The Martial Arts feature doesn't care which body part you're using for your unarmed strikes. What matters is that you're not wearing armor, not using a shield, and any weapons you're wielding are monk weapons.
As everyone said above, you have more than just your hands.
Watch someone who knows Escrima, Muay Thai, Bojitsu or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu fight. They're not just striking and waiting, they're hitting with sticks and a kick, or a knee and an elbow, or a fist and a knee at each opportunity.
i understand that, but in this specific scenario when i have a torch (which DM can take as improvised weapon) in hand and shortsword in other hand - do i use Dexterity or Strength to calculate damage, also do i use d4 (early level ofc) in place to normal damage? Or is it just "no armor no shield and you good"?
i understand that, but in this specific scenario when i have a torch (which DM can take as improvised weapon) in hand and shortsword in other hand - do i use Dexterity or Strength to calculate damage, also do i use d4 (early level ofc) in place to normal damage? Or is it just "no armor no shield and you good"?
There's the point where im mostly lost on..
Thanks and sorry in advance
If you're using your Monk's Unarmed Strike bonus action attack you use the d4 based off Dex.
You don't get modifiers (unless they are negative) for off hand weapons without taking the Feats for it, and it has to be a light weapon. Improvised weapons are a whole other thing.
Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Improvised Weapons:
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
So, your DM may let you use the Torch as a club, but if you're using your Bonus Action to attack with it off-hand you won't get the bonuses for Strength and Dexterity wouldn't count because it's not a Light weapon.
i understand that, but in this specific scenario when i have a torch (which DM can take as improvised weapon) in hand and shortsword in other hand - do i use Dexterity or Strength to calculate damage, also do i use d4 (early level ofc) in place to normal damage? Or is it just "no armor no shield and you good"?
The torch is not classified by the game's rules as a weapon (even if you could use it as an improvised weapon in a pinch) so you don't have to worry about it. The shortsword is a monk weapon, you're not wearing armor and you're not wielding a shield. That means you've met all the requirements for the Martial Arts feature. Business as usual for your monk; you can use your martial arts die for the damage, Dexterity instead of Strength and all that.
i understand that, but in this specific scenario when i have a torch (which DM can take as improvised weapon) in hand and shortsword in other hand - do i use Dexterity or Strength to calculate damage, also do i use d4 (early level ofc) in place to normal damage? Or is it just "no armor no shield and you good"?
The torch is not classified by the game's rules as a weapon (even if you could use it as an improvised weapon in a pinch) so you don't have to worry about it. The shortsword is a monk weapon, you're not wearing armor and you're not wielding a shield. That means you've met all the requirements for the Martial Arts feature. Business as usual for your monk; you can use your martial arts die for the damage, Dexterity instead of Strength and all that.
Hey, I'm the DM in question and just wanted to give a quick reasoning why I think Martial Arts shouldn't be active when having a torch in other hand.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield. So if a monk is carrying a shortsword in one hand and torch in another do they satisfy this requirement? Main hand - Shortsword - is monk weapon or unarmed - true Offhand - Torch - is monk weapon or unarmed - false So the requirement is not satisfied therefore Martial Arts are not active. I guess that the main point of contention is - what does unarmed mean - does it mean without weapon in hand or does it mean without anything in hand? I would say the latter as the first would result in the Martial Arts being dependant if you have to attack with the item or not (the item in hand changes from item to improvised weapon so the bonus of Martial Arts is no longer active). I think it also makes sense on the RP side. While in monastery you're training with monk weapons or bare fists and kicks. Adding something you're not proficient with can throw you off-balance so your martial techniques are not as effective as they should be. Would love to hear opinion on this and if this is a proper understanding of rules as I'm also new to GM'ing. EDIT: The more I think about this the more I'm sure that unarmed means without anything in hand. Let's consider this example: You're at the party no weapons on you and you're eating a delicious cake with a fork. The fight breaks out and you decide to stab the attacker with the fork. If unarmed would mean without weapon in hand your unarmed state would change during this example. You're unarmed during eating, but you are armed while trying to stab someone with the fork. This would mean that it's the attack action that makes you armed rather than what you're holding in your hands. Which isn't really right as it leads to situation like this: You're holding a shortsword but you're not attacking with it, so technically you are unarmed as it is the attack action that makes you armed rather than what you're holding in your hands.
