5e 2024 - Unarmed Strikes as "Light" - Any change?

In 5e.14, it was pretty firmly stated that Unarmed Strikes were intentionally *not* [Light].  Whatever the reason given.

My question is this: in the new 5e.24 rules... has that changed?

Nope.

Thank you gentlemen!  Came up in our last session where we were first trying to move to the 2024 rules.  One of the players usually does TWF, and wanted to know what changed in 2024.  We said "now it's based on the [Light] property".  So he asked "Well, what besides the weapons I already know are [Light]?"  We looked, and Hand Crossbows, Exandria pistols, and... a thrown light hammer.  So he asked, "Can I just punch someone? Is unarmed [Light] now?"

Nope.  Back to the sword-and-hxbow pairing he likes so much!

Quote from ThelonFairblade >>

Thank you gentlemen!  Came up in our last session where we were first trying to move to the 2024 rules.  One of the players usually does TWF, and wanted to know what changed in 2024.  We said "now it's based on the [Light] property".  So he asked "Well, what besides the weapons I already know are [Light]?"  We looked, and Hand Crossbows, Exandria pistols, and... a thrown light hammer.  So he asked, "Can I just punch someone? Is unarmed [Light] now?"

Nope.  Back to the sword-and-hxbow pairing he likes so much!

 At least the sword and hand crossbow pairing now works since the Crossbow Expert feat allows you to load a crossbow even if you don't have a free hand.

Feel free to change it though, if you think its dumb the monk using daggers gets more attacks off as those are light monk weapons have at it. If you thin its silly you can slash with a scimitar with your off hand but not just punch them, just change it.  Thier stubbornness on keeping unarmed as not a "weapon" not giving it properties is just silly. Without a feat or class abilities its the lowest damage "weapon". As long as they have a free hand, let them do it imo. 

Me in my games It will be light and you can use it on sneak attacks. The balance is still there but the players will have more fun. 

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Feel free to change it though, if you think its dumb the monk using daggers gets more attacks off as those are light monk weapons have at it. If you thin its silly you can slash with a scimitar with your off hand but not just punch them, just change it.  Thier stubbornness on keeping unarmed as not a "weapon" not giving it properties is just silly. Without a feat or class abilities its the lowest damage "weapon". As long as they have a free hand, let them do it imo. 

 Unless they do something (take a different class or a feat), that monk doesn't get more attacks using daggers. They already get a free unarmed bonus action attack.

If they expended character building resources to get weapon mastery just for that extra attack, then sure, they can do it. The monks that didn't get other monk stuff sooner, or have a different feat or stat bump.

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Feel free to change it though, if you think its dumb the monk using daggers gets more attacks off as those are light monk weapons have at it. If you thin its silly you can slash with a scimitar with your off hand but not just punch them, just change it.  Thier stubbornness on keeping unarmed as not a "weapon" not giving it properties is just silly. Without a feat or class abilities its the lowest damage "weapon". As long as they have a free hand, let them do it imo. 

 Unless they do something (take a different class or a feat), that monk doesn't get more attacks using daggers. They already get a free unarmed bonus action attack.

If they expended character building resources to get weapon mastery just for that extra attack, then sure, they can do it. The monks that didn't get other monk stuff sooner, or have a different feat or stat bump.

 It would be the same for a punch if it were treated as a light weapon as it should be to get the attacks past their normal, they would need to spend resources. And this isn't just monks.  if your ranger, fighter, warlock, druid whatever has a free hand it may seem a bit weird you can get a free attack off (yes with resources spent) when you don't have a free hand and have a scimitar instead. Just let them punch in any place where they normally could swing a sword. 

This almost ended up a totally bizarre IM to a coworker, as i didn't realize i was typing on the wrong keyboard while working from home for a bit. 

This is a rule that 95% of people will dodge. 

Weapons do damage, can be magical.... and now have weapon properties (if you multiclass). It's an unfair rule and it makes it wierd for a punching monk to carry a metal glove.

Could be worse, in Pathfinder, I carry a metal glove... When I miss a manoeuver, I drop ... the glove........

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

This almost ended up a totally bizarre IM to a coworker, as i didn't realize i was typing on the wrong keyboard while working from home for a bit. 

This is not the Dual Wielding this forum is meant for ...

Quote from ThelonFairblade >>

In 5e.14, it was pretty firmly stated that Unarmed Strikes were intentionally *not* [Light].  Whatever the reason given.

My question is this: in the new 5e.24 rules... has that changed?

 Unarmed attacks are not weapons of any type in 2024. 

It's a silly bit of ruling considering the two weapons rules.

5e has weapon properties on actual weapons now and have up to d6 light weapons. And wielding a weapon is not a difficult task.

Is this ruling explicitly stated anywhere? I have looked through the PHB 2024 and haven't found anything to this effect.

Alternatively, is there a Sage Advice or similar "official" ruling adjudicating this? (I've seen this thread, but it seems to sow more confusion than clarity, and in any case, it is pre-2024...)

