black

2015-06-19, 10:29 PM

There seems to be some discussion about using the Polearm Master feat to get Sneak Attacks. No-one seems to have picked up that Sneak Attacks can only be made with finesse weapons or ranged weapons, and none of the weapons useable with this feat are able to make Sneak Attacks for this reason.

MrStabby

2015-06-19, 10:34 PM

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-19, 11:31 PM

"Instead of using a weapon, you can use an unarmed strike" I don't see the issue at all. It's clarifying that unarmed isn't a weapon. That doesn't change the fact that it is a melee weapon attack.

Edit: For those of you that care about twitter. Link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/608792317227466752)
Jeremy Crawford, "You can make a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike, so a monk can use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike."

So an unofficial errata of an errata?

5e is on a good path.

coredump

2015-06-20, 12:51 AM

So an unofficial errata of an errata?

5e is on a good path.
No. It is in the errata, just that no one seems to bother with the 3rd column, where it is clearly stated.

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-20, 01:03 AM

No. It is in the errata, just that no one seems to bother with the 3rd column, where it is clearly stated.
Not clear at all, it took an unofficial errata to fix the errata which is pretty idiotic to begin with.

There was no need to make unarmed strikes as not weapons. Though with the new tweet a lot of the issues go away as you can use your spells on unarmed strikes again.

But what we get now is that unarmed strikes are weapons but are not weapons at the same time. Even jeremy crawford says that unarmed strikes aren't weapons. Schrodinger's Unarmed Strikes is what we have.

They need to get their ducks in a row and presumably stop listening to SKR. I find it funny that as soon as SKR came on board we start getting Monk problems :smallannoyed:. Lore/Fluff consultant my butt.

SharkForce

2015-06-20, 01:04 AM

No. It is in the errata, just that no one seems to bother with the 3rd column, where it is clearly stated.

it is unclear though. it says you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon to perform a melee weapon attack or something like that.

if you read it as "you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon to perform a melee weapon attack", then it says you're making a melee weapon attack. if you read it as "you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon to perform a melee weapon attack", then it has created a new type of attack.

CNagy

2015-06-20, 06:07 AM

it is unclear though. it says you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon to perform a melee weapon attack or something like that.

if you read it as "you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon to perform a melee weapon attack", then it says you're making a melee weapon attack. if you read it as "you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon to perform a melee weapon attack", then it has created a new type of attack.

For it to create a new type of attack, it would have to specifically name that new type. To argue otherwise would be to hold the position that the errata decided to create new rules that it then also forgot to tell anyone about them.

"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use unarmed strike."
"To do what?"
"To make a melee weapon attack."

Nowhere in the errata are the words "unarmed attack" used, so deciding that is what it does is deciding that unarmed strike literally now doesn't work with anything, because everything is keyed off of the terms weapon attack and spell attack--including proficiency bonus, ability bonus to attack, who knows how many feats and class abilities.

Thing is I can see how someone might read the wording of the errata that way, but then you come to a point where you decide that the errata either means "A," where it fixes a problem while not creating others, or "B," where it up-ends part of the system entirely and makes an entire form of combat unusable. Even if the wording of the errata made both "A" and "B" equally possible, which one is rationally probable?

SharkForce

2015-06-20, 09:34 AM

the new attack type would be an unarmed strike. the rules for which are listed later in that paragraph, as i recall.

i agree with your reading. but i can also see how someone would misunderstand it.

Lolzyking

2015-06-20, 09:51 AM

unarmed strike caps at 1d10, at level 17, at level 16 or lower the best the monk is getting a 1d8, the same as a rapier, except as blunt damage, but otherwise no difference.

so ideally you'd want atleast 11 monk for the 1d8.

so at best you get 9 levels of rogue for a 5d6

and a 9 rogue 11 monk only gets 4 asi

a 8 rogue 12 monk gets 5 but a 4d6 sneak attack.

At best their damage per round is 4d8+5d6+20+magicitems, median damage is 51 per round (that uses flurry of blows) and 24 damage per reaction

A fighter rogue that goes 11 fighter 9 rogue gets more abilit scores, and can get 4 attacks per round while dual wielding without spending resources, and can do 7 attacks per round with action surge.

clearly the fighter rogue is deadlier, and their damage is more sustained, if they are battle master their damage is even better.

btw before someone gives me the RAW arguement, I look at number balance before bipolar devs that you only need to word your question right to get the answer you want.

also reality check, can you be sneaky and precise with a hit in a unarmed fight ? yes you can, such as hitting a pressure point, getting a suprise gut punch, snapping someones neck.

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-20, 11:33 AM

also reality check, can you be sneaky and precise with a hit in a unarmed fight ? yes you can, such as hitting a pressure point, getting a suprise gut punch, snapping someones neck.

The designers do not take "reality" into effect when they make their rules. Well sometimes they do but often they ignore it in favor of a warped sense of balance that isn't balance.

coredump

2015-06-20, 01:36 PM

Not clear at all, it took an unofficial errata to fix the errata which is pretty idiotic to begin with.
Not at all. The 'unofficial' errata was just repeated the part of the actual errata that people kept overlooking.

There was no need to make unarmed strikes as not weapons. Though with the new tweet a lot of the issues go away as you can use your spells on unarmed strikes again. The tweet had nothing to do with it. Those issues never existed for folks that read the entire errata instead of just one part....

But what we get now is that unarmed strikes are weapons but are not weapons at the same time. Even jeremy crawford says that unarmed strikes aren't weapons. Schrodinger's Unarmed Strikes is what we have. That is all in your mind. Unarmed strikes are not weapons. When performing an melee weapon attack, you may use an UAS instead of a weapon. This isn't rocket science, it is a simple allowed substitution. They happen in life all the time with no confusion.

They need to get their ducks in a row and presumably stop listening to SKR. I find it funny that as soon as SKR came on board we start getting Monk problems :smallannoyed:. Lore/Fluff consultant my butt.I can't find any 'monk problems' from the errata, except the ones people are trying to create....

it is unclear though. it says you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon to perform a melee weapon attack or something like that.

if you read it as "you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon to perform a melee weapon attack", then it says you're making a melee weapon attack. if you read it as "you can use an unarmed strike instead of using a weapon to perform a melee weapon attack", then it has created a new type of attack.

Yes, if you insist on remembering bases on "something like that" and misquotes, it can get confusing. That is why I always recommend judging the errata on what is actually written, not anything based on "or something like that"

Whenever you are making a Melee Weapon Attack, you normally use a weapon; instead you may use an UAS. Not sure how this is an issue..... You are still making a MWA, and UAS is still not a weapon.

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-20, 02:52 PM

Not at all. The 'unofficial' errata was just repeated the part of the actual errata that people kept overlooking.

The tweet had nothing to do with it. Those issues never existed for folks that read the entire errata instead of just one part....

That is all in your mind. Unarmed strikes are not weapons. When performing an melee weapon attack, you may use an UAS instead of a weapon. This isn't rocket science, it is a simple allowed substitution. They happen in life all the time with no confusion.

I can't find any 'monk problems' from the errata, except the ones people are trying to create....

Yes, if you insist on remembering bases on "something like that" and misquotes, it can get confusing. That is why I always recommend judging the errata on what is actually written, not anything based on "or something like that"

Whenever you are making a Melee Weapon Attack, you normally use a weapon; instead you may use an UAS. Not sure how this is an issue..... You are still making a MWA, and UAS is still not a weapon.

Read the errata and then read the tweet.

The reason for the tweet was because, due to the errata, monk's could not use stunning strike with their unarmed attacks since they were not weapons anymore.

People complained and JC sent out a tweet "clarifying" the rules.

Of course now we get wizards who are proficient with their unarmed strikes and are just as good at using them as any other non-monk class.

I might make a sorcerer or wizard based around unarmed strikes just for the lolz.

Elbeyon

2015-06-20, 02:58 PM

You're going to have to clarify that for me. How does being able to use something that isn't a weapon in a melee weapon attack change anything at all? How does that give wizards proficiency?

CNagy

2015-06-20, 03:08 PM

You're going to have to clarify that for me. How does being able to use something that isn't a weapon in a melee weapon attack change anything at all? How does that give wizards proficiency?

Everyone has unarmed proficiency per the errata. It doesn't change anything, except to remove unarmed strike from a table where it should not have been listed. These aren't new mechanics--we already had improvised weapons as objects that are specifically not weapons being used to make weapon attacks.

Elbeyon

2015-06-20, 03:10 PM

Oh, right. My bad. >.> I blame it on excuses. Carry on.

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-20, 03:33 PM

Everyone has unarmed proficiency per the errata. It doesn't change anything, except to remove unarmed strike from a table where it should not have been listed. These aren't new mechanics--we already had improvised weapons as objects that are specifically not weapons being used to make weapon attacks.

You completely missed the issue with the errata.

Because they are not weapons, anything that requires a weapon (including melee weapon attack until the tweet) doesn't work with unarmed strikes.

The spell "magic weapon" stopped (and even post tweet still doesn't work with unarmed strikes) working with unarmed strikes because they are no longer weapons.

You are viewing all this in a single instance instead of seeing how the errata messed with the game in broad terms.

Until the unofficial errata of the errata (JC tweet) unarmed strikes were not counted as weapon and you couldn't make a weapon attack with them. You could make a melee attack with them, but they still weren't weapons.

Arial Black

2015-06-20, 03:43 PM

CNagy

2015-06-20, 04:02 PM

You completely missed the issue with the errata.

Because they are not weapons, anything that requires a weapon (including melee weapon attack until the tweet) doesn't work with unarmed strikes.

The spell "magic weapon" stopped (and even post tweet still doesn't work with unarmed strikes) working with unarmed strikes because they are no longer weapons.

You are viewing all this in a single instance instead of seeing how the errata messed with the game in broad terms.

Until the unofficial errata of the errata (JC tweet) unarmed strikes were not counted as weapon and you couldn't make a weapon attack with them. You could make a melee attack with them, but they still weren't weapons.

I missed it because it is a non-issue. As noted above, you never needed a weapon to make a melee weapon attack (see improvised weapons). Melee weapon attack is a category. There are only 4 defined attack types in the game: melee weapon attack, melee spell attack, ranged weapon attack, and ranged spell attack.

The errata itself was technically clear enough. Instead is a word used for substitution. Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike. Unarmed strike is substituting in for weapon. To do what? To make a melee weapon attack. That was done specifically so that it didn't screw up all the relationships that various class features and feats have with melee weapon attacks as it pertained to unarmed strike.

coredump

2015-06-20, 07:12 PM

Read the errata and then read the tweet.

The reason for the tweet was because, due to the errata, monk's could not use stunning strike with their unarmed attacks since they were not weapons anymore.

People complained and JC sent out a tweet "clarifying" the rules. Dude....take a minute. Stop writing non-sensical posts, and go actually read the actual errata. Hint: go to the third column under Combat. All JC was doing by 'clarifying' was repeating what was already in the errata. So do yourself a favor and go read it before you keep claiming things so obviously wrong.

Monk: Stunning Strike can be made with any Melee Weapon Attack
Errata: You can use Unarmed Strike instead of a weapon for any Melee Weapon Attack.

See.... your claims are baseless.

Of course now we get wizards who are proficient with their unarmed strikes and are just as good at using them as any other non-monk class.
.And the problem with that is...???

You completely missed the issue with the errata.

Because they are not weapons, anything that requires a weapon (including melee weapon attack until the tweet) doesn't work with unarmed strikes.

Until the unofficial errata of the errata (JC tweet) unarmed strikes were not counted as weapon and you couldn't make a weapon attack with them. You could make a melee attack with them, but they still weren't weapons.
Remember 26 hours ago, when I suggested you take some time and actually read the entire Errata...??? Let me guess, you never bothered to read it....
UAS are usable with a MWA in the errata.....

Xetheral

2015-06-21, 01:24 AM

Nowhere in the errata are the words "unarmed attack" used, so deciding that is what it does is deciding that unarmed strike literally now doesn't work with anything, because everything is keyed off of the terms weapon attack and spell attack--including proficiency bonus, ability bonus to attack, who knows how many feats and class abilities.

Important nitpick: prof bonus doesn't depend on making a weapon attack, it depends on "making an attack with a weapon". See PHB 194.

As noted above, you never needed a weapon to make a melee weapon attack (see improvised weapons).

It's worth noting that your opinion on this matter is not universally agreed upon. As you know, I believe improvised weapons always were (and still are) weapons (by RAW, RAI, RACS, and plain english).

Elbeyon

2015-06-21, 01:54 AM

The errata literally says that you can use unarmed to make melee weapon attacks.

