RAW - The answer is no. But this is completely bogus IMO. Everyone, regardless of race, class or skill can wield two light melee weapons and utilise their bonus action to deal an extra attack. But someone trained in hand-to-hand combat can't utilise their bonus action to throw an extra punch?! It's complete nonsense! Does it require more exertion swinging a fist over a light weapon?
If everyone can utilise their bonus action to deal an extra attack whilst wielding two light weapons. It's not that big of a leap to make it possible that everyone can utilise their bonus action to make an extra unarmed strike.
Yeah, the only drawback I could see is it would need to be in conjunction with a melee attack, or there would be all kinds of shenanigans
RAW - The answer is no. But this is completely bogus IMO. Everyone, regardless of race, class or skill can wield two light melee weapons and utilise their bonus action to deal an extra attack. But someone trained in hand-to-hand combat can't utilise their bonus action to throw an extra punch?! It's complete nonsense! Does it require more exertion swinging a fist over a light weapon?
If everyone can utilise their bonus action to deal an extra attack whilst wielding two light weapons. It's not that big of a leap to make it possible that everyone can utilise their bonus action to make an extra unarmed strike.
Its more of a mechanical thing. First, not wanting to totally blow monks out of the water. Second, you'd get all kinds of wonk if everyone could throw a punch as a bonus action, like Wizards following up a fireball with a punch. Which wouldn't be game breaking, but would be time consuming.
I feel like this wasn't meant make the fighter an alternative to the monk, but to provide a kind of a side arm in case the fighter is disarmed. So nat 1's where the GM makes you throw your weapon, or when you're captured, or when you fight a rust monster.
Now I think this does open the door for the fighter to be a splendid unarmed fighter, especially with that tattoo Tasha's added that makes unarmed attacks count as magical. And mechanically, between fighter abilities and that 3rd attack at 11, it keeps up with monks just fine. And a strength based unarmed fighter will have much better ability to shove enemies prone or grapple.
"It stands to reason that if you want to compete with an actual weapon in terms of damage, you need to put a some real oomph into your unarmed strikes."
I'm not talking about competing with damage. I'm talking about general usage. The actual motion required to swing a club to do damage requires you to put some force behind your swings. But RAW says you can't use the same level of force to swing your other arm round to hit someone unless you're wielding a weapon in each hand?! It's ridiculous.
Look at it this way. You're in a fight for your life. You're going up against a guy with two daggers. You are unarmed. They get two attempts to stab you because they have a dagger in each hand. You only get to throw one punch. Why? Because you're hands are empty.
If you are physically capable of making two attacks whilst wielding two weapons it stands to reason that you'd be physically capable of making two attacks when you are wielding nothing. The two weapon fighting rule should include unarmed strikes and should read like this...
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand or an unarmed strike, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand, or another unarmed strike with the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative."
As far as damage goes though. The damage output for unarmed strikes would follow those same rules. So yeah the damage output for the bonus action strike would be a whopping 1! Unless you have a feat like Tavern Brawler or a fighting style that changes it.
@Kronzypantz "Yeah, the only drawback I could see is it would need to be in conjunction with a melee attack, or there would be all kinds of shenanigans"
Totally agree. I would include unarmed strikes in the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action.
"Its more of a mechanical thing. First, not wanting to totally blow monks out of the water. "
I honestly think they deliberately left unarmed strikes out of the two weapon fighting bonus action in order to give the monk class more appeal. Yeah monks can throw lots of kicks and punches. But that's not what makes them cool. It's what they can do with those kicks and punches that does!
"Second, you'd get all kinds of wonk if everyone could throw a punch as a bonus action, like Wizards following up a fireball with a punch."
Yeah that's too much. I'm not talking about giving everyone an unarmed strike as bonus action on their turn. I mean they should include unarmed strikes in the two weapon fighting bonus action. I mention this in my other post
If it was limited to making an unarmed strike as a bonus action after you take the Attack action, that would solve the "fireball and punch" problem. I would also probably limit it to only being allowed if they made an unarmed strike as part of the Attack action on the same turn, just too keep a paladin from head-butting someone as a free bonus action after attacking with a greatsword or something like that.
