| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Tal-ethOct 06, 2014 18:31:43 | I see that Unarmed Strike is listed as a weapon on the weapons table in the PHB. Does this mean that any effect that can be applied to a hand-held weapon can also be applied to an unarmed strike?
Thanks for any help! |
| #2-ktkenshinx-Oct 06, 2014 19:00:04 |
|
| #3Tal-ethOct 06, 2014 19:06:27 |
|
| #4WibbleNZOct 06, 2014 19:09:07 | I dislike treating unarmed strike as a weapon for all purposes, despite it appearing in the weapon table. Doing so breaks the dueling fighting style for example, as someone with a sword and empty hand is now wielding two weapons. It should be considered case-by-case at the very least. |
| (Reply to #4)FrogReaver |
|
| #6FrogReaverOct 06, 2014 19:28:44 |
|
| #7randlOct 06, 2014 19:55:49 | I would rule in favor of intent. It the player has a weapon in 1 hand and intends to make a bonus action unarmed strike, they do not get the Duelist bonus to damage. If they take the Duelest damage bonus, then they don't get thier bonus action attack with unarmed. |
| #8WibbleNZOct 06, 2014 20:31:29 |
|
| #9jonathonhawkeOct 06, 2014 20:38:09 | So...Unarmed Strike counts as a wielded weapon on the turn that you use it? |
| #10WibbleNZOct 06, 2014 21:11:42 | If we are asking for rulings, rather than rules, I would probably treat unarmed strike as a weapon that becomes 'unequipped' as it were, if wielding any another weapon. Avoids a couple of odd situations and doesn't affect Monk because specific beats general. There may be some interactions I haven't considered though. |
| #112ChlorobutanalOct 06, 2014 21:20:13 | An unarmed strike is used to make a melee weapon attack. There are only 4 kinds of attacks so far in 5e D&D:
Every attack falls into one of these four categories.
As far as what kind of "item" an unarmed strike becomes, it's not one. If you're making an unarmed strike, you're using a melee weapon attack and therefore can apply bonuses or feats that apply to melee weapon attacks.
For example: Improved Divine Smite and Colossus Slayer only require (melee) weapon attacks, so an unarmed strike would gain their bonus damage.
The "dueling" or "dual wielder" issue is a non-issue to me, because unarmed strikes are not "wielded," certainly not outside of the attacks utilizing them. They do not require a hand to "hold", because they are by definition usable when you are "unarmed" (wielding/holding no weapons).
Unarmed strike does not give passive state-based benefits such as:
Of course, it's possible to rule otherwise for Dueling Monks etc., but that'd be an exception and not something that "breaks" the rest of the game, unless you actively chose to treat it as such. |
| #12-ktkenshinx-Oct 06, 2014 21:22:29 |
|
| #13lawrencehoyOct 07, 2014 1:28:27 | I would just like to point out that, even though Unarmed Strike appears on the weapons table, it isn't given any Cost, Weight, or even Properties; therefore, I would rules that you can't just assign any effect to them either.
|
| #14-ktkenshinx-Oct 07, 2014 7:11:31 |
|
| #15ClutchboneOct 07, 2014 8:40:02 | Unarmed strikes are simple melee weapons that are not "wielded". When you are not "wielding" a weapon, you are "unarmed" but you can still attack, make opportunity attacks etc with your unarmed strikes. Even if you are wielding a weapon, you can still use an unarmed stike instead, although that's a dumb choice.
The real question for me is whether or not characters that have proficiency with simple melee weapons are also proficient with unarmed strikes. By RAW they are, and monks would suffer greatly if this wasn't the case, but the wording on Tavern Brawler implies otherwise (or maybe the feat just gives a redundant/useless proficiency). |
| #16RCanineOct 07, 2014 8:50:38 | Here's how I rule it. Unarmed Strike is a melee weapon attack similar to how monsters have bite and claw attacks. Unarmed Strike is not a weapon, however, and is not wielded. It's sometimes challenging to parse, but anything that says "with a weapon" or "while holding a weapon" does not apply to Unarmed Strike. Anything that requires you to hit with a melee weapon attack does work with unarmed strike.
I think unarmed strike is on the weapon table because that was the easiest way for them to present a weapon-like attack. |
| #17-ktkenshinx-Oct 07, 2014 9:15:32 |
|
| #18RCanineOct 07, 2014 13:24:51 |
|
| #19ClutchboneOct 07, 2014 13:32:35 | Slight tangent: does a character with 8-9 strength do 0 damage on unarmed strikes? |
| (Reply to #19)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #21slaughterjOct 07, 2014 17:39:14 | If you can't take an attack with a weapon in the offhand, would that weapon be considered wielded or just held? E.g., if someone did not have the dual wielder feat and was holding a longsword In each hand.