Regarding this explanation:

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quar1on is correct, but just to expand a little bit:

"Light" is a weapon property. Weapon properties apply to weapons. Unarmed strikes, by definition, do not use weapons, and therefore don't have the Light property, or any other weapon property. Although there have been some significant changes to how unarmed strikes work, that particular thing has not changed.

It sounds logical, but also conjectural. In particular, the edge case of a monk performing more attacks when wielding a dagger seems to show cracks in the edifice.

As I see it, the edge case can be formally specified as follows:

EDIT: Some issues in the below text were pointed out, as you could see in quoted text. I've fixed it in-place to clarify for future readers. Not trying to sweep it under the rug. Thanks for pointing out the issues!

1. A 3rd level multi-class character is a Monk 2 / Fighter 1 (or any other class that grants a Weapon Mastery).
2. The character picks the dagger for its Weapon Mastery, but any weapon which is Light, has Nick and is a Monk weapon would work.
3. The character wields two daggers, and uses the Attack action. It performs one regular attack with one dagger, and then one more attack with the off-hand dagger thanks to Nick.
4. The character gets rid of one of the daggers (either because they threw it as part of their attack, or they sheath it which is free, or they simply drop it).
5. The character then uses their Martial Arts ability to perform an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action (optionally, they can spend a ki point to do two Unarmed Strikes with their Bonus Action).
6. The next round, this can be done again, since drawing a new dagger is free as part of the attack action, so they can have a bunch of them strapped to their chest.

The above sequence thus provides 3 attacks (4 with a ki point) at the cost of an Attack + Bonus Action.

If the same character (Monk 2 / Fighter 1) was unarmed and therefore did not use a dagger (and therefore did not spend any time drawing a dagger and sheathing it either), they could only do 2 attacks (3 with a ki point).

In the absence of an explicit ruling, either in the PHB or via Sage Advice, then it is left to interpretation, which ultimately means it's the DM's call. With the above arguments for and against, I'm not sure how the average DM would rule, but it seems likely to be a divided outcome...

Quote from Silam>>

Is this ruling explicitly stated anywhere? I have looked through the PHB 2024 and haven't found anything to this effect.

This is a situation where something would have to say that they had the light property. Nothing has it by default.

It sounds logical, but also conjectural. In particular, the edge case of a monk performing more attacks when wielding a dagger seems to show cracks in the edifice.

As I see it, the edge case can be formally specified as follows:

1. A 2nd level multi-class character is a Monk 1 / Fighter 1 (or any other class that grants a Weapon Mastery).
2. The character picks the dagger for its Weapon Mastery, but any weapon which is Light, has Nick and is a Monk weapon would work.
3. The character wields two daggers, and uses the Attack action. It performs one regular attack with one dagger, and then one more attack with the off-hand dagger thanks to Nick.
4. The character gets rid of one of the daggers (either because they threw it as part of their attack, or they sheath it which is free, or they simply drop it).
5. The character then uses their Martial Arts ability to perform an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action (optionally, they can spend a ki point to do two Unarmed Strikes with their Bonus Action).
6. The next round, this can be done again, since drawing a new dagger is free as part of the attack action, so they can have a bunch of them strapped to their chest.

The above sequence thus provides 3 attacks (4 with a ki point) at the cost of an Attack + Bonus Action.

If the Monk was unarmed and therefore did not use a dagger (and therefore did not spend any time drawing a dagger and sheathing it either), they could only do 2 attacks (3 with a ki point).

In the absence of an explicit ruling, either in the PHB or via Sage Advice, then it is left to interpretation, which ultimately means it's the DM's call. With the above arguments for and against, I'm not sure how the average DM would rule, but it seems likely to be a divided outcome...

 There's nothing unclear here. A monk/fighter, or a monk who spends a feat to get Nick, can get a single extra attack with, at most, a 1d6 weapon. (And without the multiclass, they don't even get to use their stat bonus on the damage roll.)

If you pay to get extra abilities, you get extra abilities. There's no flaw in the Monk class because they don't get it for free. They already attack a lot. The marginal value of a single extra attack is not particularly high -- there's an argument to be made that they're better off just being a higher-level monk, or taking a different feat. 

Quote from Silam >>

Is this ruling explicitly stated anywhere? I have looked through the PHB 2024 and haven't found anything to this effect.

Alternatively, is there a Sage Advice or similar "official" ruling adjudicating this? (I've seen this thread, but it seems to sow more confusion than clarity, and in any case, it is pre-2024...)

Regarding this explanation:

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quar1on is correct, but just to expand a little bit:

"Light" is a weapon property. Weapon properties apply to weapons. Unarmed strikes, by definition, do not use weapons, and therefore don't have the Light property, or any other weapon property. Although there have been some significant changes to how unarmed strikes work, that particular thing has not changed.

 

It sounds logical, but also conjectural. In particular, the edge case of a monk performing more attacks when wielding a dagger seems to show cracks in the edifice.