The rule has potential, but needs work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think the idea would be to include it into two weapon fighting. So the rule would be something along the lines of:
When you take the Attack Action and Attack with an unarmed strikeor a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with an unarmed strike or 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.
You would have to adapt this further though, as it allows someone like Handaxe + Shield to get a free unarmed strike as a bonus action. Additionally, unarmed strikes aren't punches and don't normally require open hands. I have a feeling that whatever wording you come up with to make this mechanically sound, you are going to end up with something that still doesn't make complete sense narratively.
I think the idea would be to include it into two weapon fighting. So the rule would be something along the lines of:
When you take the Attack Action and Attack with an unarmed strikeor a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with an unarmed strike or 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.
You would have to adapt this further though, as it allows someone like Handaxe + Shield to get a free unarmed strike as a bonus action. Additionally, unarmed strikes aren't punches and don't normally require open hands. I have a feeling that whatever wording you come up with to make this mechanically sound, you are going to end up with something that still doesn't make complete sense narratively.
In this case I would word it that you would have to have a free hand so your hand axe shield bearer wouldn’t get to kick someone as a BA and have the shield +2 to AC. If you want that BA unarmed strike you need the hand free, just for balance.
And I still think this is a bad idea, poor monks get no love. At 5th level your monk and fighter have the same attack action and BA attack except the Fighter is d8 and monk is d6 unless using a weapon. The monk needs to use Ki to get an additional attack to do more than the fighter. At 11th level the fighter has 3 attacks and a BA attack, same as an 11th level monk with FoB (I understand the fighter BA attack does not get ability modifier). So basically a 5th level fighter is attacking the same as a 16th level monk (without spending Ki).
Sure, the monk has more versatility outside of damage, but this thread is about attacking. Now add in a fighter subclass and additional ASI’s and fighters become more deadly. Plenty of Battle Master maneuvers start with “when you hit a creature with a weapon attack (which unarmed strikes count as) so now you’re doing maneuvers adding even more versatility and damage (most add the superiority due to damage).
If this was official I don’t know I would bother with monk unfortunately.
A fighter using the two weapon fighting style can achieve similar damage with short swords as is, so I don't see the issue in terms of balance... even without any fighting styles, a fighter can almost do the same as your example, using two short words, only using d6's instead of d8's.
My point is that in terms of straight attacking, it is perfectly normal for fighters to deal more damage than monks as far as I know... So I don't see why it would be a problem is the same is the case of a fighter specialising in unarmed combat.
I understand why monks may feel cheated or whatever... but that would be an issue with the monk class generally being sort of underwhelming for some people... I dont think the unarmed fighter should be punished for that.
Think of it this way.. a player chosing to play an unarmed fighter is probably doing so because they intend to use unarmed strikes as their main "weapon".. so that choice should not feel like a second class choice, it should feel like a fully fleshed out fighter option... just like playing a two weapon fighter or an archer.
If we consider what an unarmed fighter is already giving up when chosing to use their fists (the ability to improve their combat prowess with magical weapons) I don't think it'd be unbalanced to allowed them to use regular two weapon fighting rules with their fists... Two weapon fighting is already considered a weak option.
If you want that BA unarmed strike you need the hand free, just for balance.
Yep. I agree that is necessary for balance, and its why I don't like bonus action unarmed strikes and think things are fine the way they are.
If the intention is to try to be more realistic, the above rule makes zero sense. What if I am a Lizardfolk and make unarmed strike with my bite? What I decide that my unarmed strikes are kicks? Unarmed strikes can be made it with any part of your body, so what you are holding in your hands should not matter.
The straightforward narrative explanation for the status quo is that unarmed strikes (that is, attacks with your body that are powerful enough to deal damage) just aren't as quick and simple as offhand attacks with a light weapon. Sure, you can just bring in your other hand and quickly jab someone after making a normal attack, but it won't be forceful enough to deal damage. That's why we can't make them with a bonus action. Monks are the exception, because they've explicitly trained in martial arts to be able to make quick and precise unarmed strikes. IMO the rules regarding unarmed strikes and two weapon fighting are clean, both narratively and mechanically.
