[Discussing Unarmed Combat]

[justduelist]

Unarmed Strike Rules
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.


one of many things that just dont make any sense when it comes to unarmed combat.

I don't understand when DnD does everything in its power to make unarmed strikes useless.

its not treated the same as a weapon even though theirs realistically nothing different between it and any other blunt melee weapon aside from the shorter reach(usually), self perceived weightless (which is a good thing and yet doesn't grant finesse), and the lower power output (which is represented by lower base damage).

i can understand wanting to limit certain effect to manufactured weapons or a particular damage type but to limit it to the extent that most features and basically all spells dont work with it while making anyone with just 1 point below average strength cant even do unarmed damage and refusing to make even so much as a single mention about unarmed combat when addressing combat manuevers such as grappling, ignoring how their aren't any rule for most actions of the like beyond class specific ability like the fighter being the only one able to feign an attack if they have the right archetype. (sorry about the horrible run-on sentence)

none of it makes sense.

i'm basically just venting but i'd like to hear what anyone else thinks about the unarmed system in 5e and how you handle it in your games.

[clash]

An unarmed strike is not a weapon but it can be used to make weapon attacks therby making it work with haste and lots of other things

[justduelist]

An unarmed strike is not a weapon but it can be used to make weapon attacks therby making it work with haste and lots of other things

that'd be great if it was true but it exemplifies my issue with how 5e distinguishes between unarmed and weapons in a horribly confusing manner.

do you happen to have the book(PHB?) and page number i can look at?

[MeeposFire]

Personally I eliminate the whole concept of differentiating between a "melee or ranged weapon attack" and "an attack with a melee or ranged weapon" since I feel it just adds unnecessary rules lawyering.

So anything you use as a weapon is treated as a weapon whether it is an actual weapon or not. However I do add one thing. I create a new category which is "manufactured weapon" the idea being that all the typical weapons in the book are labeled as a manufactured weapon which means that they are not a natural weapon (hence manufactured) and that they were made to be an actual weapon (so while a random stick can be used as a weapon but if an ability requires a manufactured weapon that stick would have to modified to a point where it becomes an honest to goodness club for it to work with it).

This allows me to not worry about what item you are using as a weapon in most cases while allowing me to use or create things that I only want to work with "an actual weapon". As an easy example the forge cleric is supposed to work only with items that are made so by using this category I can easily distinguish the ability so that it works with a dagger but not with your fist or a chair that you are using as a weapon.

So for me the unarmed strike now works with almost everything without being confusing or worrying about the exact wording of an ability (only when I add the "manufactured weapon" nomenclature to an ability which is rather rare).

[Quoxis]

that'd be great if it was true but it exemplifies my issue with how 5e distinguishes between unarmed and weapons in a horribly confusing manner.

do you happen to have the book(PHB?) and page number i can look at?

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/06/what-specifically-does-melee-weapon-attack-mean/

I guess the reason is to differentiate between melee spell attacks (shocking grasp) and „normal“ melee attacks more clearly, hence the name melee weapon attack. That unarmed strikes are weapon attacks is confusing, but better than them being yet another kind of melee attack imo.

[Foxhound438]

the stat block of the martial arts adept (in both volo's guide and tales from the yawning portal) pretty definitively shows that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks. It's also in PHB errata in the combat chapter.

[justduelist]

thanks Quoxis
though its disappointing that you have to visit a Q&A to clarify the 5e's terminology.

@MeeposFire
that sounds like a great way of handling it. albeit with a little extra DM consultation.

@hound
i dont have volos or that other book (i assume its an adventure book?), but in either case, i don't think looking at stat block should be needed to clarify any core rules that aren't an exception for that entity. thank for letting me know about the errata. i guess my PHB is outdated.

[Grear Bylls]

I'm actually working on a guide on how to make an effective Unarmed fighter (Jalor's Guide to Hitting Things Really Hard). Wait a week or two and I'll reveal all golden nuggets I've discovered on how to make this concept work.

[Unoriginal]

Look, it's simple:

A fist/leg/head is not a weapon. However, an unarmed strike is an attack.



D&D 5e makes the difference between attacks that are part of spells, and attacks that are not. They decided to call that "spell attack" and "weapon attack", which is not the clearest terminology, but still a working one.


So, the Unarmed Strike works with anything that allows a melee attack but does not require a weapon. Including the spell Haste.

Making the difference between "weapon attack" and "attack with a weapon" doesn't add rule-lawyering or anything like that, it's just an awkward wording for something that is in the end pretty simple.

Does the ability says that it requires using a weapon/that it is a melee attack with a weapon? Then it doesn't work with Unarmed Strike

Does the ability says that it works with with a melee weapon attack? Then it does work with Unarmed Strike.

[MeeposFire]

Look, it's simple:

A fist/leg/head is not a weapon. However, an unarmed strike is an attack.



D&D 5e makes the difference between attacks that are part of spells, and attacks that are not. They decided to call that "spell attack" and "weapon attack", which is not the clearest terminology, but still a working one.


So, the Unarmed Strike works with anything that allows a melee attack but does not require a weapon. Including the spell Haste.

Making the difference between "weapon attack" and "attack with a weapon" doesn't add rule-lawyering or anything like that, it's just an awkward wording for something that is in the end pretty simple.

Does the ability says that it requires using a weapon/that it is a melee attack with a weapon? Then it doesn't work with Unarmed Strike

Does the ability says that it works with with a melee weapon attack? Then it does work with Unarmed Strike.

