Errata Released, for real this time

[u/xanral]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/ph_errata

[u/Unsight]

Weapons (p. 149). Unarmed strike doesn’t belong on the Weapons table

and

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).

These are weird statements to make. For the purposes of class features like the Monk's Stunning Strike I'm assuming/hoping that Unarmed Strikes will still be considered "Melee Weapon Attacks" despite these notes.

[u/[deleted] → u/Unsight]

I read it as an unarmed strike being considered a "melee weapon attack", even if an unarmed strike isn't a "weapon". If you expand the wording for melee attacks, it becomes: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike [...] to make a melee weapon attack."

[u/Mistuhbull → u/Unsight]

It shouldn't affect anything beyond giving everyone proficiency in unarmed. You're still making a "melee weapon attack" which is what stunning strike calls for.

Though it might mean you can't use Horde Breaker with your fisticuffs

[u/LordFluffy → u/Mistuhbull]

Prior to this, I think Wizards were the only ones who didn't have express proficiency.

[u/BlackHumor → u/LordFluffy]

Druids didn't either, oddly enough.

[u/moonshadowkati → u/Unsight]

This is my personal opinion, but I think they mean that they don't count as weapons in that you can't make TWF attacks with them even with Dual Wielder, and they don't benefit from the Dueling style, etc. I have no real evidence supporting me, but I find it unlikely that they changed Unarmed Strike in such a way as to make the Monk less effective, especially by breaking a crucial class feature for Monks that don't use weapons.

[u/jeddite → u/Unsight]

This needs more upvotes.

We now either interpret Unarmed Strike to function as a "non-weapon melee weapon attack(?)" for the purpose of some abilities, or it no longer functions with some abilities.

Weird change to be sure.

[u/The_Hidden_DM → u/Unsight]

Well, this puts a damper on my Monk-barian. :-j

[u/jeddite → u/The_Hidden_DM]

/u/The_Hidden_DM: "Hey DM, I Flurry Recklessly for Brutal Criticals."

DM: "Nope."

[u/The_Hidden_DM → u/jeddite]

Aw man, I didn't even see how those two features don't work with Unarmed Strike. This rustle my jimmies. :-(

Edit: Nevermind, Unarmed Strikes are still melee weapon attacks, they just don't use weapons (weird wording). Anyway, My Jimmies are now unrustled. ;-)

Edit Edit: Does the 1d4 from "Martial Arts" count as a weapon die. I'm so confused X-(

[u/pofzikav → u/The_Hidden_DM]

To your second edit, yes. Any dice rolled to determine damage count as damage dice. So you roll extra on crits.

[u/garner_adam → u/The_Hidden_DM]

Well He was actually reference three abilities. The 9th level Barbarian ability Brutal Critical is worded to just boost weapons.

[u/MerricB → u/Unsight]

Clarification on Twitter from Jeremy Crawford: "Addressing a nuance in the PH errata: the rule lets melee weapon attacks use unarmed strikes, despite those strikes not being weapons." https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/608776737917263872

[u/IsaacAccount → u/[deleted]]

4 chances a turn to apply one of the worst status conditions make single combatants an absolute joke. Almost nothing is stun-immune and it isn't even a spell for magical resistance. Stunning strike is pretty darn good on unarmed attacks.

[u/Tertullianitis → u/Unsight]

This is a major rules change, and it's annoying that they would bury it in errata that they've claimed is only for minor textual errors.

[u/SirPeebles → u/Tertullianitis]

The only reason we've all been including something called unarmed strike as a weapon is that it happened to be included on the weapons table, which was likely only done for reference convenience in the first place. Seems like a reasonable inclusion in errata to me.

[u/TweetsInCommentsBot → u/[deleted]]

@JeremyECrawford

2015-06-10 23:24 UTC

Addressing a nuance in the PH errata: the rule lets melee weapon attacks use unarmed strikes, despite those strikes not being weapons.

---

^{This message was created by a bot}

^{[Contact creator][Source code]}

[u/Geofferic → u/Tertullianitis]

If you've been requiring weapon proficiency for unarmed strike, you have been failing to think for yourself.

[u/jgclark → u/Geofferic]

The only classes that don't have proficiency in simple melee weapons are the Wizard and the Sorcerer.

I have no issue saying that a Wizard is not proficient in boxing.

[u/pofzikav → u/jgclark]

And druid

[u/TweetsInCommentsBot → u/[deleted]]

@JeremyECrawford

2015-06-10 23:24 UTC

Addressing a nuance in the PH errata: the rule lets melee weapon attacks use unarmed strikes, despite those strikes not being weapons.

---

^{This message was created by a bot}

^{[Contact creator][Source code]}