Ok... To all the people that would not allow this. Can you please explain your reasoning behind this? Other than stating RAW. Actually explain why it is impossible to do. And how in the rich high fantasy world that D&D is set in. Where you can have flames shoot from your hands, turn into beasts, fight mythical creatures and talk to gods. How you physically cannot make an additional unarmed strike with your bonus action?! (Outside of being a monk)
And then once you've done this. Explain how it is possible, without stating RAW, a person wielding two light melee weapons physically can make an additional attack using their bonus action?
But before you answer. Try doing it yourself. Hold something in either hand, like a stick or something and pretend you're welding handaxes or clubs. And then act out the motions you would need to do in order to hit with both weapons with enough force to do some damage. Then... Do some shadow boxing holding nothing. But only use one arm.
Please try to answer this logically. I don't care about damage outputs or anything like that. Or how allowing this would take something away from being a monk. I just want you to give me an explanation of how you would make sense of this in game.
A fighter using the two weapon fighting style can achieve similar damage with short swords as is, so I don't see the issue in terms of balance... even without any fighting styles, a fighter can almost do the same as your example, using two short words, only using d6's instead of d8's.
My point is that in terms of straight attacking, it is perfectly normal for fighters to deal more damage than monks as far as I know... So I don't see why it would be a problem is the same is the case of a fighter specialising in unarmed combat.
I understand why monks may feel cheated or whatever... but that would be an issue with the monk class generally being sort of underwhelming for some people... I dont think the unarmed fighter should be punished for that.
Think of it this way.. a player chosing to play an unarmed fighter is probably doing so because they intend to use unarmed strikes as their main "weapon".. so that choice should not feel like a second class choice, it should feel like a fully fleshed out fighter option... just like playing a two weapon fighter or an archer.
If we consider what an unarmed fighter is already giving up when chosing to use their fists (the ability to improve their combat prowess with magical weapons) I don't think it'd be unbalanced to allowed them to use regular two weapon fighting rules with their fists... Two weapon fighting is already considered a weak option.
If you don't want monk players to feel cheated, then don't house rule something to put them at a comparative disadvantage.
A fighter using the two weapon fighting style can achieve similar damage with short swords as is, so I don't see the issue in terms of balance... even without any fighting styles, a fighter can almost do the same as your example, using two short words, only using d6's instead of d8's.
My point is that in terms of straight attacking, it is perfectly normal for fighters to deal more damage than monks as far as I know... So I don't see why it would be a problem is the same is the case of a fighter specialising in unarmed combat.
I understand why monks may feel cheated or whatever... but that would be an issue with the monk class generally being sort of underwhelming for some people... I dont think the unarmed fighter should be punished for that.
Think of it this way.. a player chosing to play an unarmed fighter is probably doing so because they intend to use unarmed strikes as their main "weapon".. so that choice should not feel like a second class choice, it should feel like a fully fleshed out fighter option... just like playing a two weapon fighter or an archer.
If we consider what an unarmed fighter is already giving up when chosing to use their fists (the ability to improve their combat prowess with magical weapons) I don't think it'd be unbalanced to allowed them to use regular two weapon fighting rules with their fists... Two weapon fighting is already considered a weak option.
If you don't want monk players to feel cheated, then don't house rule something to put them at a comparative disadvantage.
I feel like you kinda missed the point of my post there... It is not allowing an unarmed fighter to be slightly more effective that puts the monk at a disadvantage... it is the power difference level between the monk and the fighter that puts the monk at a disadvatange.
We should not be balancing the unarmed fighter with the monk, we should be balancing the unarmed fighter with other fighters... So if other fighters are generally more impressive in combat than monks are, it seems perfectly fair that the unarmed fighter option is at a similar power level.
To me this sounds a little bit like not wanting fighters to be effective with bows because you may think that ranger is supposed to be "the bow class"
You don't get to throw to your hands and say, "Well, monk's suck anyway," to excuse creating an imbalance.
