It would still just be dual wielding. Even if it can be offensively stronger until level 11, it drops off as hard as dual wielding rapiers. And you couldn't use it with certain abilities like battle master maneuvers, so one of the strongest fighter classes is off limits (although that would be a really fun boxer). And to get the full benefit, your pugilist fighter has to give up AC.
Monks do not fight unarmed to a very effective degree. Its actually fine that fighters can be better unarmed fighters, I'd like that just so I can make the martial artist characters that I couldn't make work with how janky the monk is.
This. TWF still stinks. This idea is pretty much just saying no with no concern to the impact of saying yes.
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.
It would still just be dual wielding. Even if it can be offensively stronger until level 11, it drops off as hard as dual wielding rapiers. And you couldn't use it with certain abilities like battle master maneuvers, so one of the strongest fighter classes is off limits (although that would be a really fun boxer). And to get the full benefit, your pugilist fighter has to give up AC.
Monks do not fight unarmed to a very effective degree. Its actually fine that fighters can be better unarmed fighters, I'd like that just so I can make the martial artist characters that I couldn't make work with how janky the monk is.
I think I missed something here... Are you saying that you can't use battlemaster maneuvers with unarmed attacks?
RAW.. It's pretty sure that's a clear "No".. your unarmed attacks aren't weapons and even if they were they aren't "light" either, so you'd atleast need to grab the feat for that.
Correct. And even with the Dual Wielder feat, this still doesn't work. Two-weapon fighting requires holding two weapons; it's designed to be used with objects, not your body. That's part of why the monk needs a separate rule for its bonus action attack.
The unarmed fighting style already increases your damage die from 1d6 to 1d8 when both of your hands are free. I think that in and of itself is indication enough that you aren' meant do be getting an extra strike from it as well.
Also spot on. Monks don't deal 1d8 until 11th level. The lack of bonus attack is the trade-off for leap-frogging monks in the damage die department.
Rules as written, its a no go. But funnily enough, get tavern brawler and duel wielder, and you can box with shields in each hand.
This doesn't work either without the DM's approval. Tavern Brawler giving you proficiency with improvised weapons doesn't make those objects real weapons, and if the DM rules your improvised weapons are weapon-like enough to count you wouldn't need Tavern Brawler anyways.
And you couldn't use it with certain abilities like battle master maneuvers, so one of the strongest fighter classes is off limits (although that would be a really fun boxer).
Brace and Quick Toss are the only maneuvers that require a melee weapon. The rest work with any melee weapon attack, including unarmed strikes.
And to get the full benefit, your pugilist fighter has to give up AC.
Relative to a fighter with a shield, sure, but you're still less MAD than a monk. A 1st level Fighter with scale mail achieves the same attack bonus and AC as a 16 DEX/16 WIS monk with 16 STR/14 DEX. They also have a hit die one size larger, which is equivalent to having an extra 2 CON over the monk. Plus the fighter gets an extra ASI at 6th level.
I would say that the fighter shouldn't have to suffer because monks suck.
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 would say it's extremely weird to expect unarmed strikes to be equally viable to weapons on a weapons-based class. The fighting style is already comically absurd in letting you deal damage equivalent to a two-handed quarterstaff completely bare-handed.
I would say it's extremely weird to expect unarmed strikes to be equally viable to weapons on a weapons-based class. The fighting style is already comically absurd in letting you deal damage equivalent to a two-handed quarterstaff completely bare-handed.
And it makes sense that they could take Tavern Brawler and do the same kind damage as literally getting stabbed by a knife?
Any fighter that takes this is making a commitment to not be weapon based.
I would say it's extremely weird to expect unarmed strikes to be equally viable to weapons on a weapons-based class. The fighting style is already comically absurd in letting you deal damage equivalent to a two-handed quarterstaff completely bare-handed.
Why? A 1 inch long hole in someone's heart from a rapier does more damage than a 3 inch long hole in the heart from a gladius does.
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 would say it's extremely weird to expect unarmed strikes to be equally viable to weapons on a weapons-based class. The fighting style is already comically absurd in letting you deal damage equivalent to a two-handed quarterstaff completely bare-handed.
Not sure why this is even a concern. If I remember correctly, it goes over in either the PHB or the DMG that when you hit a creature it doesn't mean you're actually slashing, piercing, smashing, burning the creature to a degree that would deal visible damage. From what I understand, a hit from an arrow can be a graze across a cheek and a miss doesn't mean it missed the target it just didn't have any real effect such as an arrow breaking against plate mail. The only thing that does "real" damage to a creature is the attack that drops it to Zero (Of course this is a generalization as a Huge creature might actually be getting hits done on them, while I'm speaking more the large and smaller creatures.)
If what you're worried is realism when it comes the damage die and type for every weapon, then you should also change how damage is done based on Armor. Don't know if you knew but when it comes to Armor, things like War Hammers and Mauls would do significant more damage to a person on average than a longsword or Greatsword. Slashing someone is more effect against bare flesh unless you can get a good stab into someone. So on and so forth.