Despite that explicit fact your saying that only a weapon can make a melee weapon attack? You are saying a melee weapon attack can include weapons like a rug, a constrict, sitting on someone, fists, a tongue, beards, stepping on someone, touching someone, literal poison, inflicting them with negative energy, rot, melting people inside your body, falling on someone, ramming into someone, sucking someone's strength out, draining the life out of something, and countless natural attacks. Those are all weapons, right? A weapon can be an action? Or, else they couldn't be used in a melee weapon attack, right?

CNagy

2015-06-21, 02:41 AM

Important nitpick: prof bonus doesn't depend on making a weapon attack, it depends on "making an attack with a weapon". See PHB 194.

That is a good nitpick. That passage should be errata'd in order to keep with the fact that all characters have proficiency in unarmed strike. The wording of the errata could cover it since the errata allows you to substitute unarmed strike for a weapon when making weapon attacks, and "attack using a weapon" can only be a weapon attack. But it isn't absolutely clear.

It's worth noting that your opinion on this matter is not universally agreed upon. As you know, I believe improvised weapons always were (and still are) weapons (by RAW, RAI, RACS, and plain english).

Noted, but if we relied on universal agreement then no one would ever play anything. You are, as it regards the mechanics of the rules, wrong in your belief. A goblin corpse is not a weapon, and using it to make an attack does not turn it into a weapon in the game mechanics sense, even if it does in the legal and narrative senses.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-21, 03:18 AM

Noted, but if we relied on universal agreement then no one would ever play anything. You are, as it regards the mechanics of the rules, wrong in your belief. A goblin corpse is not a weapon, and using it to make an attack does not turn it into a weapon in the game mechanics sense, even if it does in the legal and narrative senses.

I find no support for your statement in the rules. In what way is an improvised weapon not a weapon? Where do you even get that conception? I've reread the section on weapons three times now, and can't find even a single sentence that supports that stance, other than "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such" and arguing that it's saying since they're similar to, they are Not "actual weapons", but that would only come if you were ignoring the next sentence providing context, "For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it w ere that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus." It's not saying that esoterically, improvised weapons are similar to actual weapons, it's saying that a mop is similar to a quarterstaff, a shard of glass with a rag wrapped around it similar to a dagger. Specific objects represent weapons off the weapon list.

It should also be noted that at no point does it say that the weapons on the table are the entirety of weapons in the world, rather, "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D", you also can't argue that they aren't weapons because they don't fall into simple or martial categories, as "Your race, class, and feats can grant you proficiency with certain weapons or categories of weapons. The two categories are simple and martial." Which is not to say that other categories of weapons don't exist, merely that no other categories of weapons are granted proficiency through race, class, or feats. Weapons like the Ice Devil's Spear, for example, the character can never be proficient in, as it is neither a simple nor martial weapon. In the same way that not being simple or martial does not preclude the Ice Devil's spear from being, in fact, a weapon, Improvised weapons could not be precluded on that basis.

So, since they're directly named weapons, they're listed in the weapons section, they refer to them being wielded, they discuss subclasses of that weapon category (improvised thrown weapons), and the rules in no way preclude them from being weapons, please justify your rather bold assertion that he is entirely wrong in his reading of the rules.

charcoalninja

2015-06-21, 08:51 AM

The designers do not take "reality" into effect when they make their rules. Well sometimes they do but often they ignore it in favor of a warped sense of balance that isn't balance.

Monk weapons and martial arts are literally designed as: use shortswords or simple weapons to stat whatever the heck you want. So a player saying "my crane unarmed fighting style is like shortswords" is completely RAW legal and thus sneak attacking with any monk weapon is 100% okay so long as you use the stats for the weapon. So quarterstaff stats no, but if you punch like a shortsword yeah. Doesn't matter if unarmed strikes are weapons or not because monk is special.

CNagy

2015-06-21, 09:38 AM

So, since they're directly named weapons, they're listed in the weapons section, they refer to them being wielded, they discuss subclasses of that weapon category (improvised thrown weapons), and the rules in no way preclude them from being weapons, please justify your rather bold assertion that he is entirely wrong in his reading of the rules.

They are not named weapons, they are named improvised weapons. Improvised thrown weapons are not a subclass of improvised weapons the same way that ranged weapons are not a subclass of melee weapons. I've already posted the justifications in other threads, but I'll repost them here.

Page 147, PHB: "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such." So what are the other improvised weapons? Not similar to "actual weapons" and none of them are actually weapons. Doesn't get much plainer in English.

The next page has rules for using weapons as improvised weapons. When I want to smack you with my crossbow or throw my longsword at you, those are weapons being used as improvised weapons. Here we come to a logical deduction: all A are B, but not all B are A. All weapons are improvised weapons, not all improvised weapons are weapons. When you are using a weapon as an improvised weapon, that improvised weapon is also a weapon. Otherwise, refer to the previous: even improvised weapons similar to existing weapons are not "actual weapons," though the DM may treat them as such at his discretion.

Improvised Weapons are not on the weapon chart. The weapons chart may not be complete in the grand scheme of things, but it appears in the same book as an entire class of objects you want to consider weapons and does not list them. This despite the fact that pre-errata, unarmed strike was a listed weapon. Including improvised weapons on the weapons chart would have looked like this:

Simple Melee Weapons
Improvised Weapons --- 1d4 --- Special (Simple Weapons Proficiency does not give proficiency for Improvised Weapons, Improvised Weapons do B/P/S damage as appropriate)

Same for Improvised Ranged Weapons, only tack on a range of 20/60.

Page 10/11, Monster Manual. --The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or a tail spike.

They put the quotation marks there, not me. What does it tell you, though? That objects used to make weapon attacks are not always actual weapons (returning to the wording above.) Now, my argument is simple to prove--if even 1 improvised weapon isn't an actual weapon, my point is made. And if one improvised weapon is not a weapon, then the answer to "what are considered weapons?" is simply the weapon chart. Mechanically, those are the weapons in the game. The Ice Devil Spear does not exist as a weapon in the game--it exists as an attack option for a monster. If you wanted to make the spear, you could. But it is not given as a weapon. As proof that attack options are not weapons, take a look at the Storm Giant. It has an attack option: Greatsword. Greatsword is on the weapons list, but you won't find it at the 6d6 damage dice that the Storm Giant has. The Storm Giant's greatsword is does not exist as a weapon in the game, it is an attack option.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-21, 10:28 AM

They are not named weapons, they are named improvised weapons. Improvised thrown weapons are not a subclass of improvised weapons the same way that ranged weapons are not a subclass of melee weapons. I've already posted the justifications in other threads, but I'll repost them here.

Page 147, PHB: "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such." So what are the other improvised weapons? Not similar to "actual weapons" and none of them are actually weapons. Doesn't get much plainer in English.

ok, cool, so you are indeed using your interpretation of what you see as the implication of one sentence, which I believe you are taking completely out of context by ignoring the sentence following it, as the sole basis of your conclusion that he is utterly and unarguably wrong in his understanding of the rules. And not, by contrast, using any actual rules as that basis. That's what I thought, thank you for clarifying. I do disagree with you, because in my opinion you're wrong, but at least now I know where you're coming from.

The next page has rules for using weapons as improvised weapons. When I want to smack you with my crossbow or throw my longsword at you, those are weapons being used as improvised weapons. Here we come to a logical deduction: all A are B, but not all B are A. All weapons are improvised weapons, not all improvised weapons are weapons. When you are using a weapon as an improvised weapon, that improvised weapon is also a weapon. Otherwise, refer to the previous: even improvised weapons similar to existing weapons are not "actual weapons," though the DM may treat them as such at his discretion.

That's also not what the rules actually say. They do not in any way say that you are using them as improvised weapons, which matters quite a bit for whether or not you still gain your proficiency bonus on the attack roll. Instead, they only say "If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage." Note the thing that it does NOT say, which you seem to want to insert in there, is "it counts as an improvised weapon, and also deals 1d4 damage".

Improvised Weapons are not on the weapon chart. The weapons chart may not be complete in the grand scheme of things, but it appears in the same book as an entire class of objects you want to consider weapons and does not list them. This despite the fact that pre-errata, unarmed strike was a listed weapon. Including improvised weapons on the weapons chart would have looked like this:

Simple Melee Weapons
Improvised Weapons --- 1d4 --- Special (Simple Weapons Proficiency does not give proficiency for Improvised Weapons, Improvised Weapons do B/P/S damage as appropriate)

Same for Improvised Ranged Weapons, only tack on a range of 20/60.

But that would be quite inaccurate, for exactly the reason of the quote you described above- it doesn't use simple weapon proficiency, though some may. Some may use martial proficiency. Most will use no proficiency at all. Also, not all improvised weapons will do 1d4 damage. If they are similar to 'actual weapons' (meaning manufactured weapons which appear on the weapons list), they use the profile of the weapon they resemble. Putting them on there would only add confusion and incoherence for no tangible gain, which is why they instead devoted an entire section within the weapons section to them, describing in detail their profiles, how they interact with proficiencies, and how to use them. There are an endless variety of weapons that are not on the weapons list. They chose what they felt were the best representative samples of certain weapon types, that is all. Something being on there or not has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not it is a weapon, nor is there ever the statement that it does have any kind of bearing on that. Instead, there is a tacit statement that the opposite is true, that the weapon list only displays common weapons.

Page 10/11, Monster Manual. --The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or a tail spike.

They put the quotation marks there, not me. What does it tell you, though? That objects used to make weapon attacks are not always actual weapons (returning to the wording above.) Now, my argument is simple to prove--if even 1 improvised weapon isn't an actual weapon, my point is made. And if one improvised weapon is not a weapon, then the answer to "what are considered weapons?" is simply the weapon chart. Mechanically, those are the weapons in the game. The Ice Devil Spear does not exist as a weapon in the game--it exists as an attack option for a monster. If you wanted to make the spear, you could. But it is not given as a weapon. As proof that attack options are not weapons, take a look at the Storm Giant. It has an attack option: Greatsword. Greatsword is on the weapons list, but you won't find it at the 6d6 damage dice that the Storm Giant has. The Storm Giant's greatsword is does not exist as a weapon in the game, it is an attack option.

Why the quotes? It says right in the same sentence! It might be a manufactured item, or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. It's saying that weapon attacks, the category, as compared to spell attacks, includes both manufactured items and natural weapons. Nowhere in that sentence does it state in any way shape or form that they are not always actual weapons. That simply is not part of that quote in any way. People say 5e is not like a legal document, but jeez, you surely have read enough of them, or EULAs at minimum, to recognize where a term is being defined. From the very first line of Adobe's terms of use "These terms govern your use of our website or services such as the Creative Cloud (collectively, “Services”)" Are they saying Creative Cloud and the rest are not actually services? No! They are saying that where the term services is used, it is referring to any items such as their website or other services like creative cloud. It is a way of defining a term once so that when you encounter "weapon attacks" later in the book, you know that the "weapon" part of it may refer to a manufactured item or a natural weapon.

Also, your argument would be flawed even were that not the case. If even one improvised weapon is not a weapon, that does NOT mean that none of them are. Some A are not B does not mean all A are not B, under any circumstances. We've already established that the weapons list explicitly states that it is incomplete, and is instead only common weapons, so the weapon chart CANNOT be the entirety of weapons. They are examples, representative samples, nothing more. The Ice Devil Spear absolutely exists in the game as a weapon, wielded by the Ice Devil. The Storm Giant's greatsword is oversized- an option that does not exist to player characters. Were they the same size as storm giants, and were they using greatswords made for that size, presumably they would be dealing 6d6 damage. After all, that is what greatswords made for equivalent sized creatures deal in damage. There is no text whatsoever that states that those things are not weapons.

CNagy

2015-06-21, 10:41 AM

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-21, 11:09 AM

You're free to disagree, but the game is clear on what mechanically constitutes a weapon. The word "mechanically" as in "according to game mechanics" has always been an important distinction and it has been the repeated stumbling block of people who don't understand that, as defined by rules, things may not count as weapons that would otherwise (narratively, legally, etc) be considered weapons. Ice Demon Spear is not, mechanically speaking, considered a weapon. It is an attack option and a narrative detail. You can say it is an oversized spear with some sort of enchantment that deals 3d6 cold damage, but the book isn't saying that. The book says it is a variant way for an Ice Demon to attack.

Even the errata for unarmed strike makes it clear that you are not using a weapon but you are making a melee weapon attack. People asked why improvised weapons weren't also in the errata--the reason is because improvised weapons already have those same rules, already referenced in this thread several times.

Edit: And maybe take a moment to reread and understand the argument and logic being used. Xetheral's statement was that improvised weapons are and always have been weapons. So yes, if even one instance of an improvised weapon is shown to not be a weapon, then that argument is proven false. An improvised weapon includes "any object you can wield in one or two hands" therefore unless every object in the world that you can wield in one or two hands is a weapon--palm fronds, long strands of grass, a bedsheet, a clump of sand, etc--then the argument that all improvised weapons are weapons is shown to be false.