Unarmed Strikes have never been free for TWF. You just want to change it to milk more out of a fighting style because you think it'll be cool, and damn the consequences.
You don't get to throw to your hands and say, "Well, monk's suck anyway," to excuse creating an imbalance.
Unarmed Strikes have never been free for TWF. You just want to change it to milk more out of a fighting style because you think it'll be cool, and damn the consequences.
Again, that's not the point. Handicapping a specific type of fighter has no effect on whether or not monks suck... I don't know if monks suck, I havent played one.. But I'm saying that when looking at what a specific type of fighter should be able to do, we should compare it with other fighers, not monks... Just because monks untill recently have been the only class with support for unarmed combat, does not mean the unarmed fighter should be balanced towards the monks... Since monks have an entirely different set of abilities.
I think we all agree that unarmed strikes do not work with twf by RAW.. The discussion is about whether it'd be reasonable to allow the unarmed fighter to do an bonus attack using twf rules through homebrew.
And could you please clarify what you mean by "damn the consequences"? Allowing this would have no consequences at all for the monk.
Just to clarify what is meant by unarmed fighter - you are referring to a fighter who has taken the unarmed fighting style, correct? Not just any unarmed fighter that is punching? Cuz if its the latter, there are more serious balance concerns.
If you require the unarmed fighting style, then you are looking at 2d6 + Str while wearing a shield, which is 10 damage vs the 9.5 damage of Dueling. Unarmed also gets to keep an open hand for grappling (which can pump out a bit more damage), and for other things like spellcasting, interacting with objects, etc. The fighter's bonus action is wide open, so I think this is a definite buff for the tanky shield-based fighter.
Compare to two weapon fighting, we are looking at 2d8 + Str vs 2d6 + 2*Str, or 12 vs 13. A minor drop in damage, but again you have the ability to grapple (up to two targets) and can interact with objects. This one feels at parity.
Allowing this would have no consequences at all for the monk.
I don't think its fair to claim that it has no consequences for the monk players.
I'm a big proponent of niche protection for players at my table. I'm also a big fan of bending my character building rules to make players fill their character fantasy. When these two things collide, I have to draw a line somewhere. In cases like this, I might allow it in a private game, but only if no other player wanted to be a monk. Its one thing if another player in your party is simply stronger than you. Having a niche will at least you can have your moments to feel cool and shine above the rest. Its another thing when another player who picked another class is better than you at doing the very thing you are intended to be the best at. That just feels like crap.
Just to clarify what is meant by unarmed fighter - you are referring to a fighter who has taken the unarmed fighting style, correct? Not just any unarmed fighter that is punching? Cuz if its the latter, there are more serious balance concerns.
If you require the unarmed fighting style, then you are looking at 2d6 + Str while wearing a shield, which is 10 damage vs the 9.5 damage of Dueling. Unarmed also gets to keep an open hand for grappling (which can pump out a bit more damage), and for other things like spellcasting, interacting with objects, etc. The fighter's bonus action is wide open, so I think this is a definite buff for the tanky shield-based fighter.
Compare to two weapon fighting, we are looking at 2d8 + Str vs 2d6 + 2*Str, or 12 vs 13. A minor drop in damage, but again you have the ability to grapple (up to two targets) and can interact with objects. This one feels at parity.
Allowing this would have no consequences at all for the monk.
I don't think its fair to claim that it has no consequences for the monk players.
I'm a big proponent of niche protection for players at my table. I'm also a big fan of bending my character building rules to make players fill their character fantasy. When these two things collide, I have to draw a line somewhere. In cases like this, I might allow it in a private game, but only if no other player wanted to be a monk. Its one thing if another player in your party is simply stronger than you. Having a niche will at least you can have your moments to feel cool and shine above the rest. Its another thing when another player who picked another class is better than you at doing the very thing you are intended to be the best at. That just feels like crap.
