Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tyrionlannister2113 Jun 23, 2015 23:48:34	Okay, so I might be overthinking this, but I'm still a little confused on exactly what they're meaning by this change. So basically, they just gave further clarification about what attacks are considered an unarmed strikes (and how none of them are considered weapons), what its damage is (on a hit: bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your strength modifier) which is listed already on the weapons table in the PHB and they're just clarifying and how even though its not a weapon, to make an unarmed strike you make it the same way you would a weapon attack, that everyone is proficient in unarmed strikes, and just because unarmed strikes are not considered a weapon, it doesn't affect monsters that have resistance or immunity to bludgeoning damage from nonmagical weapons because unarmed strikes are still considered a non magical weapon attack? It was just a little confusing as well because the clarification they gave in the newest "Sage Advice" article phrases it: As corrected, unarmed strikes aren’t weapons, but a character can use them to make melee weapon attacks. Does the use of "can" there imply that unarmed strikes are able to be used differently then to make melee weapon attacks, or simply saying that that is just how they are made. I'm sorry if most of that was verbatim, I'm just trying to figure out if I got it all down. I really appreciate how helpful is on here, thanks!
#2 lawrencehoy Jun 24, 2015 3:33:49	i believe the errata for unarmed strikes, and the weapons table, is to remove any doubt about whether unarmed strikes can be used with abilities or features that specify the use of a weapon. They are retaining the usage of the term "weapon attack" so that the errata doesn't force a reprint/update of all the places in the text that use that term. A "weapon attack" can be with a weapon, an unarmed strike, or a creature's body part (claw, fang, talon, etc.).
#3 BoldItalic Jun 24, 2015 3:34:41	Wherever the rules say you can make a melee weapon attack, you can use unarmed strike instead of an actual weapon. You are allowed to. You don't have to, but you can if you want to. It gives you the choice. It's an option.   It's your equivalent of a monster's natural weapons - claw, bite and so on - that they use for melee weapon attacks in place of actual hand-held weapons.   But that's all you can use unarmed strike for - to make a melee weapon attack. It doesn't do anything else. You can't use it for a melee spell attack (because it's not a spell) or a ranged attack (because it doesn't have a range) so all you can use it for is a melee weapon attack.
#4 Razintarr Jun 24, 2015 4:32:10	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#5 mrpopstar Jun 24, 2015 4:57:25	BoldItalic wrote:
(Reply to #4) Macv12	Razintarr wrote:
#7 tyrionlannister2113 Jun 24, 2015 8:12:17	Thanks everyone, this all gives me a much better idea of it, I agree they really didn't make things the clearest with this. I think the combination of what lawrencehoy, BoldItallic, and the first paragraph of what Razintarr (who seemed to have been unintentionally playing it right, since they changed it as already quoted above, from "nonmagical weapons" to say "nonmagical weapon attacks")  said sums it up. I've got to say, though I completely understand how there was bound to be some errors in the first few prints of these core books, it's been really frustrating. For the amount I've paid, theres been a lot of problems and generally poorly written BASIC rules, which I've had to spend days searching and clarifiying with people about. There are many aspects I really like about this edition and it's still been a lot of fun playing with people, but I could really of gone without having to print out a ton of pdfs and other material that should've been included in the game.
#8 Noctaem Jun 24, 2015 8:23:27	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#9 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 11:12:25	Noctaem wrote:
#10 tyrionlannister2113 Jun 24, 2015 12:35:03	But based on what everyone said on this, and the new rules themselves, didn't they do the exact opposite with unarmed strikes? From what seems to be my, and everyone elses understanding, they are in fact clarifying that unarmed strikes should be treated as a nonmagical weapon attack (and can be used in place of a weapon when you make a melee weapon attack) instead of something that bypasses monster's immunities from bludegoning since orginally they were only immune to "nonmagical weapons" not "nonmagical weapon attacks". So in essence, an unarmed strike is a nonmagical weapon attack, that can be made in place of using an actual weapon for a weapon attack?
#11 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 12:59:15	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#12 Coredump00 Jun 24, 2015 13:41:08	I'm not sure why this creates so much confusion.   The game has weapons, and rules for making attacks with weapons. It also has spells that effect weapons.   In addition, every PC can make an attack without a weapon, and Unarmed Strike (with proficiency) Anytime you are going to make an Melee Weapon Attack, you may do so with an Unarmed Strike instead of using an actual weapon.   The net effect is no change for things that rely on using a Melee Weapon Attack (such as Smite or Stunning Strike); but a change for anything that relies on using an actual weapon.
#13 tyrionlannister2113 Jun 24, 2015 13:43:15	Ahh okay, from the way you first worded it, "they just overlooked the fact that making unarmed strikes a weapon in mechanical terms (as they orginally were) would allow some inappropriate effects to apply to them", sounded to me like you were saying that because they are treated as a weapon attack, it causes inappropriate effects (refering to being able to bypass monster immunities to bludgeoning damage from nonmagical weapons, which wouldn't make sense as by doing this they actually fix the problem) when in fact you were refering to what you just said, effects meant to target weapons could also apply to unarmed strikes. Now my question is, as I haven't encountered this situation you're talking about yet, does it fix it because they are clarifiying what unarmed strikes are so when effects meant to target weapons occur you can differentiate when an effect is supposed to target a weapon, and when an effect is supposed to target a weapon attack? If you could give me an example of this I'd really appreciate it
#14 mrpopstar Jun 24, 2015 14:42:02	Coredump00 wrote:
#15 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 21:22:43	tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
#16 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 23:06:04	EDIT: I posted this in response to a question about what kind of attack you could use to knock someone out, but the question seems to have disappeared. A "melee attack" (with no further description) means any kind of melee attack can be used.  The DM might decide that some particular melee attack is inappropriate, but by default, you can use any attack that works in melee and deals hit point damage.   So yes, you could use something like shocking grasp to knock someone out, since a melee spell attack is a kind of melee attack.
#17 lawrencehoy Jun 25, 2015 0:15:40	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#18 tyrionlannister2113 Jun 25, 2015 1:55:27	Oooh! Okay yes, that really does make sense. I appreciate it you guys, I'm so happy everyone on these threads are so helpful! And Slagger yes, that is weird that my question you addressed just disappeared, but that makes it a lot clearer for me.