Unarmed Attacks

[Elbeyon]

Do unarmed attacks counting as melee weapon attacks break something? Sage advice and such seems really against the idea that unarmed attacks are weapon attacks. I have only seen the idea that they are not weapons cause strange issues. Is there some other side to the story that I am not seeing? What is wrong with there only being weapon or spell attacks.

[Vorpalchicken]

They are "weapon attacks" but not "attacks with a weapon."

[JackPhoenix]

Unarmed attacks are, and always were, melee weapon attack. What an unarmed strike isn't is an actual weapon.

[Elbeyon]

They are "weapon attacks" but not "attacks with a weapon."


Unarmed attacks are, and always were, melee weapon attack. What an unarmed strike isn't is an actual weapon.Let me shift my question. What is so important about unarmed attacks not being made with weapons.

[JackPhoenix]

Let me shift my question. What is so important about unarmed attacks not being made with weapons.

Well, that's kinda the definition of unarmed, isn't it?

[JNAProductions]

I can’t think of anything that it’d break to allow weapon cantrips or smites with unarmed attacks.

I’d allow it in my games, with the usual caveat “If this breaks something, it’ll be changed.”

[Edea]

Let me shift my question. What is so important about unarmed attacks not being made with weapons.

Nothing. In fact, if you have access to natural weapons (such as a Tabaxi), you can make unarmed strikes with them, despite the fact that you're armed.

[rlc]

It wouldn't really "break" anything, but it would interact with some things (mostly fighting styles) in weird ways. Like, do you need to be wearing a shield to use the dueling fighting style? Does the bare-fisted fighting style give your hands the versatile property? Etc, etc.

[Tanarii]

- it matters if something can enchant or make magical a (melee) weapon
- it matters if there is a rule that depends on the opponent not being armed with a (melee) weapon

[rlc]

my monk has +3 fisticuffs