I'm talking about the fighter taking the unarmed fighting styling being at a similar power level to fighters chosing one of the other fighting styles. So yes and no I guess ? I would have to think through the exact way I'd implement it myself. Assuming someone without the fighting style would be able to do it aswell, they'd be dealing an impressive 1 damage as far as I can tell... Unarmed strikes are usually 1 dmg + str right? And since the bonus action attack wouldn't get the modifier, I don't see how it would be problematic on fighter without the fighting style. But there may be things there to balance.
With regards to your example. The dueling fighting is gaining the +2 for each extra attack at later levels, not to mention being able to benefit from magical weapons. The unarmed figher also uses up the their bonus action, which may not always have many uses, but certainly can have. I would say that the dueling fighting style is the more effective choice here.
As for niches. The thing is... Unarmed combat is not an exclusively monk niche any longer. The niche of a monk goes well beyond being able to hit things with your fists. If all a player wants out of the monk is to hit things with their fists, and otherwise isn't interested in the nimble wall running and ki aspects of the class, then that player should probably have chosen an unarmed fighter to begin with.
I would personally find it a little sad to be unwilling to do cool things for your unarmed fighter (assuming they are otherwise balanced) Just because monks had the ability to use unarmed strikes first. That is of course a personal opinion.
I don't think that monks need to be the only ones that use unarmed strikes, but the idea of specifically pummeling enemies with a flurry of blows feels very much in the monk's domain. Looking at something like level 11, an unarmed fighter could be making 4 punches consistently while a monk needs to burn ki in order to match that number. I would prefer if the fighter achieved its power in a way that is a bit more mechanically distinct. WotC attempted this a bit by pushing some power into grappling, but the overall power-level of the style does feel a bit low.
I mean, we are already talking about homebrewing here, so why not look for a way to make the fighter feel like a powerful brawler instead of just tacking on a budget martial arts bonus attack. Perhaps you could explore the grappling aspect for more damage or utility, or look for ways to add a bit of brute force to the fighting style, or something else along those lines. That would allow for some really cool and powerful options for an unarmed fighter, and lets them carve out their identity a bit more (which I think helps both the fighter and the monk have more fun at the table).
I honestly don't see why fists should be as deadly as weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I don't think that monks need to be the only ones that use unarmed strikes, but the idea of specifically pummeling enemies with a flurry of blows feels very much in the monk's domain. Looking at something like level 11, an unarmed fighter could be making 4 punches consistently while a monk needs to burn ki in order to match that number. I would prefer if the fighter achieved its power in a way that is a bit more mechanically distinct. WotC attempted this a bit by pushing some power into grappling, but the overall power-level of the style does feel a bit low.
I mean, we are already talking about homebrewing here, so why not look for a way to make the fighter feel like a powerful brawler instead of just tacking on a budget martial arts bonus attack. Perhaps you could explore the grappling aspect for more damage or utility, or look for ways to add a bit of brute force to the fighting style, or something else along those lines. That would allow for some really cool and powerful options for an unarmed fighter, and lets them carve out their identity a bit more (which I think helps both the fighter and the monk have more fun at the table).
Agreed. And the easiest way, I think, is to modify the Tavern Brawler feat to increase the damage die of the Fighting Style. That way it doesn't invalidate the monk by stepping on its toes, and it leans more into the grappling aspect of the style.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, the only drawback I could see is it would need to be in conjunction with a melee attack, or there would be all kinds of shenanigans
Its more of a mechanical thing. First, not wanting to totally blow monks out of the water. Second, you'd get all kinds of wonk if everyone could throw a punch as a bonus action, like Wizards following up a fireball with a punch. Which wouldn't be game breaking, but would be time consuming.
I feel like this wasn't meant make the fighter an alternative to the monk, but to provide a kind of a side arm in case the fighter is disarmed. So nat 1's where the GM makes you throw your weapon, or when you're captured, or when you fight a rust monster.
Now I think this does open the door for the fighter to be a splendid unarmed fighter, especially with that tattoo Tasha's added that makes unarmed attacks count as magical. And mechanically, between fighter abilities and that 3rd attack at 11, it keeps up with monks just fine. And a strength based unarmed fighter will have much better ability to shove enemies prone or grapple.
"It stands to reason that if you want to compete with an actual weapon in terms of damage, you need to put a some real oomph into your unarmed strikes."