Yes, I understand how damage works in D&D. A rapier is on the whole a more effective weapon than a gladius so that checks out. A dagger is not a massive improvement over your bare fists until you actually land a clean hit (reduce them 0) so that also checks out. The idea that you could do equally well bare-handed as with a 6 foot pole is still silly no matter how you want to look at it.
I don't think it's weird to want effective unarmed strikes as a Fighter. The fighting style makes plenty sense paired with a versatile or two-handed weapon if you like to do some grappling. What strikes me as weird is to specifically expect punching to be an equally viable primary attack for a fighter to the point that you want to get bonus attacks like monks, but not have any of the monk limitations or take 1 monk level. It's like deciding to make a healing wizard, refusing to multiclass, and expecting to keep up with a cleric's healing.
Yes, I understand how damage works in D&D. A rapier is on the whole a more effective weapon than a gladius so that checks out. A dagger is not a massive improvement over your bare fists until you actually land a clean hit (reduce them 0) so that also checks out. The idea that you could do equally well bare-handed as with a 6 foot pole is still silly no matter how you want to look at it.
I don't think it's weird to want effective unarmed strikes as a Fighter. The fighting style makes plenty sense paired with a versatile or two-handed weapon if you like to do some grappling. What strikes me as weird is to specifically expect punching to be an equally viable primary attack for a fighter to the point that you want to get bonus attacks like monks, but not have any of the monk limitations or take 1 monk level. It's like deciding to make a healing wizard, refusing to multiclass, and expecting to keep up with a cleric's healing.
Fighters, IMO, aren't just people who use weapons in D&D. They're really, really good at it. I don't see any reason why a game where the characters are basically super heroes shouldn't let a person deal as much damage with a punch as they can with a two-handed quarterstaff. They just have to invest their Fighting Style to do so.
TBH, I'm probably going to make a feat that is the punching version of the Dual Wielder feat, allowing them to punch as a bonus action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yes, I understand how damage works in D&D. A rapier is on the whole a more effective weapon than a gladius so that checks out. A dagger is not a massive improvement over your bare fists until you actually land a clean hit (reduce them 0) so that also checks out. The idea that you could do equally well bare-handed as with a 6 foot pole is still silly no matter how you want to look at it.
I don't think it's weird to want effective unarmed strikes as a Fighter. The fighting style makes plenty sense paired with a versatile or two-handed weapon if you like to do some grappling. What strikes me as weird is to specifically expect punching to be an equally viable primary attack for a fighter to the point that you want to get bonus attacks like monks, but not have any of the monk limitations or take 1 monk level. It's like deciding to make a healing wizard, refusing to multiclass, and expecting to keep up with a cleric's healing.
Fighters, IMO, aren't just people who use weapons in D&D. They're really, really good at it. I don't see any reason why a game where the characters are basically super heroes shouldn't let a person deal as much damage with a punch as they can with a two-handed quarterstaff. They just have to invest their Fighting Style to do so.
TBH, I'm probably going to make a feat that is the punching version of the Dual Wielder feat, allowing them to punch as a bonus action.
I don't see a problem with it either at the cost of a fighting style, one attack at 1d6/1d8. But a bonus action attack ends up better than a quarterstaff with the investment of Polearm Master, which only does 1d4 on the second attack. You can homebrew a feat if you like, that's what is great about the game, you can play it how you like. But personally, I wouldn't allow the bonus action attack.
I don't see a problem with it either at the cost of a fighting style, one attack at 1d6/1d8. But a bonus action attack ends up better than a quarterstaff with the investment of Polearm Master, which only does 1d4 on the second attack. You can homebrew a feat if you like, that's what is great about the game, you can play it how you like. But personally, I wouldn't allow the bonus action attack.
The bonus action attack from Polearm Master is not the only thing that feat grants, and if the Quarterstaff user wants to make their bonus action attack as effective as the Fighter that gave up their Fighting Style and Feat to slightly exceed their damage, that player can take the Dueling feat or Shillelagh.
The Unarmed Fighter gives up a fighting style and a feat to get the bonus action attack, while the quarter-staff user would only have to give up a feat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yes, I understand how damage works in D&D. A rapier is on the whole a more effective weapon than a gladius so that checks out. A dagger is not a massive improvement over your bare fists until you actually land a clean hit (reduce them 0) so that also checks out. The idea that you could do equally well bare-handed as with a 6 foot pole is still silly no matter how you want to look at it.
I don't think it's weird to want effective unarmed strikes as a Fighter. The fighting style makes plenty sense paired with a versatile or two-handed weapon if you like to do some grappling. What strikes me as weird is to specifically expect punching to be an equally viable primary attack for a fighter to the point that you want to get bonus attacks like monks, but not have any of the monk limitations or take 1 monk level. It's like deciding to make a healing wizard, refusing to multiclass, and expecting to keep up with a cleric's healing.