Note that unarmed strike does not have the light quality listed, which would suggest that one can make only one unarmed strike. That might help with some issues of interpreting the duelist damage when just wielding one weapon compared with when one is unarmed. If unarmed and can only make one unarmed attack, then applying duelist damage doesn't seem to be an issue. |
| #22lawrencehoyOct 07, 2014 22:44:13 |
|
| #23FrogReaverOct 07, 2014 23:15:40 | By definition a weapon is "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage." Unarmed strikes meet the literal definition of a weapon, it appears on the weapon chart.
One definition of wield means "have and be able to use (power or influence)" Unarmed strikes definietly meet the literal defition of weild. I have them and am able to use them.
...However I don't like the wacky interactions unarmed strikes have with certain other properties. Some beleive the best action is to ban unarmed strikes from ever benefitting from anything weapon related. I think the best fix is to allow them to benefit from such thigns but to restrict certain combination of weapon related things from working with thme.
It gives more character design choices and concepts while really taking away nothing from the game as long as DM gets final say on whether something will stack that way (since obviously the developers did not design any weapon related features with unarmed strikes in mind). |
| (Reply to #21)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| (Reply to #24)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #18)1eejit |
|
| #27ClutchboneOct 08, 2014 8:40:03 |
|
| (Reply to #27)1eejit |
|
| #29jonathonhawkeOct 08, 2014 7:12:47 | Martial Arts (PHB, Page 78): At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you master of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property.
Note that unarmed strikes are listed separately from monk weapons, even though they meet the definition of monk weapons.
As the section continues each bullet point calls for unarmed strike(s) and/or monk weapon(s).
I would take this as an indication that unarmed strikes are not to be treated as weapons, and that thier appearance on the weapon chart is simply to display their properties in the simplest way possible. |
| #30-ktkenshinx-Oct 08, 2014 8:53:38 |
|
| (Reply to #29)Clutchbone |
|
| #32RCanineOct 08, 2014 10:22:39 |
|
| #33RCanineOct 08, 2014 10:25:07 |
|
| #34-ktkenshinx-Oct 08, 2014 10:32:17 |
|
| #35lawrencehoyOct 10, 2014 1:08:35 |
|
| #36-ktkenshinx-Oct 10, 2014 6:38:42 |
|
| (Reply to #36)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #37)-ktkenshinx- |
|
| (Reply to #38)OoftaMeg |
|
| #40YunruOct 11, 2014 10:16:09 |
|
| #41jonathonhawkeOct 11, 2014 10:18:25 | With all this discussion I'm starting to think of Unarmed Strike as a special Melee Weapon Attack (like Shove and Grapple). It's listed on the Weapon chart because it uses a normal attack roll and does damage (unlike Shove and Grapple). I would allow it to be included in Simple Weapons proficiency, but otherwise it is not a weapon, it is an attack. It is not wielded (in one hand or otherwise), and is not one-handed. It also does not require a free hand - you could punch, kick, elbow, headbut, or even bite as an unarmed strike. |
| (Reply to #40)Timborama |
|
| #43lawrencehoyOct 13, 2014 3:29:58 |
|
| (Reply to #40)1eejit |
|
| #45Plaguescarred1Oct 13, 2014 6:48:51 | Unarmed Strike is a weapon, its a simple melee weapon on the weapon table. Its also reiterated in the Adventurer's League D&D adventure DDEX1-2 Secret of Sokol Keep;
|
| (Reply to #45)1eejit |
|
| #47Plaguescarred1Oct 13, 2014 7:08:55 |
|
| (Reply to #47)1eejit |
|
| #49Plaguescarred1Oct 13, 2014 7:27:33 |
|
| #501eejitOct 13, 2014 7:29:11 | That's not a definition I'm familiar with:
Wield verb Hold and use (a weapon or tool) To use or handle with skill and effect; to manage, actuate, ply (a weapon, tool, or instrument, now always one held or carried in the hand). |
| #51Plaguescarred1Oct 13, 2014 7:38:41 |
|
| #52paulstraitOct 13, 2014 15:42:20 | I think this issue isn't all that complicated. Unarmed strike is a 'simple melee weapon' in its technical, 5e rules sense. Any power/feature/ability that applies to melee weapon attacks apply to unarmed strike. Similarly, a beast's natural weapons count as melee weapons -- when the monster manual discusses this, it uses scare quotes to indicate here that we are using 'weapon' in a precise technical sense rather than its everyday sense: "the 'weapon' might be... a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike" (MM, p. 10). You can have proficiency with unarmed strike, which would only matter if it is a weapon. I could go on, but I think it is pretty conclusively established that in this precise technical sense, an unarmed strike is a 'melee weapon attack.' So, you can make a weapon attack while being unarmed (just like you can have an armor class while not wearing armor).