So, obvious solution (since torches only last about 20 minutes) when a fight breaks out, Heinz drops the torch and fights with the shortsword and unarmed strikes, or just reverse the ruling that the torch can be used as an improvised weapon.
"Unarmed" is not a term the game redefines, so it's being used in the normal English sense of "not equipped with or carrying weapons." That does not imply you're empty-handed, just that none of the things you're carrying are obviously intended to injure. I can walk around a shopping mall with a flashlight or an aluminum bottle and no one would think I'm dangerous because of it, even though I could certainly cause a serious injury if I whacked someone over the head with it.
As far as D&D's rules are concerned, a weapon is basically something that can be used to make a weapon attack without having to treat it as an improvised weapon or an unarmed strike: an object on the weapon lists or that the game explicitly refers to as a weapon (e.g. the Tentacle Rod), or a monster's claws, talons, etc.
The point of contention here shouldn't be whether a monk wielding a torch and shortsword is unarmed (they're not; the shortsword is clearly a weapon) but what is meant by "wielding only monk weapons." You could interpret that as either only holding objects that qualify as monk weapons, or wielding only weapons that qualify as monk weapons. And if you give it some thought, it's clear the devs meant the latter:
Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery 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.
The point here is that monks shouldn't be able to use their martial arts features with non-monk weapons like pikes or greatswords because 1) they don't fit the eastern martial arts theme and 2) it'd push the monk's damage higher than intended. The thing that balances out that bonus unarmed strike is the fact that monk weapons deal at best 1d8 if you use both hands, 1d6 otherwise. Being able to do 2d6 damage like a Fighter and also getting a bonus 1d4 + DEX attack at 1st level would be absolute overkill.
An improvised weapon doesn't have those problems because it's inferior to a real weapon, and they certainly fit the martial arts theme; just watch any Jackie Chan movie. What's more, dark dungeons are a staple of D&D. Forbidding monks from carrying a light source into dark dungeons would be a huge handicap for races that don't have darkvision.
"Unarmed" is not a term the game redefines, so it's being used in the normal English sense of "not equipped with or carrying weapons." That does not imply you're empty-handed, just that none of the things you're carrying are obviously intended to injure. I can walk around a shopping mall with a flashlight or an aluminum bottle and no one would think I'm dangerous because of it, even though I could certainly cause a serious injury if I whacked someone over the head with it.
I would say that everything can be counted as weapon (especially in a universe full of murderhobos), but they differ in the amount of damage, it's severity and effort needed to be lethal. If someone is walking around a shopping mall with a small hammer in hand, which is intended to hammer down nails and not cause injuries, I would still say that the person is armed. If the person was carrying a glass bottle, screwdriver, a crowbar, a baseball bar or any club-like item, chainsaw, etc. I would still say that the person is armed even though all those items are not inteded to injure anyone.
As far as D&D's rules are concerned, a weapon is basically something that can be used to make a weapon attack without having to treat it as an improvised weapon or an unarmed strike: an object on the weapon lists or that the game explicitly refers to as a weapon (e.g. the Tentacle Rod), or a monster's claws, talons, etc.
Now this is something I didn't know. I was thinking that weapons are the main set which contains 3 subsets of improvised, simple and martial weapons, rather than improvised being its own set. So does that mean that improvised weapons are never treated as weapons? Also one thing that I still don't understand in terms of attacks with improvised weapons. Let's expand my previous example. You've got fork in hand. On your turn you can make 2 attacks. You attack once, move to a second target, attack second time. Attacks with fork are a weapon attack right? So does this mean that on your turn you are armed while attacking, unarmed while moving, then again armed while attacking? Or are you unarmed all the time, but the attacks just count as a weapon attack? Or are you armed for whole turn?
The point of contention here shouldn't be whether a monk wielding a torch and shortsword is unarmed (they're not; the shortsword is clearly a weapon) but what is meant by "wielding only monk weapons."
