@JeremyECrawford So a monk can't use unarmed for Stunning Strike? Kung Fu movies taught me unarmed can do anything.
— Sean Bonney (@seanbonney) November 16, 2015
From earlier this year: Stunning Strike requires a melee weapon attack. An unarmed strike qualifies. #DnD https://t.co/nO4AK5QxKz
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 16, 2015
@seanbonneySounds good to me. Though today’s Rules about Sneak Attack confused me: “An unarmed strike isn’t a weapon” An unarmed strike is an exceptional nonweapon that can make melee weapon attacks.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 16, 2015
@JJRTracyso I’m summary… Unarmed strikes are not considered melee weapons, but do make melee weapon attacks. That's correct. They're exceptional.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 16, 2015
It makes more sense when you remember that you can make Melee Weapon Attacks with things that aren’t Melee Weapons (the butt of a crossbow, for example). “Weapon Attack” pretty much means an attack that is not a Spell Attack; a boot to the head is clearly not a Spell Attack, therefore it’s a Weapon Attack.
Also, if you look at the Monster Manual entry for most beasts, their natural stuff such as clawing and biting are considered melee weapon attacks despite clearly not using a manufactured weapon, as do things like slam attacks.
Wouldn’t it just make more sense to write things in a clear and concise way rather than the muddy and unclear way you’ve been writing most of the 5th edition book? For all the “simplicity” you sure had to put a bunch errata out to clarify stuff.