At the same time, unarmed strike is not a 'weapon' in the sense of a "an object you can wield in combat." As others have noted, the rules don't define 'wielding' in a precise way, nor do they indicate that something can be wielded by virtue of qualifying for the technical categery of 'simple melee weapon.' Words have multiple meanings, and you can't just assume that something that is true of one meaning is true of another. Being unarmed is not defined by the rules though it is bolded in p. 195. The only possible meaning that fits is 'if you are not wielding a weapon.' Since no rule says that you can wield an unarmed strike, and since it doesn't make sense, presumption would go against it. Further, some powers only work if you are 'wielding a melee weapon,' (e.g., Parry), which would otherwise be unnecessary to point out for a creature that has hands.
And doesn't this solve all the problems? I mean, aren't all of the 'problems' associated with considering 'unarmed strike' to be a weapon solved by noting that you cannot 'wield' an unarmed strike? I don't really understand what is unresolved in this discussion. |
| #53FrogReaverOct 13, 2014 17:34:21 | Depending on the definition of wield you can wield an unarmed strike |
| #542ChlorobutanalOct 13, 2014 22:56:39 | Okay, in what context does "wielding" an unarmed strike become important?
I.e.: What rules includes "wield" without also including "in one hand" or "in two hands," as an unarmed strike is not held in one or two hands?
Dueling is out, as is Great Weapon Fighting and Great Weapon Master (second feature); Defensive Duelist doesn't work with unarmed strike (although if a table were to rule that "unarmed strike" is a finesse weapon, they'd probably allow it to work with Defensive Duelist, as well). |
| #55paulstraitOct 13, 2014 22:35:11 | I don't know of any definition of wield in which it wouldn't sound silly to say "I am wielding an unarmed strike." More to the point, I'm not sure how you would define the state of being "unarmed" -- especially when in several places in the RAW, being unarmed is distinguished from wielding or holding weapons -- as not wielding any weapons. Since the RAW do not define wielding--that is, unlike, say, a 'simple melee weapon' or a 'melee weapon attack,' the RAW does not give us any reason to believe wielding is to be understood different from its use in everyday language (the RAW never put the word in scare quotes, like they do with "weapon"), it seems unjustified to use a strained definition. And, why would you want to? It seems like all the problems associated with treating unarmed strike as a weapon go away if you don't consider it to be wieldable. If unarmed strike is a weapon that you wield, it would mean it would be impossible to be a dualist (even if you cut off your hand, you still can always use unarmed strike). That seems not a desirable outcome... |
| #56jonathonhawkeOct 13, 2014 22:50:49 | Actually, I think the general rule is "When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as shown in the weapon table in chapter 5."
Monks have specific rules regarding unarmed strike, allowing them to use it while otherwise armed, but nobody else does. |
| (Reply to #55)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #57)FrogReaver |
|
| #59paulstraitOct 14, 2014 0:00:47 | Sure, it's a DM judgment issue. Of course. I'm just suggesting that the default would be. It seems unjustified to say 'you can wield an unarmed strike,' because people don't talk that way, so it would only make sense if it was making use of a technical term of art, except the game doesn't have such a technical term. So, where does it come from? What's motivating the desire to read it this way?
Obviously, the raw do not define wielding. My only point was that the obvious problems people have raised with considering unarmed strike to be a weapon are solved by it not being wieldable. |
| (Reply to #59)FrogReaver |
|
| #61paulstraitOct 14, 2014 0:12:31 | I'm telling you how I interpret the RAW. I never said that such a thing was impossible. Unlike you, I don't think a houserule is necessary when the RAW are silent on an issue. At your table, I'm guessing you have what you call a 'houserule' that defines wielding in such a way that could take 'unarmed strike' as an object? And perhaps another 'houserule' that would prevent this from eliminating dueling?
In any event, the sarcasm is unappreciated. |
| (Reply to #61)FrogReaver |
|
| #63paulstraitOct 14, 2014 0:31:12 | Its always up to the DM to make judgments. A judgment can be black-letter RAW, RAW-consistent, or RAW-divergent. The question of whether something is up to the DM (from the standpoint of black letter RAW -- that is, something that is undefined by the RAW) is separate from the question of whether of all the alternative possible intepretations, one's particular interpretation is the most RAW consistent.
When a DM makes a judgment, it isn't supposed to be arbitrary. It is supposed to have a reason. Some reasons are better than others. In any event, when I am arguing about a rule, as in this case, I am simply arguing for what I think would be the best judgment to make. Nothing I say invalidates the fact that a judgment must be made. |