As I see it, the edge case can be formally specified as follows:

1. A 2nd level multi-class character is a Monk 1 / Fighter 1 (or any other class that grants a Weapon Mastery).
2. The character picks the dagger for its Weapon Mastery, but any weapon which is Light, has Nick and is a Monk weapon would work.
3. The character wields two daggers, and uses the Attack action. It performs one regular attack with one dagger, and then one more attack with the off-hand dagger thanks to Nick.
4. The character gets rid of one of the daggers (either because they threw it as part of their attack, or they sheath it which is free, or they simply drop it).
5. The character then uses their Martial Arts ability to perform an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action (optionally, they can spend a ki point to do two Unarmed Strikes with their Bonus Action).
6. The next round, this can be done again, since drawing a new dagger is free as part of the attack action, so they can have a bunch of them strapped to their chest.

The above sequence thus provides 3 attacks (4 with a ki point) at the cost of an Attack + Bonus Action.

If the Monk was unarmed and therefore did not use a dagger (and therefore did not spend any time drawing a dagger and sheathing it either), they could only do 2 attacks (3 with a ki point).

In the absence of an explicit ruling, either in the PHB or via Sage Advice, then it is left to interpretation, which ultimately means it's the DM's call. With the above arguments for and against, I'm not sure how the average DM would rule, but it seems likely to be a divided outcome...

 Two problems.

1. A monk 1/fighter1 has no focus points to spend. 
2. Talking about things monks can do, then bringing up what a character who is 50% not monk can do is a pretty disingenuous example. Of course a monk/[anything else] can do different things than a straight monk; that’s the whole point of multiclassing. 

Quote from Xalthu >>

 Two problems.

1. A monk 1/fighter1 has no focus points to spend. 

You are correct, thanks for pointing out my mistake.

For some reason I thought Monks got their focus points at 1st level, and that is wrong.

The edge case I am trying to point out should be with a Monk 2 / Fighter 1.

Quote from Xalthu >>

2. Talking about things monks can do, then bringing up what a character who is 50% not monk can do is a pretty disingenuous example. Of course a monk/[anything else] can do different things than a straight monk; that’s the whole point of multiclassing. 

My intent was not to compare the multi-class build against a pure Monk, but rather to have the same build perform the two possible sets of actions. I was not clear in my wording.

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Just to clarify: you're asking for an official ruling that unarmed strikes aren't weapons?

Yes.

Quote from jl8e >>

You don't even need to get rid of the dagger in any way, since unarmed strikes are not limited to punching.

Is this right? The Martial Arts class feature specifies:

PHB

Bonus Unarmed Strike. You can make an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action.

Because of this, I thought Monks had to include at least some unarmed strike(s) in order to reach their max number of attacks. But if we say that any Unarmed Strike can be substituted by an attack with a Monk weapon, then that muddies the waters further...

A weapon is an object that is in the Simple or Martial weapon category. which an Unarmed Strike is not.

Quote from Silam>>

Quote from Xalthu>>

2. Talking about things monks can do, then bringing up what a character who is 50% not monk can do is a pretty disingenuous example. Of course a monk/[anything else] can do different things than a straight monk; that’s the whole point of multiclassing. 

My intent was not to compare the multi-class build against a pure Monk, but rather to have the same build perform the two possible sets of actions. I was not clear in my wording.

 I understand better now.

Yes, if you take a level in a class that give you weapon masteries, or if you take the weapon mastery feat, then you can choose to attack more (assuming you use a dagger and its nick property). But at that point, you've invested something, a level or a feat, and the benefit of that investment is the option to get an extra attack (among other things that come with the level or feat, of course). If that's worth the trade is going to be a personal preference.

Quote from Silam >>

Quote from jl8e >>

You don't even need to get rid of the dagger in any way, since unarmed strikes are not limited to punching.

 

Is this right? The Martial Arts class feature specifies:

 

PHB

Bonus Unarmed Strike. You can make an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action.

 

Because of this, I thought Monks had to include at least some unarmed strike(s) in order to reach their max number of attacks. But if we say that any Unarmed Strike can be substituted by an attack with a Monk weapon, then that muddies the waters further...

 

No one is saying that an Unarmed Strike is an attack with a Monk weapon.  What is being said is that an Unarmed Strike doesn't have to be a punch, so you don't need a free hand to make one. Emphasis below is mine:

Basic Rules: Unarmed Strike

Unarmed Strike

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.

I think without AoO like 3e for unarmed strikes realistically they can't especially in 2024 allow it to be a light weapon. It would effectively be a free push/grapple every round for everyone who isn't using both hands, the punch part is not as relevant as if my warlock gets a free punch in it is still hitting for 0. But even with a crap save if you got the bonus action you just do it, which then needs to be resolved which then slows down play. That being said I wish they had at least made it finesse or made it a sneak attack exception as sucker punches, spy neck snaps etc are ingrained in the entertainment we consume that shapes what we want to see and play in the games. 

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

I think without AoO like 3e for unarmed strikes realistically they can't especially in 2024 allow it to be a light weapon. It would effectively be a free push/grapple every round for everyone who isn't using both hands, the punch part is not as relevant as if my warlock gets a free punch in it is still hitting for 0.

I guess I shouldn't mention one-handed weapon juggling... Okay, I won't.