There's no stumbling block, I assure you, I fully understand that concept. However, explicitly the Ice Demon Spear, when used with the action listed in the Ice Demon profile, IS a weapon being used to make a weapon attack, as defined by the rules listed in the monster manual. I agree, the game is quite clear on what mechanically constitutes a weapon- " a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or a tail spike", the term is defined. That term does not exclude improvised weapons. Nowhere in the game text, not a single line anywhere in any of the books, does it exclude improvised weapons from being weapons, in any way. That's the thing, you have your argument backwards. It does not matter if narratively, Improvised Weapons only "resemble" "actual weapons". Actual weapons, however you wish to view them, are not mechanically distinguished from improvised weapons in any way, in any part of the game text.

And yes, if even one improvised weapon can be shown to not be a weapon, the statement that all improvised weapons are weapons can be shown to be false. That is not the same as the statement that if even one improvised weapon can be shown to not be a weapon, the list of weapons in the PHB constitutes the entirety of the objects that are mechanically treated as weapons. However, it has not yet been shown that even one improvised weapon is not a weapon. Indeed, any object in the game world that you can weild in one or two hands is a weapon per the definition of improvised weapons in the PHB. I see nothing wrong or contradictory about that statement. There is nothing in the rules text which indicates this is not the case. At no point and in no way does it prevent you from casting elemental weapon on the teddy bear you are holding and attacking someone with.

Elbeyon

2015-06-21, 11:17 AM

You do realize the errata makes unarmed strikes not a weapon. You do realize that the errata lets unarmed be apart of melee weapon attacks. Melee weapon attacks don't require weapons.

Easy_Lee

2015-06-21, 01:20 PM

Once again, WotC failed to truly say what they mean, instead using lots of extra words and confusing the issue.

What I think they mean: unarmed strike is not a weapon, but can be treated as a proficient bludgeoning 1 damage weapon for the purpose of making attacks. That's simple enough, and is all they had to say. Mechanically, this means that unarmed strike can make weapon attacks as normal, but is not a weapon for the purpose of any magical effects (such as magic weapon or pact weapon). I fail to see how this adds anything to the game; it's just a pointless nerf to monk builds.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-21, 01:29 PM

You do realize the errata makes unarmed strikes not a weapon. You do realize that the errata lets unarmed be apart of melee weapon attacks. Melee weapon attacks don't require weapons.

This is absolutely true, and I do realize it. However, not needing a weapon to make melee weapon attacks does not automatically equate to not having a weapon. In fact, there are some creatures in the monster manual that do indeed strike with unarmed strikes. The fact that unarmed strikes is specifically excluded from what is a weapon is only more support for the fact that the rest of them *do* have weapons. The specific text of the errata, in case it was glossed over, was "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an un - armed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)." Reading that, what it actually says is that you can make a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike (which specifically does not count as a weapon), instead of making it with a weapon.

Since those are the alternatives given, and since absolutely nothing else in the game is excluded from being defined as a weapon, neither by the core game text or the errata, what that means is that anything that is not an unarmed strike, is a weapon. Which makes all the sense in the world, since to be unarmed is defined as "not equipped with or carrying weapons", so by the nature of the definition those who are not unarmed Are, in fact, equipped with or carrying weapons. I'm not trying to argue for dictionary definitions here, I'm just pointing out that the distinction is a logical and consistent one.

Edit: I want to make it clear I'm not just being pedantic here, it does make a difference. To say that the Ice Devil's Spear or a Storm Giant's greatsword is not a weapon is to say that they *cannot* be the target of things that specifically affect weapons- Elemental Weapon, Heat Metal, smite spells, many effects specifically interact with weapons, the object type, not weapon attacks. Determining whether or not they are wielding a weapon *does* matter, and to say that a Storm Giant, for example, is not equipped with a weapon, but rather a narrative concept, would mean that a Storm Giant Paladin could not use Smite. Probably a kindness to the players, but totally unsupported by the rules as written.

Note the DMG section on page 273, Switching weapons: "If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace that weapon with a different one. For example, you could replace a hobgoblin's longsword with a halberd". Meaning that the Hobgoblin is *not* weaponless, wielding an attack option and narrative detail, but is in fact wielding a manufactured weapon, namely a longsword. The same is true of all other monsters wielding manufactured weapons.

Arial Black

2015-06-21, 04:00 PM

Improvised weapons are not weapons by definition. If they were, then they would not need rules which explain how you can use objects which are not weapons as if they were.

Like or not, the way the game (5E as well as previous editions) works is that 'weapons' are things which are created to be weapons, while 'weapon attacks' can be made by anything which can be used as a weapon.

This is how the game works, and how it always worked.

Elbeyon

2015-06-21, 04:06 PM

Since those are the alternatives given, and since absolutely nothing else in the game is excluded from being defined as a weapon, neither by the core game text or the errata, what that means is that anything that is not an unarmed strike, is a weapon.

You are saying a weapon is a rug smothering something, a constricting grapple, sitting on someone, fists, a tongue, beards, stepping on someone, touching someone, literal poison, inflicting them with negative energy, rot, melting people inside your body, falling on someone, ramming into someone, sucking someone's strength out, draining the life out of something, and countless natural attacks. Those are all weapons, right? A weapon can be a non-physical object like an action?

Xetheral

2015-06-21, 04:48 PM

That is a good nitpick. That passage should be errata'd in order to keep with the fact that all characters have proficiency in unarmed strike. The wording of the errata could cover it since the errata allows you to substitute unarmed strike for a weapon when making weapon attacks, and "attack using a weapon" can only be a weapon attack. But it isn't absolutely clear.

So, do you agree with the sentence: "Post-errata, unarmed strikes are not weapons, but when you attack with an unarmed strike you are making an attack with a weapon."?

Improvised weapons are not weapons by definition. If they were, then they would not need rules which explain how you can use objects which are not weapons as if they were.

Like or not, the way the game (5E as well as previous editions) works is that 'weapons' are things which are created to be weapons, while 'weapon attacks' can be made by anything which can be used as a weapon.

This is how the game works, and how it always worked.

So, do you believe that an Ice Devil Spear was not "created to be [a] weapon"? Or do you disagree with CNagy and believe that Ice Devil Spears are weapons?

Xetheral's statement was that improvised weapons are and always have been weapons. So yes, if even one instance of an improvised weapon is shown to not be a weapon, then that argument is proven false. An improvised weapon includes "any object you can wield in one or two hands" therefore unless every object in the world that you can wield in one or two hands is a weapon--palm fronds, long strands of grass, a bedsheet, a clump of sand, etc--then the argument that all improvised weapons are weapons is shown to be false.

Yes, when used as an improvised weapon I would argue that all those things are weapons. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to add your proficiency bonus to them even with Tavern Brawler, and since they wouldn't be Weapon Attacks you couldn't use improvised weapons with a wide gamut of class abilities and feats.

Remember, there are two ways to make a Weapon Attack in 5e:

- Attack with a weapon (which is a Weapon Attack by definition)
- Attack with an unarmed strike (which is a Weapon Attack because it is declared to be so in the errata)

If you attack with neither a weapon nor an unarmed strike, you aren't making a Weapon Attack. Your ruling on improvised weapons would therefore permit an attack that was neither a Weapon Attack nor a Spell Attack, a situation the rules do not appear to contemplate.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-21, 05:20 PM

You are saying a weapon is a rug smothering something, a constricting grapple, sitting on someone, fists, a tongue, beards, stepping on someone, touching someone, literal poison, inflicting them with negative energy, rot, melting people inside your body, falling on someone, ramming into someone, sucking someone's strength out, draining the life out of something, and countless natural attacks. Those are all weapons, right? A weapon can be a non-physical object like an action?

Can a rug be wielded in one or two hands? Absolutely, so yes, a rug can be a weapon. Smothering them is not generally supported by the rules, so as a improvised weapon it would deal 1d4 damage just like all improvised weapons, but yeah, a rug is a weapon.

Sitting on someone, fists, a tongue, beards, stepping on someone, touching someone, touching someone (again!), falling on someone, ramming into someone are all a forceful blow (some of them arguably not even that) while not wielding an object in one or two hands, so that would be an unarmed strike.

Literal poison cannot be wielded in one or two hands, and has its own rules regardless, so no, it's not a weapon. The same is true of inflicting them with negative energy, rot, melting people melting people inside your body (not sure how that one works) and sucking someone's strength out, as well as draining the life out of something. If you're referring to the fact that you have to touch them for those supernatural effects to take place, please note that you are effectively hitting them with an unarmed strike in those instances (part of your form is making physical contact with theirs, not with a weapon wielded in one or two hands).

No rules inconsistencies here, thanks though. Is there a particular creature with a particular ability who somehow is neither an unarmed strike (not using a weapon) or an armed strike (using a weapon) which gives you concern?

Improvised weapons are not weapons by definition. If they were, then they would not need rules which explain how you can use objects which are not weapons as if they were.

Like or not, the way the game (5E as well as previous editions) works is that 'weapons' are things which are created to be weapons, while 'weapon attacks' can be made by anything which can be used as a weapon.

This is how the game works, and how it always worked.

Close. Improvised weapons *were* not weapons, before they were picked up with hostile intent. Look, it goes like this: I have a spoon with which I am serving soup. It's a spoon, not a weapon. Someone is threatening me, I attack them with it. For game purposes, it is now a club, being of approximately the right length and made of metal. I repel their attack. Now it's no longer a weapon, and back to being just a (maybe dirty) spoon. Since they were not originally designed with hostile intent, they need rules explaining how to use them as weapons. Trust me, if you beat someone with a rolling pin, it's considered a weapon.

I do like the way it is in 5E, thank you very much, which is where a weapon is something you wield in one or two hands while you attack someone. That is how it works in 5E, and I've provided rules text to support that stance, from the PHB, from the Monster Manual, and from the Dungeon Master's Guide. You just say that "this is how the game works", have any support for that statement?

Elbeyon

2015-06-21, 05:48 PM

Can a rug be wielded in one or two hands? Absolutely, so yes, a rug can be a weapon. Smothering them is not generally supported by the rules, so as a improvised weapon it would deal 1d4 damage just like all improvised weapons, but yeah, a rug is a weapon.

Sitting on someone, fists, a tongue, beards, stepping on someone, touching someone, touching someone (again!), falling on someone, ramming into someone are all a forceful blow (some of them arguably not even that) while not wielding an object in one or two hands, so that would be an unarmed strike.

Literal poison cannot be wielded in one or two hands, and has its own rules regardless, so no, it's not a weapon. The same is true of inflicting them with negative energy, rot, melting people melting people inside your body (not sure how that one works) and sucking someone's strength out, as well as draining the life out of something. If you're referring to the fact that you have to touch them for those supernatural effects to take place, please note that you are effectively hitting them with an unarmed strike in those instances (part of your form is making physical contact with theirs, not with a weapon wielded in one or two hands).

No rules inconsistencies here, thanks though. Is there a particular creature with a particular ability who somehow is neither an unarmed strike (not using a weapon) or an armed strike (using a weapon) which gives you concern?Actually none of those are called unarmed strikes. The MM calls out unarmed strikes as being so. So, unless you can define all of these melee weapon attacks in the MM as either using a weapon or unarmed strike you have some explaining to do.

Unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow.
Show me all the punches, kicks, head-buts, or similar forceful blows.

We'll start with these:

Smother. Melee Weapon Attack: +S to hit, reach S ft ., one Medium or smaller creature. Hit: The creature is grappled (escape DC 13). Until this grapple ends, the target is restrained, blinded, and at risk of suffocating, and the rug can't smother another target. In addition, at the start of each of the target's turns, the target takes 10 (2d6 + 3) bludgeoning damage.

Touch. Melee Weapon Attack: +0 to hit, reach 5 ft. , one creature. Hit: 1 poison damage, and the creature must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or become infected with the disease described in the Death Burst trait.

Touch. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (2d6 + 3) fire damage. If the target is a creature or a flammable object, it ignites. Until a creature takes an action to douse the fire, the target takes 5 (1d10) fire damage at the start of each of its turns.

Arial Black

2015-06-22, 02:06 AM

Improvised weapons *were* not weapons, before they were picked up with hostile intent. Look, it goes like this: I have a spoon with which I am serving soup. It's a spoon, not a weapon. Someone is threatening me, I attack them with it. For game purposes, it is now a club, being of approximately the right length and made of metal. I repel their attack. Now it's no longer a weapon, and back to being just a (maybe dirty) spoon. Since they were not originally designed with hostile intent, they need rules explaining how to use them as weapons. Trust me, if you beat someone with a rolling pin, it's considered a weapon.