Ah yes, my bad I didn't want this to sound like this. What I meant is "Can a hand wielding a torch be considered unarmed or wielding a monk weapon?". I thought that it is impossible for a torch to satisfy the monk weapon requirement so that's why I went with unarmed as a point of contention that I saw.
You could interpret that as either only holding objects that qualify as monk weapons, or wielding only weapons that qualify as monk weapons.
This are the things that I might miss as english is not my native language. I was going by RAW so it was the former for me. But if you go with latter I see how a torch will meet the requirement if it's not considered a weapon. The thing is that all of this seems really messy and inelegant. You have to: - Decide that torch is not an weapon (even though it is an improvised weapon when attacking, and you're making a weapon attack to attack with it, but I guess if you're holding torch only you're not armed?) - Figure out that Martial Arts requirement applies only to weapons rather than all objects held in hand Especially the torch is not a weapon is really messy. And it could be so much cleaner with a simple if you have something in hand you are armed with improvised weapon unless item says otherwise.
First of all thanks for the reply. It means a lot as learning, understanding and interpreting the rules is hard for me as a new GM :D
No worries, we've all been there.
I would say that everything can be counted as weapon (especially in a universe full of murderhobos), but they differ in the amount of damage, it's severity and effort needed to be lethal.
That's true, but in the absence of any other context the word "weapon" almost always refers to something that's designed to injure or kill. If you take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, no one is ever unarmed because your body can always be used as a weapon. Likewise, you can argue that "anything can be a poison in large enough doses", but in practice you'd expect that word to be used for substances that are acutely harmful in small doses; you probably wouldn't rule Detect Poison And Disease will detect water as a poison.
More importantly that's also how the D&D rules use the word. The Weapons section of Player's Handbook chapter 5 (Equipment) all display things that are obviously intended to be used in a battlefield or for self-defense. The section on Improvised Weapons then tells you how to handle non-weapons.
A good rule of thumb when reading the rules is to take what's written at face value. The writers are almost always using words and phrases in their normal, everyday, idiomatic English sense.
I was thinking that weapons are the main set which contains 3 subsets of improvised, simple and martial weapons, rather than improvised being its own set.
The three major categories of weapons are simple, martial, and natural weapons (which are only mentioned in passing in the Player's Handbook since they're rarely ever relevant to players.) "Improvised weapon" describes something that wasn't designed to be a weapon, by definition.
The context in which a specific word is used trumps everything else but when the rules mention weapons they're almost always talking about a simple, martial, or natural weapon, or something that doesn't fall into those categories but the rules refer to as a weapon anyways (e.g. the Tentacle Rod.)
Here's what the game's lead rules designer Jeremy Crawford has to say on the subject:
So does that mean that improvised weapons are never treated as weapons?
They can be, but only if the DM rules the object is close enough to a real weapon.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
But that's mainly for objects the rules don't cover. A torch already comes with its own rules and the game's designers opted not to classify it as a weapon.
Also one thing that I still don't understand in terms of attacks with improvised weapons. Let's expand my previous example. You've got fork in hand. On your turn you can make 2 attacks. You attack once, move to a second target, attack second time. Attacks with fork are a weapon attack right? So does this mean that on your turn you are armed while attacking, unarmed while moving, then again armed while attacking? Or are you unarmed all the time, but the attacks just count as a weapon attack? Or are you armed for whole turn?
Again, the context is important, but usually you wouldn't be considered armed just because you have an improvised weapon in your hands, unless the DM decides the improvised weapon is just as good as the real thing. The Improvised Weapon rules let you make a weapon attack with non-weapon objects, just like the Unarmed Strike rules let you make a weapon attack using your body instead of a weapon. The game only has two categories of attacks (weapon or spell) so if you're making an attack roll at all, 99% of the time it's going to fall into one category or the other, even if you're not technically using a weapon or casting a spell.
Especially the torch is not a weapon is really messy. And it could be so much cleaner with a simple if you have something in hand you are armed with improvised weapon unless item says otherwise.