I agree with what you said except for you saying it does not add rules-lawyering because it clearly does. Now granted some people use that term sometimes only in a negative fashion sort of like munchkin where in this case you are trying to use rules to your own benefit but at least for me that is not what being a rules lawyer actually means. I use it in a more neutral form (and honestly I believe that is the older way of looking at it) where being a rules lawyer means you always look at the rules as technically as possible and then you try to use the rules as RAW as possible without breaking them whether it helps you or not. A true rules lawyer to me does will try to use a rule even if it hurts him because that is what the rules say to do otherwise would mark them as something derogatory such as munchkin which I see as somebody that only uses the rules that help them and then try to mitigate or ignore rules that hurt them.

As to why I see this as adding a bit more to reading like a rules lawyer this requires you to go through what is said every time to see if the rule says "melee weapon attack" where unarmed strike works and "a melee attack made with a weapon" which is not usable with unarmed strike. To me that is way too technical with the language in an edition that supposedly was trying to go more with "common English". I am not saying it is too hard to do this or that I do nto get it but I do think that adding this bit of technicalities into the game rules is not good for it.

Seriously the whole thing would have been better off just letting you know the very few times where an actual manufactured weapon is needed rather than trying to create this relatively confusing use of technical reading (which is what I have done in my games there just is not a good reason for it).

[JackPhoenix]

Seriously the whole thing would have been better off just letting you know the very few times where an actual manufactured weapon is needed rather than trying to create this relatively confusing use of technical reading (which is what I have done in my games there just is not a good reason for it).

They do. That's what the "attack with a weapon" thing is all about. You're just trying to rename it... and, reading that post, make it *more* confusing, despite using different terms.

If anything, it's the "weapon attack" that should be renamed, considering you can make "weapon attacks" without an actual weapon.

[MeeposFire]

They do. That's what the "attack with a weapon" thing is all about. You're just trying to rename it... and, reading that post, make it *more* confusing, despite using different terms.

If anything, it's the "weapon attack" that should be renamed, considering you can make "weapon attacks" without an actual weapon.

I would refute that it somehow makes it more confusing as the poster who was confused by the current rules understood what I was getting at and the only reason it requires DM consultation at all is due to the fact it is a houserule if they did this at the start there would be no confusion because the term would be included when needed already.

When you look at booming blade instead of having to look around and see which way they decided to organize the words in a sentence to see if it works with an unarmed strike or a chair if the designers did not want it to work with unarmed strikes or an improvised weapon then they would just write somewhere the term "manufactured weapon" (or what ever term that works for you I do not care I only like it because it is easy to figure out for me) and you would know right away with no ambiguity.

Also your second sentence implies to me that you do agree that the current rules are not ideal but that you would rather change so really I think that means we are really just haggling over what is the best exact change to go with though I would wonder exactly what you would use that would be less confusing since you id not actually use anything in your idea. Personally I never had a problem with the use of the term weapon attack in this case because if I strike you with a chair I am using it as a weapon which fits how you would see the term used in say court where you could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon even if the item in question was not designed to be a weapon (such as a car). I find that easy to distinguish from say spell attack so if you made a change it would still need to be broad enough to cover using non-weapons but not so broad to include spells while also reducing confusion. So it would be interesting to hear your way of doing that.

I do not claim that what I have done is for sure the best way but it works for people I know, they find it to be less confusing, and does not really need that much work to use. All I have to do is if there is any ability I feel should only be used by a weapon on the weapon's table I just put in the description somewhere that it requires a manufactured weapon to use and it is done which my players have found much easier to use than looking to see if the ability says melee weapon attack or attack with a melee weapon or some such.

[justduelist]

They do. That's what the "attack with a weapon" thing is all about. You're just trying to rename it... and, reading that post, make it *more* confusing, despite using different terms.

If anything, it's the "weapon attack" that should be renamed, considering you can make "weapon attacks" without an actual weapon.

as state before; the only reason the "weapon attack"/"melee weapon attack" terms are used is to differentiate between mundane? and spell attacks. mundane doesnt really work as a way to differentiate either since weapon can be enchanted...

to this extent; i personally think that the term weapon would be better off replaced with martial in instances that do not require the specific use of a weapon. theres too much confusion in using a single turn as a catch all for things that do and do not actually count as that term. if that made sense.

do you have any opinion on any of he non-term related issues with unarmed combat? such as the lack of mechanics for non-damaging combat options with any relevance to unarmed combat such as disarming, grappling, moving the enemies, and so on so forth. (i couldn't remember how to spell the repo??? thingy).

[Unoriginal]

such as the lack of mechanics for non-damaging combat options with any relevance to unarmed combat such as disarming, grappling, moving the enemies, and so on so forth. (i couldn't remember how to spell the repo??? thingy).

What are you talking about?

Disarming, grappling, shoving and repositioning the enemy all have mechanics/rules, in 5e.

[justduelist]

What are you talking about?

Disarming, grappling, shoving and repositioning the enemy all have mechanics/rules, in 5e.

i didn't say their were no mechanic for them but their is no effect on these mechanic if you fight armed vs unarmed vs have even just 1 open hand. realistically even having just 1 open hand helps a ton when trying to grapple, disarm, or move a target (outside of shoving which shouldn't be affect).
note: i understand why they didn't include any due to the simplicity of the advantage system but that doesn't mean rule can't be made or discussed pertaining to this.