Like it not, realise it or not, in the game 'weapon' is an object specifically designed to be a weapon, while a 'weapon attack' can be made by anything that you can use as a weapon, including unarmed strikes and natural weapons and improvised weapons, none of which are actual weapons.

I do like the way it is in 5E, thank you very much, which is where a weapon is something you wield in one or two hands while you attack someone. That is how it works in 5E, and I've provided rules text to support that stance, from the PHB, from the Monster Manual, and from the Dungeon Master's Guide. You just say that "this is how the game works", have any support for that statement?

If it worked how you thought then you wouldn't be so puzzled about the unarmed strike errata. Evidence that it works as I outlined is that the errata make perfect sense in that context.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-22, 07:42 AM

Like it not, realise it or not, in the game 'weapon' is an object specifically designed to be a weapon, while a 'weapon attack' can be made by anything that you can use as a weapon, including unarmed strikes and natural weapons and improvised weapons, none of which are actual weapons.

If it worked how you thought then you wouldn't be so puzzled about the unarmed strike errata. Evidence that it works as I outlined is that the errata make perfect sense in that context.

I am not puzzled by the unarmed strike errata, and never indicated I am. You still have not provided any support for this being the case under the rules, as written or as implied, in any way. Just saying 'this is how it is' does not actually make it so. Where is the part of the rules that mechanically distinguishes them from "actual" weapons? Other than unarmed strikes, which are specifically called out as not being weapons in the errata, and which are obviously not weapons (otherwise they would be armed strikes), of course. In fact, natural weapons are specifically defined as weapons in the monster manual, so why on earth would you say they are not weapons?

Actually none of those are called unarmed strikes. The MM calls out unarmed strikes as being so. So, unless you can define all of these melee weapon attacks in the MM as either using a weapon or unarmed strike you have some explaining to do.

Let's try this again. Just because you *can* make a melee weapon attack without a weapon, does not mean that automatically *no one* is using one. I am in no trouble and need to do no explaining, thanks. I will say that grappling is its own thing with its own set of rules, and is not even an attack in the sense we're talking about here at all. It's an ability check. As with touching, the melee weapon attack is you attempting to make contact in order to do something else, you're not attacking them with a weapon or with your body. Were the distinction important, it certainly seems to me that they are not using a weapon, and therefore are unarmed. However, I fail to see how the distinction is important at all. As you say, not unarmed attacks, and I believe we can all agree they're not attacking with a weapon.

Elbeyon

2015-06-22, 12:59 PM

Let's try this again. Just because you *can* make a melee weapon attack without a weapon, does not mean that automatically *no one* is using one. I am in no trouble and need to do no explaining, thanks. I will say that grappling is its own thing with its own set of rules, and is not even an attack in the sense we're talking about here at all. It's an ability check. As with touching, the melee weapon attack is you attempting to make contact in order to do something else, you're not attacking them with a weapon or with your body. Were the distinction important, it certainly seems to me that they are not using a weapon, and therefore are unarmed. However, I fail to see how the distinction is important at all. As you say, not unarmed attacks, and I believe we can all agree they're not attacking with a weapon.So you are saying you have a new meaning for unarmed strikes? And, it's not the one listed in the errata?

coredump

2015-06-22, 01:14 PM

Well, lets review the actual rules in question.

In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon
So, it is similar to an actual weapon... which means it is not an actual weapon....

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon
If it bears no resemblance to a weapon... then it can't actually be a weapon.

Xetheral

2015-06-22, 01:52 PM

Well, lets review the actual rules in question.

So, it is similar to an actual weapon... which means it is not an actual weapon....

If it bears no resemblance to a weapon... then it can't actually be a weapon.

The definition of weapon is: "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage." 5e does not possess a game-specific definition of weapon, so we have to use the normal one. Therefore, anything used to inflict harm or damage is a weapon. Ergo, improvised weapons, which are used to inflict harm or damage, are weapons.

Furthermore, the phrase "improvised weapon" itself implies that it is a subset of "weapons", just as "red weapons" and "illegal weapons" are subsets of "weapons".

In context, "actual weapon" from the passage you quoted above appears to be being used analogously to "typical weapon" (i.e. one for which there are already game statistics).

Also you're effectively arguing that a baseball bat (improvised club) is not a weapon. Does that make any sense to you?

Arial Black

2015-06-23, 01:23 AM

In fact, natural weapons are specifically defined as weapons in the monster manual

Actually, the MM doesn't define natural weapons as weapons. It defines them as "weapons"; the quotation marks indicating that the writers know full well that natural weapons are not actual weapons, but are used as if they were weapons.

Just like improvised weapons.

BTW, just because the word 'weapon' is part of the term does not mean that they 'are' weapons. The term 'non-weapon' has the word 'weapon' in it too.

The game itself differentiates objects that are designed to be weapons from objects that are not, but can still be used to attack. This is why it was necessary to remove unarmed strike from the table of weapons, because (just like natural weapons and improvised weapons) they are not actual weapons and its inclusion on the table of weapons was an error.

As for the baseball bat, the rules for improvised weapons already let the DM rule that if a non-weapon greatly resembles an actual weapon, then the stats for the actual weapon it most resembles is used, including proficiency bonus.

It all makes sense. It stops making sense if you think the rules are that everything in the world actually is a weapon, except for unarmed strikes!

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-23, 12:06 PM

Actually, the MM doesn't define natural weapons as weapons. It defines them as "weapons"; the quotation marks indicating that the writers know full well that natural weapons are not actual weapons, but are used as if they were weapons.

Just like improvised weapons.

BTW, just because the word 'weapon' is part of the term does not mean that they 'are' weapons. The term 'non-weapon' has the word 'weapon' in it too.

The game itself differentiates objects that are designed to be weapons from objects that are not, but can still be used to attack. This is why it was necessary to remove unarmed strike from the table of weapons, because (just like natural weapons and improvised weapons) they are not actual weapons and its inclusion on the table of weapons was an error.

As for the baseball bat, the rules for improvised weapons already let the DM rule that if a non-weapon greatly resembles an actual weapon, then the stats for the actual weapon it most resembles is used, including proficiency bonus.

It all makes sense. It stops making sense if you think the rules are that everything in the world actually is a weapon, except for unarmed strikes!

That is simply not what quotation marks mean. The use of quotations marks in that way (ironic or "scare" quotation marks meant to indicate the term is being used peculiarly) is strongly discouraged in modern grammar. There are multiple ways quotation marks can be used, here are two relevant to this discussion (http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/quotation-marks.html#):

Writing about letters and words
Quotation marks can be used when referring to a specific word or letter. (Some writers instead use italics for this purpose.)
Example: In the previous sentence, “letter” was properly spelled with two “t”s.

Scare quotes
Scare quotes are used to cast doubt on a word or phrase, or to emphasize that the word or phrase is being used as a euphemism. Scare quotes are best used in moderation.
Example: He rarely spoke of the “incident” that caused him to leave his previous employer.

Now here is another example of quotation marks used all over the place. The Wizards of the Coast Terms of Use:
Welcome to Wizards of the Coast, the leader in entertaining the lifestyle gamer. Wizards of the Coast, its parent company, Hasbro, Inc. and its affiliates, licensors and third party partners (collectively, “Wizards, “we” “us” or “our”) have created these Terms of Use to govern your use of Wizards’ various consumer websites (collectively, “Websites”), as well as your interactions with us including, without limitation, registering an account, participating in organized play, contacting us, or posting in our forums (“Services”). Your use of our Websites or Services constitutes your acceptance of these Terms of Use as well as Wizards’ Privacy Policy and Code of Conduct (both incorporated by reference)(collectively, “Terms of Use”). We may update these Terms of Use from time to time, at our sole discretion, and without notice. Your continued use of the Websites or Services after any such update constitutes your acceptance of such update. The Websites and Services may also contain additional terms that govern particular features or offers (for example, sweepstakes or special functionality).

Based on that understanding, do you think that Wizards of the Coast is using scare quotes in the preceding paragraph? That "Websites" is meant to sneer at or deride the term, meaning it's not actually a website? That they're mocking the idea that they're actually providing services? Similarly, do you really think that the most grammatically supported interpretation of the use of quotation marks for "weapon" is not to refer to the specific word "weapon", wherein they're defining what is meant by the term, but rather to imply that manufactured items (such as swords and halbreds) as well as natural weapons (which are treated identically to manufactured items in this context) are not really weapons at all?

Your argument regarding weapons and it not meaning something is a weapon is also severely flawed. Red weapons, green weapons, improvised weapons, natural weapons, funny looking weapons, all of them have weapons in the name, all of them are categories of weapons. Non weapons may have weapons in the name, but it also has non, a negating term, specifically indicating that the item is Not of the kind or class described, which is tantamount to an admission that weapons is a kind or class, and all terms using it which are not using non Are, in fact, of the kind or class described.

And regardless of what you think about the game differentiating items that are designed to be weapons vs ones that are not, please show me where in the rules that is done. And not in talking about various types of weapons in the weapons section. I mean where it marks a mechanical difference, such as "spells that target weapons may only be cast on manufactured weapons" or when talking about damage rolls, it says "When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier", I fail to see the part where it says "if attacking with a weapon attack which is not a real weapon, such as an improvised weapon, you do not add your ability modifier". YOU are making a distinction between natural weapons and improvised weapons and "actual" weapons in your mind. The rules simply do not have such a distinction anywhere in them.

I fail to see how ruling that an Ice Devil is wielding a weapon, or that a Druid's natural weapons can be the target of spells such as elemental weapon, stops the game from making sense. I do see quite a bit of how such things *not* being weapons can cause all sorts of issues (how do you disarm an Ice Devil of a narrative concept, after all).

Arial Black

2015-06-23, 12:25 PM

Sometimes they are scare quotes, sometimes not.

In context, 'website' is not, but 'weapons' in that context is.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-23, 12:29 PM

Sometimes they are scare quotes, sometimes not.

In context, 'website' is not, but 'weapons' in that context is.

Cool, then manufactured items, such as warhammers, swords, daggers, halberds, etc are not real weapons either, since they're also then called out by what you believe to be scare quotes. It doesn't really matter, because they are lumped together and treated the same. The point remains that what you see as actual weapons are specifically categorized together with what you claim are not weapons, and though the game lumps them together, it never once sets them apart.

coredump

2015-06-23, 03:43 PM

The definition of weapon is: "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage." 5e does not possess a game-specific definition of weapon, so we have to use the normal one. Therefore, anything used to inflict harm or damage is a weapon. Ergo, improvised weapons, which are used to inflict harm or damage, are weapons.

Furthermore, the phrase "improvised weapon" itself implies that it is a subset of "weapons", just as "red weapons" and "illegal weapons" are subsets of "weapons".

In context, "actual weapon" from the passage you quoted above appears to be being used analogously to "typical weapon" (i.e. one for which there are already game statistics).

Also you're effectively arguing that a baseball bat (improvised club) is not a weapon. Does that make any sense to you?
The difference is I quoted actual rules, from the actual rule book.... no need for 'implies' or guessing about context.

There are two spots that clearly differentiate an Improvised weapon from an 'actual' weapon, in fact it may not even resemble a weapon at all. You can spin what the you think the rules 'imply' or how you interpret the context to somehow mean the exact opposite of what the rules actually say..... but its kind of a weak stance to take.

As for trying to use a single example..... the rules are written in broad strokes. 5E does not have a lot of granularity. Do you really think all Improvised Weapons would 'really' do the exact same 1D4 damage?
As for a DM adjudicating a special ruling for a specific situation.... I could see ruling that a baseball bat *was* a club, and not an improvised weapon at all. OTOH, I could see a ruling that acknowledges that the balance in a baseball bat is horrible for a weapon and thus leave it as an Improvised Weapon.

But however than one specific situation plays out at any particular table.... the rules clearly differentiate between an Improvised weapon and an Actual weapon.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-23, 05:02 PM

The difference is I quoted actual rules, from the actual rule book.... no need for 'implies' or guessing about context.

There are two spots that clearly differentiate an Improvised weapon from an 'actual' weapon, in fact it may not even resemble a weapon at all. You can spin what the you think the rules 'imply' or how you interpret the context to somehow mean the exact opposite of what the rules actually say..... but its kind of a weak stance to take.

As for trying to use a single example..... the rules are written in broad strokes. 5E does not have a lot of granularity. Do you really think all Improvised Weapons would 'really' do the exact same 1D4 damage?
As for a DM adjudicating a special ruling for a specific situation.... I could see ruling that a baseball bat *was* a club, and not an improvised weapon at all. OTOH, I could see a ruling that acknowledges that the balance in a baseball bat is horrible for a weapon and thus leave it as an Improvised Weapon.