I can't change how you feel about the ruling, but I can almost guarantee if you go that route you'll run into problems with other features as well. For example, the Fighter's Dueling fighting style becomes impossible to use if you have anything in your non-weapon hand since you're always treating that as a weapon (and like I said, you could extend that definition to cover your fists, so the Fighter is never considered to have only 1 weapon.)
This is part of why I brought up the intent of the Martial Arts rule. It's more useful to stick to what the rule is trying to achieve, and when in doubt, rule in favor of the player unless you know for sure ruling that way will cause problems for your group.
Thanks, now I think I get now what weapon/non-weapon and armed/unarmed means in the game system. Cool thank you very much for the explanation, and with that I guess monk will be getting the Martial Arts bonus :D
Thanks, now I think I get now what weapon/non-weapon and armed/unarmed means in the game system. Cool thank you very much for the explanation, and with that I guess monk will be getting the Martial Arts bonus :D
Think about it this way. Unless it's actually being *used* as a weapon, it doesn't count as weapon. If Heinz was holding a sandwich in one hand and a coconut in the other, he should still be able to kick someone, right? :)
Thanks, now I think I get now what weapon/non-weapon and armed/unarmed means in the game system. Cool thank you very much for the explanation, and with that I guess monk will be getting the Martial Arts bonus :D
Think about it this way. Unless it's actually being *used* as a weapon, it doesn't count as weapon. If Heinz was holding a sandwich in one hand and a coconut in the other, he should still be able to kick someone, right? :)
Only if he's barefoot. Otherwise he's "wielding" shoes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi!
Im new to this class and i have some questions about unarmed strike as a bonus action.
So, my question is - when i holding a torch as a utility and strike with a shortsword - am i allowed to use my unarmed strike as a bonus action?
I'm trying to find any information about that and couldnt find anything about this specific scenario and i need some help with that...
Thanks in advance!
Sure. You can still kick, headbutt or use your elbow.
Oh, i see.
And as i understand - Martial Arts Benefit doesn't apply in this scenario?
The Martial Arts feature doesn't care which body part you're using for your unarmed strikes. What matters is that you're not wearing armor, not using a shield, and any weapons you're wielding are monk weapons.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
As everyone said above, you have more than just your hands.
Watch someone who knows Escrima, Muay Thai, Bojitsu or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu fight. They're not just striking and waiting, they're hitting with sticks and a kick, or a knee and an elbow, or a fist and a knee at each opportunity.
i understand that, but in this specific scenario when i have a torch (which DM can take as improvised weapon) in hand and shortsword in other hand - do i use Dexterity or Strength to calculate damage, also do i use d4 (early level ofc) in place to normal damage? Or is it just "no armor no shield and you good"?
There's the point where im mostly lost on..
Thanks and sorry in advance
If you're using your Monk's Unarmed Strike bonus action attack you use the d4 based off Dex.
You don't get modifiers (unless they are negative) for off hand weapons without taking the Feats for it, and it has to be a light weapon. Improvised weapons are a whole other thing.
Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Improvised Weapons:
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
So, your DM may let you use the Torch as a club, but if you're using your Bonus Action to attack with it off-hand you won't get the bonuses for Strength and Dexterity wouldn't count because it's not a Light weapon.
The torch is not classified by the game's rules as a weapon (even if you could use it as an improvised weapon in a pinch) so you don't have to worry about it. The shortsword is a monk weapon, you're not wearing armor and you're not wielding a shield. That means you've met all the requirements for the Martial Arts feature. Business as usual for your monk; you can use your martial arts die for the damage, Dexterity instead of Strength and all that.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Hey, I'm the DM in question and just wanted to give a quick reasoning why I think Martial Arts shouldn't be active when having a torch in other hand.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield.
So if a monk is carrying a shortsword in one hand and torch in another do they satisfy this requirement?
Main hand - Shortsword - is monk weapon or unarmed - true
Offhand - Torch - is monk weapon or unarmed - false
So the requirement is not satisfied therefore Martial Arts are not active.
