Unarmed Striking RAW = simple melee weapon?

[Fenris-77]

Before you ask, yes, I realize I'm not the first guy to ask this question...

So I've been taking it on faith that unarmed strikes aren't melee weapons for skills and abilities that key off melee weapon attack because I read that everywhere, but having been over the PHB and DMG I can't find any good RAW rationale for that to be the case. Unarmed strike is listed in the Simple Melee Weapons list, the equipment section does not exclude it from that status, nor does anything in the combat section (rather the opposite there). I believe it may have been a Sage Advice question? Even looking at the answers I get when I google that I really fail to see the plan. They are weapon attacks, but they aren't weapons I believe was the part that really boggled me. Is there an actual rule somewhere that I'm missing?

I'm strictly talking about RAW here.

*edit* ahh, the errata. So unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, but not melee weapons. Huh. I guess I need to reread a bunch of rules.

 

[jaelis]

Like you saw, the errata clarifies that an unarmed strike is not a "weapon," simple or otherwise. This works pretty well.

The weirder thing to me is improvised weapons, which I think are again not, technically, weapons.

 

[Kobold Stew]

This solution, far from the "natural language" goal of the edition, does solve some edge cases: it means fists cannot be enchanted or silvered as other weapons can), for example. It also means that everyone is proficient with their fists (again, not obviously "correct" but it is a result of the re-wording). I think there's also an optional Disarming attack that needs a weapon (and so not an unarmed strike) in the DMG (I'm AFB right now).
Hope this helps.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm just struggling to figure out why this needed to be so complicated. There aren't many ways I can see this being abused other than maybe the use of empty off hands and TWF to allow for a grapple as a bonus action. Even then, I'm not sure that's exactly broken given how much competition there is for BAs. Its complicated and fuzzy enough it feels like there should be a really good reason for it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm just struggling to figure out why this needed to be so complicated. There aren't many ways I can see this being abused other than maybe the use of empty off hands and TWF to allow for a grapple as a bonus action. Even then, I'm not sure that's exactly broken given how much competition there is for BAs. Its complicated and fuzzy enough it feels like there should be a really good reason for it.

Well, it’s kind of linguistically weird to call fists “weapons.” And there are a few edge cases where having unarmed strikes defined as weapons mechanically could cause problems. But 5e for some reason only defines 4 kinds of attack: melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, and ranged spell attack. Clearly, an unarmed strike is a melee attack of some kind, and clearly it isn’t a spell. So, it’s pretty unintuitive that an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack but not a melee weapon. But the issue is really one with the technical language surrounding types of attacks, not with unarmed strikes specifically. A bear’s claw, a stag’s hooves, and an ooze’s pseudopod are all “melee weapon attacks” too, and none of those are melee weapons.

 

[jaelis]

I wonder if it would be clearer if they physical and magical attacks instead of weapon and spell attacks.

 

[77IM]

They could also make it clearer by having well-defined rules for natural weapons, e.g., "Natural weapons are part of a creature's body that it uses to attack. Natural weapons count as weapons for the purposes of attacking with them, but they are not objects and can't be affected as weapons (you can't disarm a natural weapon, or coat it in alchemical silver, or cast the magic weapon spell on it)."

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Hitting a foe with a fist (or an elbow strike, or a kick, or a bite, etc) is a melee weapon attack, but it is not an attack with a weapon.

Most things in the game are pretty clear about which one they mean.

For example:

The Divine Smite feature (Paladin) says, "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack". This does work with unarmed attacks and attacks with natural weapons. It doesn't work with bows (ranged weapon attack).

The Divine Strike feature (Forge Cleric) says, "when you hit a creature with a weapon attack". This works with fists and bows.

The Sneak Attack feature (Rogue) says, "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." It does not work with fists or teeth or horns, because those are not weapons (and so cannot be finesse weapons).

I'd like it if the phrasing was cleared up but I can't think of a better phrasing for the four types of attack (melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, ranged spell attack).

 

[Charlaquin]

They could also make it clearer by having well-defined rules for natural weapons, e.g., "Natural weapons are part of a creature's body that it uses to attack. Natural weapons count as weapons for the purposes of attacking with them, but they are not objects and can't be affected as weapons (you can't disarm a natural weapon, or coat it in alchemical silver, or cast the magic weapon spell on it)."

I think this would be the best solution, personally. Natural Weapons would count as weapons for the purpose of making attacks, but not for anything else.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The weirder thing to me is improvised weapons, which I think are again not, technically, weapons.

I hit the werewolf with the silver candlestick.