But however than one specific situation plays out at any particular table.... the rules clearly differentiate between an Improvised weapon and an Actual weapon.

incorrect. The statement you have quoted does not mechanically distinguish improvised weapons from "actual" weapons, as it does not define how, if at all, they are to be treated differently by the game rules. Thus, per the game rules, they are treated the same. Are you saying that when using an improvised weapon, a paladin cannot smite, you cannot use your ability bonus to damage rolls, and you cannot move between attacks? Because that's the sort of thing we're talking about here, and such delineation is not supported by the rules text whatsoever.

Xetheral

2015-06-23, 11:48 PM

Actually, the MM doesn't define natural weapons as weapons. It defines them as "weapons"; the quotation marks indicating that the writers know full well that natural weapons are not actual weapons, but are used as if they were weapons.

I think it is far more likely that GiantOctopodes is correct, and they are simply indicating the (broad) scope of the word "weapon" in 5e. The quotation marks are simply to emphasize that they are taking about the word itself.

BTW, just because the word 'weapon' is part of the term does not mean that they 'are' weapons. The term 'non-weapon' has the word 'weapon' in it too.

"Improvised weapon" is a noun phrase, headed by the noun "weapon". "Improvised" is an attributive adjective describing the noun, in this case indicating what kind of weapon the noun phrase refers to. By contrast, "non-weapon" is the noun "weapon" with the prefix "non-", indicating negation, which is an entirely different construction resulting in an entirely different meaning.

So, short of an explicit rule in the game that improvised weapons are not weapons (which would override the plain English), the phrase "improvised weapons" refers to a type of weapon. This is exactly the same as "red weapons", "broken weapons", and "old weapons", which I believe you will agree are all weapons.

The game itself differentiates objects that are designed to be weapons from objects that are not, but can still be used to attack. This is why it was necessary to remove unarmed strike from the table of weapons, because (just like natural weapons and improvised weapons) they are not actual weapons and its inclusion on the table of weapons was an error.

Unarmed strikes have a specific provision (in the errata) permitting them to make weapon attacks. Natural weapons and improvised weapons do not have such a provision anywhere. Would you forbid users of natural weapons and improvised weapons to make weapon attacks?

As for the baseball bat, the rules for improvised weapons already let the DM rule that if a non-weapon greatly resembles an actual weapon, then the stats for the actual weapon it most resembles is used, including proficiency bonus.

So, are you conceding that some improvised weapons are weapons? Or are you saying that the logical incongruity of a baseball bat not being a weapon isn't a problem because the DM can always change things?

It all makes sense. It stops making sense if you think the rules are that everything in the world actually is a weapon, except for unarmed strikes!

Perhaps it makes sense to you, but it certainly doesn't make sense to me. The rules were written to accommodate Weapon Attacks (including, now unarmed strikes) and Spell Attacks, and you're arguing that there is a third class of non-weapons which, I note, lack a special provision permitting them to make weapon attacks.

The difference is I quoted actual rules, from the actual rule book.... no need for 'implies' or guessing about context.

The rule you quoted does not explicitly address whether or not Improvised Weapons are weapons. You believe that the reference to "actual weapons" implies that "improvised weapons" are not "actual weapons". I believe the reference to "actual weapons" is referring to those weapons that are listed on the (explicitly incomplete) table.

Both of our interpretations would be equally plausible, except that I have additional support for my interpretation as described above in my response to Arial Black.

There are two spots that clearly differentiate an Improvised weapon from an 'actual' weapon, in fact it may not even resemble a weapon at all. You can spin what the you think the rules 'imply' or how you interpret the context to somehow mean the exact opposite of what the rules actually say..... but its kind of a weak stance to take.

Please do not accuse me of trying to "spin" anything. I am explaining what I believe to be the most natural and plainest reading of the rules. If you disagree, so be it, but I have given you no cause to question my motives.

As for trying to use a single example..... the rules are written in broad strokes. 5E does not have a lot of granularity. Do you really think all Improvised Weapons would 'really' do the exact same 1D4 damage?
As for a DM adjudicating a special ruling for a specific situation.... I could see ruling that a baseball bat *was* a club, and not an improvised weapon at all. OTOH, I could see a ruling that acknowledges that the balance in a baseball bat is horrible for a weapon and thus leave it as an Improvised Weapon.

The use of a specific example was to highlight an apparent contradiction of your interpretation with common sense. How many people do you think would agree with the sentence: "A man holding a baseball bat is unarmed."? Because if a baseball bat isn't a weapon, then, by definition, anyone holding one and no other weapons is unarmed. To generalize the example, replace "baseball bat" with, e.g., "lead pipe", "shiv", "branch", "broken bottle", or "improvised spear" and the conflict with common sense remains.

But however than one specific situation plays out at any particular table.... the rules clearly differentiate between an Improvised weapon and an Actual weapon.

As I read the rules, you are incorrect--improvised weapons are weapons and must be for the game to work. Remember that if improvised weapons are not weapons, then they cannot be used to make Weapon Attacks, as they lack unarmed strike's errata provision that would permit them to do so. If you can't make Weapon Attacks with improvised weapons, then proficiency bonus, attribute bonus, and use with a plethora of class abilities all suddenly become impossible.

Gwendol

2015-06-24, 12:30 AM

Safety Sword

2015-06-24, 12:39 AM

It depends of the context. Facing a tank, the man holding the baseball bat can be considered unarmed. Just as the rules tell us to consider objects as weapons when wielded as such (aka impovised weapons).
You may treat an attack as a weapon attack under the rules even if no actual weapon is used.

I would consider him poorly armed for his current situation, but never unarmed.

Unless he had his arms shot off. Then he would be unarmed, disarmed and poorly armed.

Isn't English fun!

Xetheral

2015-06-24, 01:07 AM

You may treat an attack as a weapon attack under the rules even if no actual weapon is used.

I'm aware of no such rule. Do you have a citation? Unarmed Strikes have their own special exception in the errata. That's the only exception I'm aware of (and it wouldn't be needed if the rule you're referring to actually existed).

Gwendol

2015-06-24, 02:41 AM

Pages 147 & 148 of the PHB.
Using objects that can be wielded in one or both hands, but are not treated as an actual weapon. That means the proficiency bonus isn't applied, and the object deals 1d4 damage of a type set by the DM.
It's a weapon attack done without a weapon.

djreynolds

2015-06-24, 03:22 AM

So suppose I create an assassin monk. What am I sneak attacking with? What damage is getting auto-crit?

I don't mind that you can't have unarmed strike as sneak attack weapons, though I surely understand the arguments. But if I do sneak attack is my shortsword gonna be 1d6 or 1d8 let say, depending on your monk levels? That's the question I guess. I mean a flying sidekick at 16th level is only gonna do 1d10 to the head, is gonna do the same damage as a punch to the head. I guess that's the dilemma.

So if you sneak attack, you're basically giving up your unarmed attack for a specific strike with a finesseable weapon and you're using regular damage from that strike and not monk's damage bonus. And you will not receive your extra unarmed attack? Even if you forgo the monk bonus damage for a weapon's regular damage, a shortsword is 1d6.

I can see the confusion.

Arial Black

2015-06-24, 10:02 AM

Unarmed strikes have a specific provision (in the errata) permitting them to make weapon attacks. Natural weapons and improvised weapons do not have such a provision anywhere. Would you forbid users of natural weapons and improvised weapons to make weapon attacks?

You do not need an actual 'weapon' in order to make a 'weapon attack'. It is simply the name of one of the two attack roll categories. The name could have been 'physical attack' and the rules would be unchanged, because the name of the rule is not the actual rule.

So, are you conceding that some improvised weapons are weapons? Or are you saying that the logical incongruity of a baseball bat not being a weapon isn't a problem because the DM can always change things?

It's not just me that's saying this, the rules on improvised weapons say this:-

In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

This shows that improvised weapons are not weapons, as it says they are 'similar to an actual weapon'. Nevertheless, if an object is very similar to an actual weapon (such as the baseball bat), then you may use it as if it were a weapon (meaning use the weapon stats of the actual weapon it resembles) and you even get to add your proficiency bonus if you are proficient with the weapon it resembles.

Further, on the next page, it goes on to say:-

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage...

This shows that improvised weapons, whether the are similar to an actual weapon or not, are not weapons.

But if you attack with one, you are making a 'weapon attack', because you don't need an actual weapon to make a 'weapon attack' any more than you need to cast an actual spell in order to make a 'spell attack'.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-24, 12:43 PM

You do not need an actual 'weapon' in order to make a 'weapon attack'. It is simply the name of one of the two attack roll categories. The name could have been 'physical attack' and the rules would be unchanged, because the name of the rule is not the actual rule.

It's not just me that's saying this, the rules on improvised weapons say this:-

This shows that improvised weapons are not weapons, as it says they are 'similar to an actual weapon'. Nevertheless, if an object is very similar to an actual weapon (such as the baseball bat), then you may use it as if it were a weapon (meaning use the weapon stats of the actual weapon it resembles) and you even get to add your proficiency bonus if you are proficient with the weapon it resembles.

Further, on the next page, it goes on to say:-

This shows that improvised weapons, whether the are similar to an actual weapon or not, are not weapons.

But if you attack with one, you are making a 'weapon attack', because you don't need an actual weapon to make a 'weapon attack' any more than you need to cast an actual spell in order to make a 'spell attack'.

Please examine the quote you yourself provided. What does it actually say? Some objects are similar to an 'actual' weapon (which is not a defined game term and has no meaningful interaction with the rules), such as a club. Indeed, that is true, some objects resemble clubs. Others have no resemblance to clubs. Same is true for shortswords and all other weapons on the weapon list. It provides an example for context, which is being promptly ignored by everyone claiming improvised weapons are not weapons. I can see that you and I will never agree on this. Despite the fact that improvised weapons are never mechanically distinguished from regular weapons, despite the fact that they are named weapons, despite the fact they are in the weapons section, the interpretation of what you believe is the inference of one sentence in your eyes eliminates the possibility that it can be any other way. So, let me just make it clear what exactly ruling that way in games you play will mean:

- Savage Attacks does not add bonus dice to the weapon's damage roll on a crit, since it is not a weapon.
- Brutal critical does not add extra weapon dice on a crit, since it is not a weapon.
- Bardic Inspiration cannot be added to the weapon damage roll, since it is not a weapon.
- Divine Strike cannot cause the attack to deal an extra 1d8 damage of the same type dealt by the weapon to the target, since it is not a weapon.
- Dueling fighting style cannot grant you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon, since it is not a weapon.
- Great weapon fighting does not apply to any damage rolls made with 2 handed improvised weapons, since the weapon must have the two handed property, and it is not a weapon.
- An Eldritch Knight that wants to have an improvised weapon as his signature, bonded weapon cannot, since it is not a weapon.
- Strikes made by the Eldritch Knight with improvised weapons do not cause a creature to have disadvantage on saving throws, since they are not weapons.
- Improvised weapons thrown at Monks cannot be thrown as part of the deflect missiles reaction, since they are not weapons or pieces of ammunition.
- The improvised weapon cannot be imbued by a paladin with divine energy as part of sacred weapons, as it is not a weapon.
- A Ranger cannot use Horde Breaker while wielding an improvised weapon, since it is not a weapon.
- Silver candlesticks, for example, do not overcome a warlock's fiendish resilience, for though they are silver, they are not weapons.
- A Wizard's undead thralls do not add the Wizard's proficiency bonus to damage rolls made with improvised weapons, since they are not weapons.
- Pointed and edged improvised weapons cannot have poison applied to them, since they are not weapons.
- Dual weapon wielders do not gain +1 AC when wielding two improvised weapons, since they are not weapons.
- Similarly, dual weapon wielders cannot draw or stow two improvised weapons, since they are not weapons.
- As a point of fact, improvised weapons cannot be dual wielded at all, since they are not weapons, with or without the dual wielder feat.
- Those with Savage Attacker cannot reroll weapon damage dice for attacks with improvised weapons, since they are not weapons.
- Those with War Caster cannot perform the somantic component of spells while wielding improvised weapons, since they are neither weapons nor a shield
- You do not add Strength to your damage rolls when attacking with an improvised weapon, since it is not a weapon.
- Investigation cannot determine what kind of improvised weapon could have caused a wound, since they are not weapons.
- Smite (all versions) cannot be used with improvised weapons, as they are not weapons.
- Conjure Volley cannot be used with an improvised weapon, as it is not a weapon.
- Improvised weapons cannot be the target of Elemental Weapon, since they are not weapons.
- Enlarge does not increase the size of improvised weapons to match the new form, nor does reduce decrease them, since they are not weapons.
- Lightning Arrow cannot be cast with an improvised weapon, as it is not a weapon.
- Magic Weapon cannot be cast on improvised weapons, as they are not weapons.
- A branch, or log, cannot be the target of Shillelagh, since as an improvised weapon it is not a weapon.
- Damage from improvised weapons bypasses resistance to damage from non-magical weapons since they are, in fact, not weapons.