I'm not talking about competing with damage. I'm talking about general usage. The actual motion required to swing a club to do damage requires you to put some force behind your swings. But RAW says you can't use the same level of force to swing your other arm round to hit someone unless you're wielding a weapon in each hand?! It's ridiculous.
Look at it this way. You're in a fight for your life. You're going up against a guy with two daggers. You are unarmed. They get two attempts to stab you because they have a dagger in each hand. You only get to throw one punch. Why? Because you're hands are empty.
If you are physically capable of making two attacks whilst wielding two weapons it stands to reason that you'd be physically capable of making two attacks when you are wielding nothing. The two weapon fighting rule should include unarmed strikes and should read like this...
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand or an unarmed strike, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand, or another unarmed strike with the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative."
As far as damage goes though. The damage output for unarmed strikes would follow those same rules. So yeah the damage output for the bonus action strike would be a whopping 1! Unless you have a feat like Tavern Brawler or a fighting style that changes it.
@Kronzypantz "Yeah, the only drawback I could see is it would need to be in conjunction with a melee attack, or there would be all kinds of shenanigans"
Totally agree. I would include unarmed strikes in the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action.
"Its more of a mechanical thing. First, not wanting to totally blow monks out of the water. "
I honestly think they deliberately left unarmed strikes out of the two weapon fighting bonus action in order to give the monk class more appeal. Yeah monks can throw lots of kicks and punches. But that's not what makes them cool. It's what they can do with those kicks and punches that does!
"Second, you'd get all kinds of wonk if everyone could throw a punch as a bonus action, like Wizards following up a fireball with a punch."
Yeah that's too much. I'm not talking about giving everyone an unarmed strike as bonus action on their turn. I mean they should include unarmed strikes in the two weapon fighting bonus action. I mention this in my other post
Sorry if that wasn't clear from the outset.
If it was limited to making an unarmed strike as a bonus action after you take the Attack action, that would solve the "fireball and punch" problem. I would also probably limit it to only being allowed if they made an unarmed strike as part of the Attack action on the same turn, just too keep a paladin from head-butting someone as a free bonus action after attacking with a greatsword or something like that.
The rule has potential, but needs work.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
RAW? No, it's not allowed. Take the Tavern Brawler feat and use that Bonus Action to grapple, instead.
I think the idea would be to include it into two weapon fighting. So the rule would be something along the lines of:
When you take the Attack Action and Attack with an unarmed strike or a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with an unarmed strike or 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.
You would have to adapt this further though, as it allows someone like Handaxe + Shield to get a free unarmed strike as a bonus action. Additionally, unarmed strikes aren't punches and don't normally require open hands. I have a feeling that whatever wording you come up with to make this mechanically sound, you are going to end up with something that still doesn't make complete sense narratively.
Yes, we know that it's not allowed RAW.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In this case I would word it that you would have to have a free hand so your hand axe shield bearer wouldn’t get to kick someone as a BA and have the shield +2 to AC. If you want that BA unarmed strike you need the hand free, just for balance.
And I still think this is a bad idea, poor monks get no love. At 5th level your monk and fighter have the same attack action and BA attack except the Fighter is d8 and monk is d6 unless using a weapon. The monk needs to use Ki to get an additional attack to do more than the fighter. At 11th level the fighter has 3 attacks and a BA attack, same as an 11th level monk with FoB (I understand the fighter BA attack does not get ability modifier). So basically a 5th level fighter is attacking the same as a 16th level monk (without spending Ki).
Sure, the monk has more versatility outside of damage, but this thread is about attacking. Now add in a fighter subclass and additional ASI’s and fighters become more deadly. Plenty of Battle Master maneuvers start with “when you hit a creature with a weapon attack (which unarmed strikes count as) so now you’re doing maneuvers adding even more versatility and damage (most add the superiority due to damage).
If this was official I don’t know I would bother with monk unfortunately.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A fighter using the two weapon fighting style can achieve similar damage with short swords as is, so I don't see the issue in terms of balance... even without any fighting styles, a fighter can almost do the same as your example, using two short words, only using d6's instead of d8's.