I guess that the main point of contention is - what does unarmed mean - does it mean without weapon in hand or does it mean without anything in hand? I would say the latter as the first would result in the Martial Arts being dependant if you have to attack with the item or not (the item in hand changes from item to improvised weapon so the bonus of Martial Arts is no longer active). I think it also makes sense on the RP side. While in monastery you're training with monk weapons or bare fists and kicks. Adding something you're not proficient with can throw you off-balance so your martial techniques are not as effective as they should be. Would love to hear opinion on this and if this is a proper understanding of rules as I'm also new to GM'ing.
EDIT: The more I think about this the more I'm sure that unarmed means without anything in hand. Let's consider this example:
You're at the party no weapons on you and you're eating a delicious cake with a fork. The fight breaks out and you decide to stab the attacker with the fork.
If unarmed would mean without weapon in hand your unarmed state would change during this example. You're unarmed during eating, but you are armed while trying to stab someone with the fork. This would mean that it's the attack action that makes you armed rather than what you're holding in your hands. Which isn't really right as it leads to situation like this: You're holding a shortsword but you're not attacking with it, so technically you are unarmed as it is the attack action that makes you armed rather than what you're holding in your hands.
I can see your point, Strixylock.
So, obvious solution (since torches only last about 20 minutes) when a fight breaks out, Heinz drops the torch and fights with the shortsword and unarmed strikes, or just reverse the ruling that the torch can be used as an improvised weapon.
"Unarmed" is not a term the game redefines, so it's being used in the normal English sense of "not equipped with or carrying weapons." That does not imply you're empty-handed, just that none of the things you're carrying are obviously intended to injure. I can walk around a shopping mall with a flashlight or an aluminum bottle and no one would think I'm dangerous because of it, even though I could certainly cause a serious injury if I whacked someone over the head with it.
As far as D&D's rules are concerned, a weapon is basically something that can be used to make a weapon attack without having to treat it as an improvised weapon or an unarmed strike: an object on the weapon lists or that the game explicitly refers to as a weapon (e.g. the Tentacle Rod), or a monster's claws, talons, etc.
The point of contention here shouldn't be whether a monk wielding a torch and shortsword is unarmed (they're not; the shortsword is clearly a weapon) but what is meant by "wielding only monk weapons." You could interpret that as either only holding objects that qualify as monk weapons, or wielding only weapons that qualify as monk weapons. And if you give it some thought, it's clear the devs meant the latter:
The point here is that monks shouldn't be able to use their martial arts features with non-monk weapons like pikes or greatswords because 1) they don't fit the eastern martial arts theme and 2) it'd push the monk's damage higher than intended. The thing that balances out that bonus unarmed strike is the fact that monk weapons deal at best 1d8 if you use both hands, 1d6 otherwise. Being able to do 2d6 damage like a Fighter and also getting a bonus 1d4 + DEX attack at 1st level would be absolute overkill.
An improvised weapon doesn't have those problems because it's inferior to a real weapon, and they certainly fit the martial arts theme; just watch any Jackie Chan movie. What's more, dark dungeons are a staple of D&D. Forbidding monks from carrying a light source into dark dungeons would be a huge handicap for races that don't have darkvision.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
First of all thanks for the reply. It means a lot as learning, understanding and interpreting the rules is hard for me as a new GM :D
I would say that everything can be counted as weapon (especially in a universe full of murderhobos), but they differ in the amount of damage, it's severity and effort needed to be lethal. If someone is walking around a shopping mall with a small hammer in hand, which is intended to hammer down nails and not cause injuries, I would still say that the person is armed. If the person was carrying a glass bottle, screwdriver, a crowbar, a baseball bar or any club-like item, chainsaw, etc. I would still say that the person is armed even though all those items are not inteded to injure anyone.
Now this is something I didn't know. I was thinking that weapons are the main set which contains 3 subsets of improvised, simple and martial weapons, rather than improvised being its own set. So does that mean that improvised weapons are never treated as weapons? Also one thing that I still don't understand in terms of attacks with improvised weapons. Let's expand my previous example. You've got fork in hand. On your turn you can make 2 attacks. You attack once, move to a second target, attack second time. Attacks with fork are a weapon attack right? So does this mean that on your turn you are armed while attacking, unarmed while moving, then again armed while attacking? Or are you unarmed all the time, but the attacks just count as a weapon attack? Or are you armed for whole turn?