Please note that none of this is supported by the rules, especially since the sentence "improvised weapons do not count as weapons" never appears in the rules. As such, that will all be houserules, but feel free to print this out and keep it handy for reference so those using improvised weapons in your games are not surprised by the odd and likely unintended aftereffects of your ruling as they crop up down the road. Me, I think I'll just keep considering improvised weapons to be weapons, which it should be noted, is already 100% consistent with the rules and has no impact whatsoever on even a single line of game text.

Note that on page 121, under Tika and Artemis, it says of Tika "A frying pan remains one of her favorite weapons". Since we're so hung up on individual sentences, how could that be? A frying pan is not on the weapons list. In fact, a frying pan would specifically be an improvised weapon. So, if a frying pan is a weapon, and frying pans are not called out as having special rules that relate to them and not other improvised weapons, is that not a direct statement that improvised weapons are, in fact, weapons?

Arial Black

2015-06-24, 01:47 PM

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-24, 01:54 PM

You just wasted a load of virtual ink to give a huge list of things which you would like to disprove what I said, but don't.

Even if an object is not a weapon, it may still be used to make a 'weapon attack'. Things that modify them, do. Things that modify only 'weapons', do not modify improvised weapons, natural weapons or unarmed strikes.

This is how the game actually works, and explains why it was a mistake to include unarmed strike in the table of weapons, and why the errata had to remove it.

Since you disagree, why do you think unarmed strike was moved off the weapons table by the errata?

Correct, in that everything on that list modifies only weapons, using the object type, and not weapon attacks. Incorrect, in that things that modify only weapons do not modify improvised weapons or natural weapons, but I already know you disagree on that point and will never change your mind. Trust me, the list is provided for your benefit, and that of anyone else who rules the way you do. As stated, I believe it would be a courtesy to provide that to your players so they know what they're getting into when you tell them that you do not consider natural weapons or improvised weapons to be, in fact, weapons (good luck with that conversation). The same list applies, of course, to natural weapons if you also don't consider them to be weapons, which is a stance which lacks even that implication from one sentence to support it, so be sure to make that clear to your players as well.

Unarmed strikes are not improvised weapons or natural attacks. The treatment of one has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

coredump

2015-06-24, 02:03 PM

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-24, 02:29 PM

I can point to two simple sentences, within the Improvised Weapon section, that clearly make a distinction from Improvised Weapons and Actual Weapons. Further, they even state that an improvised weapon may bear "no resemblance to a weapon"

In response, you create several paragraphs of "explanations" that rely on 'implications' and your 'beliefs'' to somehow justify that an object that may bear *no resemblence to a weapon" is still, somehow, actually a weapon..... Wut?? Even when it is stated as being different from an actual weapon. (Yes, I know, you decided to also fabricate an entirely new definition for the word "actual".....)

I can point to one simple sentence, which clearly marks an improvised weapon as a weapon.

In response, you quote the section which describes whether improvised weapons resemble or do not resemble manufactured weapons, and completely ignore the fact there is neither game text stating they are not weapons, nor any statement of them being mechanically different as it pertains to effects that interact with weapons. Wut??? Even when it is listed in the weapon section, and has weapon in the name (Yes, I know, you also decided to fabricate an entirely new definition for the word "weapon"....)

Edit:

Pages 147 & 148 of the PHB.
Using objects that can be wielded in one or both hands, but are not treated as an actual weapon. That means the proficiency bonus isn't applied, and the object deals 1d4 damage of a type set by the DM.
It's a weapon attack done without a weapon.

I will point out that the quotes you're referring to say that they are "similar to" or "bear no resemblance to" an "actual weapon", it does NOT state that they are "not treated as an actual weapon". That simply does not exist in the rules.

Gwendol

2015-06-24, 04:10 PM

I can point to one simple sentence, which clearly marks an improvised weapon as a weapon.

In response, you quote the section which describes whether improvised weapons resemble or do not resemble manufactured weapons, and completely ignore the fact there is neither game text stating they are not weapons, nor any statement of them being mechanically different as it pertains to effects that interact with weapons. Wut??? Even when it is listed in the weapon section, and has weapon in the name (Yes, I know, you also decided to fabricate an entirely new definition for the word "weapon"....)

Edit:

I will point out that the quotes you're referring to say that they are "similar to" or "bear no resemblance to" an "actual weapon", it does NOT state that they are "not treated as an actual weapon". That simply does not exist in the rules.

Probably because the writers never imagined the question would arise. In the first case they are actuallly treated as an actual weapon (you get to use your proficiency). The second case deals with objects that do not resemble weapons.
Why would they need to spell out that an object that does not resemble any weapon, isn't one? For which there is no weapon proficiency either, one might add?

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-24, 07:13 PM

Probably because the writers never imagined the question would arise. In the first case they are actuallly treated as an actual weapon (you get to use your proficiency). The second case deals with objects that do not resemble weapons.
Why would they need to spell out that an object that does not resemble any weapon, isn't one? For which there is no weapon proficiency either, one might add?

Actually there is, granted by tavern brawler. Note too that simple and martial are spelled out as merely being categories of weapons that one can acquire proficiency in through race, class, or feats, and it is neither stated nor implied that all weapons fall within those categories. There is also no weapon proficiency in an Ice Devil's spear, are you also indicating that as such it is not a weapon?

I certainly agree though that the writers never imagined the question would arise, regarding a category of weapons in the weapons section of the book, as to whether or not they are weapons. For different reasons than you, I would imagine, but I definitely agree they did not expect the question to arise.

Arial Black

2015-06-24, 07:14 PM

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-24, 07:25 PM

There is a heading of 'Weapons'. There is a tabs which define 'weapons'. If 'improvised weapons' were 'weapons', they would have an entry on the weapons table, just like unarmed strike used to before the errata,

And where, exactly, on the weapons table would you place them? Under their own section? And what would you put there? Let's see how it would work out

Name
Cost
Damage
Weight
Properties

Improvised Weapons

Variable*
Variable**
Variable***
Variable****
Variable*****

*Any item or object that can be wielded in one or two hands can be used as an improvised weapon, and has the name of the object in question.
**The cost of the improvised weapon depends on the cost of the object or objects being used.
***The damage is 1d4, unless the object is similar to another weapon on this list, in which case, use the damage profile from that weapon
****The weight is dependent on the object being used
*****The improvised weapon may be considered the same as another weapon it is similar to, and may have the properties of thrown, or not, depending.

So, instead of cluttering up the table with a completely useless line for what is a vast and broad category with variable rules, or worse yet, listing individual examples like Broomsticks, Buckets, Table Legs, Broken Bottles, Branches, etc, they chose to devote an entire section of the rules to that category, right before silvered weapons and special weapons, and within the weapons properties section of the rules. Note that silvered weapons *also* do not appear on the weapons chart, and yet, they are still weapons.

Easy_Lee

2015-06-24, 07:36 PM

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-24, 08:38 PM

Weapons are something I would simplify. Why? Because of spells like magic weapon. Why does magic weapon work on a wooden club, but not a wooden table leg? The latter is damn near the same shape, and is made of the same material. But it can't benefit from magic weapon because it's not on an arbitrary table. Even in a "magic did it" system, that's silly.

So here's what I think: if you use something to attack, then it's a weapon.

Regarding unarmed strike, the developers have jumped through hoops. It isn't a weapon, but you are proficient with it, can make weapon attacks with it, and it has a set damage. It's a weapon in everything but name. They did this to nerf monk multiclass builds. That's a crappy thing for them to have done, especially since none of those multiclass builds were particularly game breaking.

Short version: if you attack with it then it's a weapon, and I'd houserule the **** out of that.

Agreed, but I don't believe a houserule is necessary, that's the way the rules currently work, if it can be wielded in one or two hands, and used with hostile intent, it's a weapon.

To sum up the arguments as best as I can, for anyone jumping in:

Why Improvised Weapons and Natural Weapons are Weapons:
They are named weapons.
They are listed and explained in the weapons section.
The weapons list specifically calls itself out for not being all inclusive. It states that it shows "the most common weapons used", and NOT, in any way, All weapons.
For the example character from page 121 "a frying pan remains one of her favorite weapons", showing that at minimum, a frying pan is a weapon.
The monster manual allows a weapon to be "a manufactured item or natural weapon", a rather inclusive list which specifically includes Natural Weapons.
There is no rules text describing natural weapons or improvised weapons which states that they do not interact with effects that apply to weapons.

Why others believe Improvised are not weapons:
When they state whether or not Improvised Weapons resemble actual weapons, they mean to imply that Improvised Weapons do not interact with terms and effects that apply to weapons. They neglected to state this directly, but it was meant to be implied.

Why others believe Natural Weapons are not weapons:
When they state directly that Natural Weapons are in fact weapons, they mean to imply they are not. The use of scare quotes around the term "weapon" shows that it's not Really a weapon. They neglect to state this directly, nor do they state that natural weapons do not interact with terms and effects that apply to weapons, but it was meant to be implied.

I hope I didn't miss anything, please let me know if I did.

Arial Black

2015-06-24, 08:40 PM

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-24, 08:46 PM

The fact that you think the errata is stupid, just goes to show that you aren't treating 'weapon' the same way the game is. The errata makes perfect sense to those of us that treat 'weapon' as intended.

It would be less confusing (for some) if they had: natural weapons, improvised weapons, and manufactured weapons. Because when they say 'weapon' they mean 'manufactured weapon', and that's why unarmed strikes had to be removed from the weapons table, and natural weapons and improvised weapons never were treated as 'weapons' in the game.

Removing unarmed strikes from the table, at the same time as saying that unarmed strikes are not weapons, demonstrates that the game itself equates 'weapon' with the objects on the weapons table.

Except for the line in the PHB which states expressly that "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D". This means that the term weapon Cannot be equated with objects on the weapon table, since only the most common weapons are shown on the table. It directly states that as not being the case.

And indeed, if they had natural weapons, improvised weapons, and manufactured weapons, and further indicated that when they say weapon they mean manufactured weapon, that would be clear. Instead, they directly state that natural weapons Are weapons, and never once state anywhere that they are not treated as weapons in the game. Thus there is no support for your treatment of weapon as being the intended one, and significant support to the contrary.

Arial Black

2015-06-24, 10:29 PM

The weapons on the table are indeed the most common. However. Every single published 5E weapon is on that table, and if they publish any more then they will put the new weapons in another weapons table.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-25, 12:04 AM

Gwendol

2015-06-25, 12:17 AM

Actually there is, granted by tavern brawler. Note too that simple and martial are spelled out as merely being categories of weapons that one can acquire proficiency in through race, class, or feats, and it is neither stated nor implied that all weapons fall within those categories. There is also no weapon proficiency in an Ice Devil's spear, are you also indicating that as such it is not a weapon?

I certainly agree though that the writers never imagined the question would arise, regarding a category of weapons in the weapons section of the book, as to whether or not they are weapons. For different reasons than you, I would imagine, but I definitely agree they did not expect the question to arise.

Tavern brawler allows the player to add proficiency bonus to attacks made with any object that can be wielded in one or two hands. That does not make those objects weapons, although one can argue they are like weapons in the hands of a tavern brawler.

The ice devil spear is a spear. Why do you think it requires some special proficiency?

coredump

2015-06-25, 12:53 AM

Except for the line in the PHB which states expressly that "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D". This means that the term weapon Cannot be equated with objects on the weapon table, since only the most common weapons are shown on the table. It directly states that as not being the case. PLease stop with the straw man..... Everyone knows there are other weapons in the world. Things like katanas, or a kukri, or whatever.
But you want people to believe that the rules support that *everything* is a weapon. Items can be used in the same way you use a weapon....does not make them a weapon.

Thus there is no support for your treatment of weapon as being the intended one, and significant support to the contrary.
except there they explicitly state that Improvised Weapons are different from Actual weapons, and that some do not even resemble a weapon. Both of which are completely non-sensical statements if an improvised weapon *is* a weapon.

While camping I made an improvised pillow out of a rock... does not mean a rock is a pillow...

MeeposFire

2015-06-25, 01:11 AM

PLease stop with the straw man..... Everyone knows there are other weapons in the world. Things like katanas, or a kukri, or whatever.
But you want people to believe that the rules support that *everything* is a weapon. Items can be used in the same way you use a weapon....does not make them a weapon.

except there they explicitly state that Improvised Weapons are different from Actual weapons, and that some do not even resemble a weapon. Both of which are completely non-sensical statements if an improvised weapon *is* a weapon.