My point is that in terms of straight attacking, it is perfectly normal for fighters to deal more damage than monks as far as I know... So I don't see why it would be a problem is the same is the case of a fighter specialising in unarmed combat.
I understand why monks may feel cheated or whatever... but that would be an issue with the monk class generally being sort of underwhelming for some people... I dont think the unarmed fighter should be punished for that.
Think of it this way.. a player chosing to play an unarmed fighter is probably doing so because they intend to use unarmed strikes as their main "weapon".. so that choice should not feel like a second class choice, it should feel like a fully fleshed out fighter option... just like playing a two weapon fighter or an archer.
If we consider what an unarmed fighter is already giving up when chosing to use their fists (the ability to improve their combat prowess with magical weapons) I don't think it'd be unbalanced to allowed them to use regular two weapon fighting rules with their fists... Two weapon fighting is already considered a weak option.
Yep. I agree that is necessary for balance, and its why I don't like bonus action unarmed strikes and think things are fine the way they are.
If the intention is to try to be more realistic, the above rule makes zero sense. What if I am a Lizardfolk and make unarmed strike with my bite? What I decide that my unarmed strikes are kicks? Unarmed strikes can be made it with any part of your body, so what you are holding in your hands should not matter.
The straightforward narrative explanation for the status quo is that unarmed strikes (that is, attacks with your body that are powerful enough to deal damage) just aren't as quick and simple as offhand attacks with a light weapon. Sure, you can just bring in your other hand and quickly jab someone after making a normal attack, but it won't be forceful enough to deal damage. That's why we can't make them with a bonus action. Monks are the exception, because they've explicitly trained in martial arts to be able to make quick and precise unarmed strikes. IMO the rules regarding unarmed strikes and two weapon fighting are clean, both narratively and mechanically.
Ok... To all the people that would not allow this. Can you please explain your reasoning behind this? Other than stating RAW. Actually explain why it is impossible to do. And how in the rich high fantasy world that D&D is set in. Where you can have flames shoot from your hands, turn into beasts, fight mythical creatures and talk to gods. How you physically cannot make an additional unarmed strike with your bonus action?! (Outside of being a monk)
And then once you've done this. Explain how it is possible, without stating RAW, a person wielding two light melee weapons physically can make an additional attack using their bonus action?
But before you answer. Try doing it yourself. Hold something in either hand, like a stick or something and pretend you're welding handaxes or clubs. And then act out the motions you would need to do in order to hit with both weapons with enough force to do some damage. Then... Do some shadow boxing holding nothing. But only use one arm.
Please try to answer this logically. I don't care about damage outputs or anything like that. Or how allowing this would take something away from being a monk. I just want you to give me an explanation of how you would make sense of this in game.
If you don't want monk players to feel cheated, then don't house rule something to put them at a comparative disadvantage.
I feel like you kinda missed the point of my post there... It is not allowing an unarmed fighter to be slightly more effective that puts the monk at a disadvantage... it is the power difference level between the monk and the fighter that puts the monk at a disadvatange.
We should not be balancing the unarmed fighter with the monk, we should be balancing the unarmed fighter with other fighters... So if other fighters are generally more impressive in combat than monks are, it seems perfectly fair that the unarmed fighter option is at a similar power level.
To me this sounds a little bit like not wanting fighters to be effective with bows because you may think that ranger is supposed to be "the bow class"
You don't get to throw to your hands and say, "Well, monk's suck anyway," to excuse creating an imbalance.
Unarmed Strikes have never been free for TWF. You just want to change it to milk more out of a fighting style because you think it'll be cool, and damn the consequences.
Again, that's not the point. Handicapping a specific type of fighter has no effect on whether or not monks suck... I don't know if monks suck, I havent played one.. But I'm saying that when looking at what a specific type of fighter should be able to do, we should compare it with other fighers, not monks... Just because monks untill recently have been the only class with support for unarmed combat, does not mean the unarmed fighter should be balanced towards the monks... Since monks have an entirely different set of abilities.