Ah yes, my bad I didn't want this to sound like this. What I meant is "Can a hand wielding a torch be considered unarmed or wielding a monk weapon?". I thought that it is impossible for a torch to satisfy the monk weapon requirement so that's why I went with unarmed as a point of contention that I saw.
This are the things that I might miss as english is not my native language. I was going by RAW so it was the former for me. But if you go with latter I see how a torch will meet the requirement if it's not considered a weapon. The thing is that all of this seems really messy and inelegant. You have to:
- Decide that torch is not an weapon (even though it is an improvised weapon when attacking, and you're making a weapon attack to attack with it, but I guess if you're holding torch only you're not armed?)
- Figure out that Martial Arts requirement applies only to weapons rather than all objects held in hand
Especially the torch is not a weapon is really messy. And it could be so much cleaner with a simple if you have something in hand you are armed with improvised weapon unless item says otherwise.
No worries, we've all been there.
That's true, but in the absence of any other context the word "weapon" almost always refers to something that's designed to injure or kill. If you take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, no one is ever unarmed because your body can always be used as a weapon. Likewise, you can argue that "anything can be a poison in large enough doses", but in practice you'd expect that word to be used for substances that are acutely harmful in small doses; you probably wouldn't rule Detect Poison And Disease will detect water as a poison.
More importantly that's also how the D&D rules use the word. The Weapons section of Player's Handbook chapter 5 (Equipment) all display things that are obviously intended to be used in a battlefield or for self-defense. The section on Improvised Weapons then tells you how to handle non-weapons.
A good rule of thumb when reading the rules is to take what's written at face value. The writers are almost always using words and phrases in their normal, everyday, idiomatic English sense.
The three major categories of weapons are simple, martial, and natural weapons (which are only mentioned in passing in the Player's Handbook since they're rarely ever relevant to players.) "Improvised weapon" describes something that wasn't designed to be a weapon, by definition.
The context in which a specific word is used trumps everything else but when the rules mention weapons they're almost always talking about a simple, martial, or natural weapon, or something that doesn't fall into those categories but the rules refer to as a weapon anyways (e.g. the Tentacle Rod.)
Here's what the game's lead rules designer Jeremy Crawford has to say on the subject:
They can be, but only if the DM rules the object is close enough to a real weapon.
But that's mainly for objects the rules don't cover. A torch already comes with its own rules and the game's designers opted not to classify it as a weapon.
Again, the context is important, but usually you wouldn't be considered armed just because you have an improvised weapon in your hands, unless the DM decides the improvised weapon is just as good as the real thing. The Improvised Weapon rules let you make a weapon attack with non-weapon objects, just like the Unarmed Strike rules let you make a weapon attack using your body instead of a weapon. The game only has two categories of attacks (weapon or spell) so if you're making an attack roll at all, 99% of the time it's going to fall into one category or the other, even if you're not technically using a weapon or casting a spell.
I can't change how you feel about the ruling, but I can almost guarantee if you go that route you'll run into problems with other features as well. For example, the Fighter's Dueling fighting style becomes impossible to use if you have anything in your non-weapon hand since you're always treating that as a weapon (and like I said, you could extend that definition to cover your fists, so the Fighter is never considered to have only 1 weapon.)
This is part of why I brought up the intent of the Martial Arts rule. It's more useful to stick to what the rule is trying to achieve, and when in doubt, rule in favor of the player unless you know for sure ruling that way will cause problems for your group.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Thanks, now I think I get now what weapon/non-weapon and armed/unarmed means in the game system. Cool thank you very much for the explanation, and with that I guess monk will be getting the Martial Arts bonus :D
Think about it this way. Unless it's actually being *used* as a weapon, it doesn't count as weapon. If Heinz was holding a sandwich in one hand and a coconut in the other, he should still be able to kick someone, right? :)
Only if he's barefoot. Otherwise he's "wielding" shoes.