While camping I made an improvised pillow out of a rock... does not mean a rock is a pillow...

Actually the rock would be a pillow. A pillow is a support for the head or other part of the body typically while using a bed. In modern times most are made with more comfortable materials but I see nothing to suggest that your rock would not be a pillow if you use it as such. Of course it is still a rock as well. Objects are not always static qualities.

This is just a statement born of reality and not necessarily rules in a game. In real life what D&D calls improvised weapons would certainly be called a weapon if they were used with intent to hurt or kill though that may or may not have any bearing on the rules being discussed.

georgie_leech

2015-06-25, 02:20 AM

Actually the rock would be a pillow. A pillow is a support for the head or other part of the body typically while using a bed. In modern times most are made with more comfortable materials but I see nothing to suggest that your rock would not be a pillow if you use it as such. Of course it is still a rock as well. Objects are not always static qualities.

This is just a statement born of reality and not necessarily rules in a game. In real life what D&D calls improvised weapons would certainly be called a weapon if they were used with intent to hurt or kill though that may or may not have any bearing on the rules being discussed.

At the same time though, if someone wants to borrow a pillow from you and you hand them a rock, they are going to be cross and not mollified by pedantry. The commonly used meaning of pillow is for an object that, yes, provides support for the neck, but is also soft and cushiony. That is why you can describe, say, a stuffed animal as pillowy, but you wouldn't describe a block of wood like that.

In the same way, if you go to a fight and claim that the pencil you're holding means you're armed, you'd be laughed at. You might be able to use it to stab someone, but it is not a weapon in the commonly accepted sense.

The rules remain consistent with each other if you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack without an actual weapon, because it never says you need a weapon to make a weapon attack. Indeed, the point of the category is to encompass any attack made without using a spell, as evidenced by creature Stat blocks that use actions (rather than objects) as weapon attacks. An animated rug is not wielding a Smother. It is not holding 'it' or using 'it.' Rather, it makes a melee weapon attack using itself, and the name of this attack is Smother.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-25, 03:17 AM

At the same time though, if someone wants to borrow a pillow from you and you hand them a rock, they are going to be cross and not mollified by pedantry. The commonly used meaning of pillow is for an object that, yes, provides support for the neck, but is also soft and cushiony. That is why you can describe, say, a stuffed animal as pillowy, but you wouldn't describe a block of wood like that.

In the same way, if you go to a fight and claim that the pencil you're holding means you're armed, you'd be laughed at. You might be able to use it to stab someone, but it is not a weapon in the commonly accepted sense.

The rules remain consistent with each other if you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack without an actual weapon, because it never says you need a weapon to make a weapon attack. Indeed, the point of the category is to encompass any attack made without using a spell, as evidenced by creature Stat blocks that use actions (rather than objects) as weapon attacks. An animated rug is not wielding a Smother. It is not holding 'it' or using 'it.' Rather, it makes a melee weapon attack using itself, and the name of this attack is Smother.

Were you to hand them a rock, and they grew cross at you, and you then rightfully took it back, in a few hours they would be begging for that rock back as it is significantly better than nothing at all. Sometimes you have to work with what you have on hand, kind of like improvised weapons.

In terms of pencils, offhand Gross Pointe Blank and Bourne Identity come to mind as to two movies where opponents definitely rue the fact their opponent had a writing utensil. A pencil, being a sharpened stick, is 10x better than nothing at all, and is in many ways a wooden dagger or dart, so not only would it definitely qualify as a improvised weapon (and worth noting that attacking someone with a pencil in real life would get you convicted of armed assault) but on top of that, it would actually fall under the "similar to a weapon" part of improvised weapons. Since you would be convicted of using a weapon in your crime were you wielding a pencil, in the same way you would be if using a frying pan, a baseball bat, or a brick, it would seem that they are indeed weapons in the commonly accepted sense, when used in that fashion. Why do you think you're not allowed to take screwdrivers and such on planes? They are freely recognized as potential weapons, since a weapon is a device used to inflict harm to others.

In that way, if we accept that improvised weapons are recognized and treated as actual weapons in reality, and that as with most things it is presumed that the game is like reality, except in the areas where it expressly tells us how it is different, we would expect to see a statement indicating improvised weapons are not treated as weapons by the game rules, and we find no such statement.

The rules remain perfectly consistent, flawlessly consistent with each other if improvised weapons and natural weapons are weapons. In what way are they not? What inconsistency are you attempting to rectify by saying they are not weapons?

If a animated rug is using itself for smother, that would make it a natural weapon attack, an attack using part of the body. As the monster manual clearly states that weapons can be natural weapons, in this case it is an armed attack with a part of its body capable of inflicting harm, put another way a natural weapon attack as part of the attack action.

If the monsters were attacking with actions, not objects, it would not be possible to change the objects they are wielding, but that is exactly what the DMG describes in the section on "switching weapons". "If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace that weapon with a different one. For example, you could replace a hobgoblin's longsword with a halberd." Meaning monsters are indeed attacking with the manufactured weapons they are wielding, but that is a totally separate point from whether or not improvised weapons are weapons.

ryan92084

2015-06-25, 07:58 AM

I wonder how much Mearls et al regret calling them weapon attacks instead of something more ambiguous like physical, armed, or mundane attacks.

coredump

2015-06-25, 08:26 AM

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-25, 10:37 AM

You may wish you kept that rock....but only because sometimes an Improvised pillow is better than no pillow, but it still doesn't make it an "actual pillow"

And remember... the PHB rules explicitly state that an improvised weapon is not an actual weapon....and often doesn't even resemble a weapon.

Probably very very little. I would guess that the vast vast majority of players are not stuck trying to make semantic games in an attempt to 'prove' the rules 'don't work'.

But it does. That rock is then "anything used to cushion the head; headrest". It is by definition a pillow. That's what I'm saying. Had it not been used to rest your head upon, it would not be a pillow, but now, by definition, it is, and you not accepting it as a pillow does not mean it is not a pillow.

And remember, the PHB rules DO NOT explicitly state that an improvised weapon is not an actual weapon. They state different categories of improvised weapons which either do or do not resemble actual weapons, sure, but if there were a single line in the PHB that says "an improvised weapon is not a weapon, and is not treated as such", this whole thing wouldn't be up for debate at all. Instead, they explicitly state that frying pans, at minimum, are in fact weapons. Are you saying frying pans are governed by different rules than the rest of the improvised weapons?

At no point did I say the rules don't work. No one has made that argument that I am aware of. Please don't misrepresent my argument or the argument of others.

-Jynx-

2015-06-25, 10:40 AM

Arial Black

2015-06-25, 10:41 AM

In terms of pencils, offhand Gross Pointe Blank and Bourne Identity come to mind as to two movies where opponents definitely rue the fact their opponent had a writing utensil. A pencil, being a sharpened stick, is 10x better than nothing at all,

...and 10x worse than having an actual dagger.

(and worth noting that attacking someone with a pencil in real life would get you convicted of armed assault)

In Britain we can be arrested and charged for carrying an offensive weapon. If I was carrying a combat knife, or a machete, or a pistol, or...anything designed to be a weapon (like the things on the weapons table-there's a clue in the name), then I could be arrested.

But if I were carrying a pencil...or a clock, or a table, or a television...I would not be arrested for carrying a weapon, even though I could, in theory, use any of these as a weapon! I might get arrested for stealing a television, but that's another story...

So 'The Law' has two views about the word 'weapon', and these are the same two meanings that the game uses: things that are weapons (the game calls these, 'weapons'), and things that may be used as weapons (which the game calls 'improvised weapons').

In that way, if we accept that improvised weapons are recognized and treated as actual weapons in reality

See above.

and that as with most things it is presumed that the game is like reality, except in the areas where it expressly tells us how it is different, we would expect to see a statement indicating improvised weapons are not treated as weapons by the game rules, and we find no such statement.

We find the rules have a heading of 'weapons' in the equipment chapter, and a table which presents them. We have a section that lets us attack with objects which are not actually weapons. We also have rules for attacks that fall into two categories: 'weapon attack' and 'spell attack'; every attack uses one of these, and the attack does not actually need to be an actual weapon, nor an actual spell.

The rules remain perfectly consistent, flawlessly consistent with each other if improvised weapons and natural weapons are weapons. In what way are they not? What inconsistency are you attempting to rectify by saying they are not weapons?

Then explain why the errata had to remove unarmed strike from the weapons table.

If a animated rug is using itself for smother, that would make it a natural weapon attack, an attack using part of the body. As the monster manual clearly states that weapons can be natural weapons, in this case it is an armed attack with a part of its body capable of inflicting harm, put another way a natural weapon attack as part of the attack action.

The MM does not say that they are weapons; it says "weapons" indicating that they know they are not actual weapons, but are used like them. Scare quotes. They are not the other kind of quote, because the written rulebooks don't use those kind of quotes to highlight defined rules terms, they use bold.

What the MM says is that natural weapons can be used to make 'weapon attacks', and that's not in doubt.

If the monsters were attacking with actions, not objects, it would not be possible to change the objects they are wielding, but that is exactly what the DMG describes in the section on "switching weapons". "If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace that weapon with a different one. For example, you could replace a hobgoblin's longsword with a halberd." Meaning monsters are indeed attacking with the manufactured weapons they are wielding, but that is a totally separate point from whether or not improvised weapons are weapons.

Which goes to show, yet again, that the game uses 'weapon' to mean 'manufactured weapon'. If a lion attacks with claw/bite/rake, it can't swap them for wing buffet/gore/hoof.

-Jynx-

2015-06-25, 10:55 AM

...and 10x worse than having an actual dagger.

Depends on the situation. Hard to sneak a dagger into some places, very easy to take a pencil anywhere. Going back to the idea that having a pencil is x10 better than nothing at all. Which is ironic that you point that out because of your next point bellow.

In Britain we can be arrested and charged for carrying an offensive weapon. If I was carrying a combat knife, or a machete, or a pistol, or...anything designed to be a weapon (like the things on the weapons table-there's a clue in the name), then I could be arrested.

But if I were carrying a pencil...or a clock, or a table, or a television...I would not be arrested for carrying a weapon, even though I could, in theory, use any of these as a weapon! I might get arrested for stealing a television, but that's another story...

A great example on why a pencil in this situation would be better to have than a dagger. If the police stop you, until you've hurt someone with said weapon, the pencil wont get you in any trouble.

Arial Black

2015-06-25, 11:02 AM

Why Improvised Weapons and Natural Weapons are Weapons:
They are named weapons.

No they are not. They are named 'improvised weapons', to show that they are not actual weapons. If they were weapons, they wouldn't have rules saying that they do not resemble weapons, do not add proficiency bonus, unless they do resemble a weapon. These words would not have been written if they were actual weapons. They would be a completewaste of time, ink and space.

They are listed and explained in the weapons section.

...to compare and contrast them with actual weapons.

The weapons list specifically calls itself out for not being all inclusive. It states that it shows "the most common weapons used", and NOT, in any way, All weapons.

Nor does it mean that 'everything is a weapon'. It just means that future publications may introduce new (actual) weapons.

For the example character from page 121 "a frying pan remains one of her favorite weapons", showing that at minimum, a frying pan is a weapon.

Sure. That text is straight out of the novels where Tika originated. It's not a game term; she habitually uses the frying pan as a weapon, and the novel doesn't have to follow game definitions.

As for Tika, she started the novels as a bar wench. She probably has the feat Tavern Brawler, which lets her add her proficiency bonus to attacks with improvised weapons.

An ability which wouldn't make sense if 'improvised weapons' were 'weapons'.

The monster manual allows a weapon to be "a manufactured item or natural weapon", a rather inclusive list which specifically includes Natural Weapons.

It allows 'weapon attacks' to be made with natural weapons. It also puts "weapon" in scare quotes, indicating that they know that natural weapons are not actual weapons.

There is no rules text describing natural weapons or improvised weapons which states that they do not interact with effects that apply to weapons.

None are needed. When spells and such specify eligible targets, they do not (and do not need to) specify all the things that the spell does not target!

When a spell says 'choose a weapon', it tells you what the spell can target. It does not need to say that it doesn't target natural weapons or improvised weapons or spells which resembles weapons, because none of these things are weapons, even if they can be used as weapons.

Arial Black

2015-06-25, 11:05 AM

Depends on the situation. Hard to sneak a dagger into some places, very easy to take a pencil anywhere. Going back to the idea that having a pencil is x10 better than nothing at all. Which is ironic that you point that out because of your next point bellow.

A great example on why a pencil in this situation would be better to have than a dagger. If the police stop you, until you've hurt someone with said weapon, the pencil wont get you in any trouble.

Sure, a pencil is better at not being detected as a weapon, but that is because it isn't a weapon.