I think we all agree that unarmed strikes do not work with twf by RAW.. The discussion is about whether it'd be reasonable to allow the unarmed fighter to do an bonus attack using twf rules through homebrew.
And could you please clarify what you mean by "damn the consequences"? Allowing this would have no consequences at all for the monk.
Just to clarify what is meant by unarmed fighter - you are referring to a fighter who has taken the unarmed fighting style, correct? Not just any unarmed fighter that is punching? Cuz if its the latter, there are more serious balance concerns.
If you require the unarmed fighting style, then you are looking at 2d6 + Str while wearing a shield, which is 10 damage vs the 9.5 damage of Dueling. Unarmed also gets to keep an open hand for grappling (which can pump out a bit more damage), and for other things like spellcasting, interacting with objects, etc. The fighter's bonus action is wide open, so I think this is a definite buff for the tanky shield-based fighter.
Compare to two weapon fighting, we are looking at 2d8 + Str vs 2d6 + 2*Str, or 12 vs 13. A minor drop in damage, but again you have the ability to grapple (up to two targets) and can interact with objects. This one feels at parity.
I don't think its fair to claim that it has no consequences for the monk players.
I'm a big proponent of niche protection for players at my table. I'm also a big fan of bending my character building rules to make players fill their character fantasy. When these two things collide, I have to draw a line somewhere. In cases like this, I might allow it in a private game, but only if no other player wanted to be a monk. Its one thing if another player in your party is simply stronger than you. Having a niche will at least you can have your moments to feel cool and shine above the rest. Its another thing when another player who picked another class is better than you at doing the very thing you are intended to be the best at. That just feels like crap.
I'm talking about the fighter taking the unarmed fighting styling being at a similar power level to fighters chosing one of the other fighting styles. So yes and no I guess ? I would have to think through the exact way I'd implement it myself. Assuming someone without the fighting style would be able to do it aswell, they'd be dealing an impressive 1 damage as far as I can tell... Unarmed strikes are usually 1 dmg + str right? And since the bonus action attack wouldn't get the modifier, I don't see how it would be problematic on fighter without the fighting style. But there may be things there to balance.
With regards to your example. The dueling fighting is gaining the +2 for each extra attack at later levels, not to mention being able to benefit from magical weapons. The unarmed figher also uses up the their bonus action, which may not always have many uses, but certainly can have. I would say that the dueling fighting style is the more effective choice here.
As for niches. The thing is... Unarmed combat is not an exclusively monk niche any longer. The niche of a monk goes well beyond being able to hit things with your fists. If all a player wants out of the monk is to hit things with their fists, and otherwise isn't interested in the nimble wall running and ki aspects of the class, then that player should probably have chosen an unarmed fighter to begin with.
I would personally find it a little sad to be unwilling to do cool things for your unarmed fighter (assuming they are otherwise balanced) Just because monks had the ability to use unarmed strikes first. That is of course a personal opinion.
I don't think that monks need to be the only ones that use unarmed strikes, but the idea of specifically pummeling enemies with a flurry of blows feels very much in the monk's domain. Looking at something like level 11, an unarmed fighter could be making 4 punches consistently while a monk needs to burn ki in order to match that number. I would prefer if the fighter achieved its power in a way that is a bit more mechanically distinct. WotC attempted this a bit by pushing some power into grappling, but the overall power-level of the style does feel a bit low.
I mean, we are already talking about homebrewing here, so why not look for a way to make the fighter feel like a powerful brawler instead of just tacking on a budget martial arts bonus attack. Perhaps you could explore the grappling aspect for more damage or utility, or look for ways to add a bit of brute force to the fighting style, or something else along those lines. That would allow for some really cool and powerful options for an unarmed fighter, and lets them carve out their identity a bit more (which I think helps both the fighter and the monk have more fun at the table).
I honestly don't see why fists should be as deadly as weapons.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Agreed. And the easiest way, I think, is to modify the Tavern Brawler feat to increase the damage die of the Fighting Style. That way it doesn't invalidate the monk by stepping on its toes, and it leans more into the grappling aspect of the style.