The '10x better' thing refers to its usefulness in actual combat, not to its adventures on the way to getting into that combat.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-25, 11:38 AM

In Britain we can be arrested and charged for carrying an offensive weapon. If I was carrying a combat knife, or a machete, or a pistol, or...anything designed to be a weapon (like the things on the weapons table-there's a clue in the name), then I could be arrested.

But if I were carrying a pencil...or a clock, or a table, or a television...I would not be arrested for carrying a weapon, even though I could, in theory, use any of these as a weapon! I might get arrested for stealing a television, but that's another story...

Wanted to address this, since this is the only new point you've raised, otherwise you have provided no further support for your position.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/gateshead-thug-robert-webber-fails-9415850

It certainly seems that British Law does indeed take into account attacking someone with objects such as cups and frying pans in terms of applying jail terms and convicting for armed assault. The man in question has been convicted of weapon possession charges for having scissors. My guess is that he was attacking someone with it, and thus, it was a weapon in the court's opinion when they charged him with weapon possession. Certainly he didn't get the weapon possession charge from owning craft knives in his home, I would think. So in short, yes, were you to attack someone with a clock, you would be found guilty of armed assault accordingly.

Edit:

Then explain why the errata had to remove unarmed strike from the weapons table.

Because unarmed strikes are not simple melee weapons, and you don't gain proficiency in them by having proficiency in simple weapons, just like you don't fail to have proficiency in them if you don't have simple weapon proficiency somehow. I am not arguing that unarmed strikes are weapons, nor am I arguing that unarmed strikes should be on the weapon table, both of which are separate issues from each other and wholly and totally separate from whether or not improvised weapons or natural weapons are, indeed, weapons.

Further Edit: Eh, why not.

No they are not. They are named 'improvised weapons', to show that they are not actual weapons. If they were weapons, they wouldn't have rules saying that they do not resemble weapons, do not add proficiency bonus, unless they do resemble a weapon. These words would not have been written if they were actual weapons. They would be a completewaste of time, ink and space.

Not at all. It actually saves quite a bit of ink and space. Saying that you do not use your proficiency bonus (unless of course you have tavern brawler) unless it resembles something that you have proficiency in? All the logic in the world. Saying that you can use an object that resembles a longsword, exactly as though it were a longsword, being "treated as such" and being able to be used "as if it were that object" (from the rules you are referencing) hardly seems like a compelling argument that the rules treat them differently.

...to compare and contrast them with actual weapons.

Just like silvered weapons, then?

Nor does it mean that 'everything is a weapon'. It just means that future publications may introduce new (actual) weapons.

Have any rules text to back that up?

Sure. That text is straight out of the novels where Tika originated. It's not a game term; she habitually uses the frying pan as a weapon, and the novel doesn't have to follow game definitions.

But weapon *is* a game term, per your argument. You can't just say "but they didn't mean it", and they do not say "a frying pan remains one of her favorite objects to use as a weapon", and this is not in the novel. This is in the game rules as an example character, and that example character uses a frying pan as her favorite weapon. Thus, a frying pan *is* a weapon.

As for Tika, she started the novels as a bar wench. She probably has the feat Tavern Brawler, which lets her add her proficiency bonus to attacks with improvised weapons.

An ability which wouldn't make sense if 'improvised weapons' were 'weapons'.

I certainly agree she likely has Tavern Brawler. Whether she does or does not, though, has no bearing on whether or not a frying pan is a weapon. The ability makes all the sense in the world if improvised weapons are weapons, and does not if they aren't! Why allow someone to add their proficiency bonus to an improvised weapon which has no similarity to an "actual" weapon (the only case tavern brawler would apply to a fighter, for example) if it is not a weapon?

It allows 'weapon attacks' to be made with natural weapons. It also puts "weapon" in scare quotes, indicating that they know that natural weapons are not actual weapons.

Incorrect, the text states "where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike". Regardless of your thoughts about it being scare quotes, that does not negate the fact that they have then directly stated a weapon may be a manufactured item or natural weapon. Furthermore, I will point out again that the argument that they are using scare quotes must by necessity be applied to the whole phrase, which is tantamount to arguing that manufactured items are also not "actual" weapons, which is plainly and obviously wrong, thus that cannot be the intended interpretation.

None are needed. When spells and such specify eligible targets, they do not (and do not need to) specify all the things that the spell does not target!

Indeed, I fully agree! When it is specified it applies to a weapon, you do not need to specify it does not target improvised or natural weapons or silver weapons or green weapons or metal weapons, unless it does not! And without that specification, it applies to all weapons, which certainly includes improvised and natural weapons!

When a spell says 'choose a weapon', it tells you what the spell can target. It does not need to say that it doesn't target natural weapons or improvised weapons or spells which resembles weapons, because none of these things are weapons, even if they can be used as weapons.
Except they are, they are categories of weapons, you have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

-Jynx-

2015-06-25, 03:38 PM

Sure, a pencil is better at not being detected as a weapon, but that is because it isn't a weapon.

The '10x better' thing refers to its usefulness in actual combat, not to its adventures on the way to getting into that combat.

But how is your dagger x10 better in actual combat if I can eviscerate you with either? You can't possibly assume that I'm any more capable of painting the walls with your blood with a dagger than a pencil.

Is your longsword more of a weapon than your wooden club because the longsword can hack and slash? A weapon is a weapon... it inflicts bodily harm, and everything can be a weapon especially if you're creative enough.

I would feel just as confident with a broken bottle as I would a knife, but in your opinion the dagger is king because "it's a weapon, and a bottle isn't".

georgie_leech

2015-06-25, 04:17 PM

But how is your dagger x10 better in actual combat if I can eviscerate you with either? You can't possibly assume that I'm any more capable of painting the walls with your blood with a dagger than a pencil.

Is your longsword more of a weapon than your wooden club because the longsword can hack and slash? A weapon is a weapon... it inflicts bodily harm, and everything can be a weapon especially if you're creative enough.

I would feel just as confident with a broken bottle as I would a knife, but in your opinion the dagger is king because "it's a weapon, and a bottle isn't".

Why not outfit armies with pencils then? The ability to use things not designed to be weapons as deadly implements peaks more to human ingenuity than it does to any inherent quality of things not designed to be weapons.

Gwendol

2015-06-25, 06:41 PM

Well, a club is a simple weapon while the longsword is a martial weapon. They require different proficiencies, which in the game are there to differentiate their efficiency in some way.
Objects used as weapons are further along that line since most will be wielded without proficiency, and do 1d4 damage.
Weapons fall under two categories, simple and martial (and possibly monk, come to think of it). Improvised weapons are just objects.

MeeposFire

2015-06-25, 08:02 PM

Why not outfit armies with pencils then? The ability to use things not designed to be weapons as deadly implements peaks more to human ingenuity than it does to any inherent quality of things not designed to be weapons.

Clearly because they are not as effective as other potential weapons. However being less effective than other objects does not render an object not a weapon. It just makes them less desirable.

This whole thing is a silly argument to start with because even if the rock is a pillow in real life does not necessarily mean it can count as a pillow in a game with rules about pillows.

THAT is the actual discussion. Unlike the game in real life an improvised weapon would be considered a weapon in a real and legal sense. It may be less effective and if you had a better option then you certainly would sue that instead but even so most objects would be considers a weapon if used like one, however even if that is true that does not mean it has to apply to a game since a game like this treats certain words as redefined game terms which may or may not stand with what happens in reality. In any given game a crow bar may not be a "weapon" even if it clearly would be in real life.

Arial Black

2015-06-25, 08:46 PM

If I go to the weapons shop and they try to sell me a frying pan, clock or pencil, on the grounds that if I attack with them they count as a weapon, then I'd sue them for selling goods under false pretences.

If I walk down the street minding my own business carrying a frying pan, a clock and a pencil in a bag, and I get arrested for carrying concealed weapons, I'd sue them for false arrest.

What an object is and how an object is used are different things in reality, in law, and in the game.

In the game, an object must be designed as a weapon in order to be a 'weapon', but you can make a 'weapon attack' with anything that can be used as a weapon.

This is how the game actually works, as perfectly illustrated by the need for an errata to remove unarmed strikes from the weapons table. That errata would not be consistent with the idea that every object in the world and every natural attack is an actual weapon.

Safety Sword

2015-06-25, 08:57 PM

Probably very very little. I would guess that the vast vast majority of players are not stuck trying to make semantic games in an attempt to 'prove' the rules 'don't work'.

Amen. And some more characters to make sure I have more than 10 characters.

Arial Black

2015-06-25, 10:18 PM

If I went to buy a pillow and they gave me a rock, I'd be more likely to use it at that moment as an improvised weapon than an improvised pillow!

-Jynx-

2015-06-26, 01:36 PM

Why not outfit armies with pencils then? The ability to use things not designed to be weapons as deadly implements peaks more to human ingenuity than it does to any inherent quality of things not designed to be weapons.

Well I'm comparing a pencil to a dagger not a pencil to a sword. Regardless a sword is more tailored to the situation don't get me wrong, but other object can be used all the same. With enough tenacity, strength, or quickness you can use any object to kill someone. Lets say you had a gun, but no bullets. You instead bludgeon someone to death with the empty gun. Is the gun no longer a weapon because it's not being used to shoot bullets? Now that its a glorified (tiny) metal club what makes it more of a weapon than a lead pipe? Or a wrench? Or a carpenters hammer? Just because an object has multiple uses doesn't make it any less of a weapon. You just don't want to call it such because it isn't an object generally used as such.

If I go to the weapons shop and they try to sell me a frying pan, clock or pencil, on the grounds that if I attack with them they count as a weapon, then I'd sue them for selling goods under false pretences.

It's really not false pretenses, they arne't calling the pencil a knife, nor at they calling the frying pan a baseball bat, just marketing them as "Objects with which you can inflict harm" which is what a weapon is. Unfortunately you'd be laughed out of a court room.

If I walk down the street minding my own business carrying a frying pan, a clock and a pencil in a bag, and I get arrested for carrying concealed weapons, I'd sue them for false arrest.

If you were waving the frying pan around menacingly in public, holding the pencil to someones neck, or throwing the clock at passer-bys though you would be arrested for assault with a weapon. Give or take a few extra charges.

What an object is and how an object is used are different things in reality, in law, and in the game.

In the game, an object must be designed as a weapon in order to be a 'weapon', but you can make a 'weapon attack' with anything that can be used as a weapon.

You are referring to the weapons chart that only highlights "common" weapons. Not "all" weapons. To say that some = all is sadly untrue. Take it into a different context... If I said the following are common foods:
Apples
Oranges
Bananas
Beef
Chicken

and someone else says "Well I like to eat grapes" do you scream "Sorry that isn't a food that's an improvised food because it isn't on the list of common foods"?

Vogonjeltz

2015-06-26, 04:25 PM

But how is your dagger x10 better in actual combat if I can eviscerate you with either? You can't possibly assume that I'm any more capable of painting the walls with your blood with a dagger than a pencil.

Well, I think he can assume that as a Pencil is generally a tiny wooden implement that is more likely to snap in half than to pierce your skin.

Conversely, a dagger is a metal implement designed specifically to pierce skin for the purpose of killing. Colloquially, we call such instruments, "weapons", whereas the former object is typically called "a writing implement".

Why not outfit armies with pencils then? The ability to use things not designed to be weapons as deadly implements peaks more to human ingenuity than it does to any inherent quality of things not designed to be weapons.

yeah, there is a reason people prefer advanced technology.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CombatPragmatist

Clearly because they are not as effective as other potential weapons. However being less effective than other objects does not render an object not a weapon. It just makes them less desirable.

This whole thing is a silly argument to start with because even if the rock is a pillow in real life does not necessarily mean it can count as a pillow in a game with rules about pillows.

THAT is the actual discussion. Unlike the game in real life an improvised weapon would be considered a weapon in a real and legal sense. It may be less effective and if you had a better option then you certainly would sue that instead but even so most objects would be considers a weapon if used like one, however even if that is true that does not mean it has to apply to a game since a game like this treats certain words as redefined game terms which may or may not stand with what happens in reality. In any given game a crow bar may not be a "weapon" even if it clearly would be in real life.

The distinction in the game between weapons and improvised weapons is that the former are intended to be weapons from the get-go, whereas improvised weapons are just that....improvised from things that aren't intended as weapons.

A chair is intended for sitting and a broomstick is intended for sweeping, but they can be utilized as weapons. Because they're not really intended for that use, it's valuable to have a set of guidelines on how to arbitrate their use as weapons. Ergo, the Improvised Weapons rules.

Unarmed Strikes go one step further in that those are rules for what to do when you don't even have an Improvised Weapon at hand. Yes, you can attack.