I'm with InquisitiveCoder on this one.
If you want to build a Fighter around the Unarmed Style and want the extra attack, you're going to need to take a Monk level.
Even so, that extra attack should be using the Monk's Martial Arts damage die (a 1d4) and not the 1d6/1d8 damage die from the Unarmed Fighting Style class feature.
You get unarmed fighting style with fighter (1d8 unarmed)
Monk 1 ( you get BA unarmed attack)
Barbarian: You get to use claws unarmed and make 4 attacks per turn when you get to Barb 5: Claws 3(1d6+STR+Rage) then as a BA make an unarmed strike (d8+STR+Rage)
Can Monk take the unarmed fighting style via the Fighting Initiate feat?
If so would that make all their unarmed strikes do D8 damage, though (according to the feat) only while using their strength rather than dexterity?
The first part is true and if you really just want monk for some low level stuff (BA unarmed attack) you could do the V. human route and skip the whole 1st level fighter dip and go for the feat instead.
Would get you online a bit faster.
The second part is always true as unarmed is actually defaulted as STR and its martial arts that lets monk use dexterity.
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.
"Does it require more exertion swinging a fist over a light weapon?"
In order to deal actual damage? Yes. Unarmed strikes aren't inherently quick, simple punches. 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. Simply jabbing your other hand at the enemy after throwing your weight behind your main attack isn't going to be enough to do any real damage.
A dagger, on the other hand, just needs a clean hit to deal its damage. You can easily just attempt to swing in your offhand dagger after your main strike and still get a good stab off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This. TWF still stinks. This idea is pretty much just saying no with no concern to the impact of saying yes.
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
I think I missed something here... Are you saying that you can't use battlemaster maneuvers with unarmed attacks?
Correct. And even with the Dual Wielder feat, this still doesn't work. Two-weapon fighting requires holding two weapons; it's designed to be used with objects, not your body. That's part of why the monk needs a separate rule for its bonus action attack.
Also spot on. Monks don't deal 1d8 until 11th level. The lack of bonus attack is the trade-off for leap-frogging monks in the damage die department.
This doesn't work either without the DM's approval. Tavern Brawler giving you proficiency with improvised weapons doesn't make those objects real weapons, and if the DM rules your improvised weapons are weapon-like enough to count you wouldn't need Tavern Brawler anyways.
Brace and Quick Toss are the only maneuvers that require a melee weapon. The rest work with any melee weapon attack, including unarmed strikes.
Relative to a fighter with a shield, sure, but you're still less MAD than a monk. A 1st level Fighter with scale mail achieves the same attack bonus and AC as a 16 DEX/16 WIS monk with 16 STR/14 DEX. They also have a hit die one size larger, which is equivalent to having an extra 2 CON over the monk. Plus the fighter gets an extra ASI at 6th level.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I would say that the fighter shouldn't have to suffer because monks suck.
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
I would say it's extremely weird to expect unarmed strikes to be equally viable to weapons on a weapons-based class. The fighting style is already comically absurd in letting you deal damage equivalent to a two-handed quarterstaff completely bare-handed.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
And it makes sense that they could take Tavern Brawler and do the same kind damage as literally getting stabbed by a knife?
Any fighter that takes this is making a commitment to not be weapon based.
Why? A 1 inch long hole in someone's heart from a rapier does more damage than a 3 inch long hole in the heart from a gladius does.
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
Not sure why this is even a concern. If I remember correctly, it goes over in either the PHB or the DMG that when you hit a creature it doesn't mean you're actually slashing, piercing, smashing, burning the creature to a degree that would deal visible damage. From what I understand, a hit from an arrow can be a graze across a cheek and a miss doesn't mean it missed the target it just didn't have any real effect such as an arrow breaking against plate mail. The only thing that does "real" damage to a creature is the attack that drops it to Zero (Of course this is a generalization as a Huge creature might actually be getting hits done on them, while I'm speaking more the large and smaller creatures.)
If what you're worried is realism when it comes the damage die and type for every weapon, then you should also change how damage is done based on Armor. Don't know if you knew but when it comes to Armor, things like War Hammers and Mauls would do significant more damage to a person on average than a longsword or Greatsword. Slashing someone is more effect against bare flesh unless you can get a good stab into someone. So on and so forth.
Yes, I understand how damage works in D&D. A rapier is on the whole a more effective weapon than a gladius so that checks out. A dagger is not a massive improvement over your bare fists until you actually land a clean hit (reduce them 0) so that also checks out. The idea that you could do equally well bare-handed as with a 6 foot pole is still silly no matter how you want to look at it.
I don't think it's weird to want effective unarmed strikes as a Fighter. The fighting style makes plenty sense paired with a versatile or two-handed weapon if you like to do some grappling. What strikes me as weird is to specifically expect punching to be an equally viable primary attack for a fighter to the point that you want to get bonus attacks like monks, but not have any of the monk limitations or take 1 monk level. It's like deciding to make a healing wizard, refusing to multiclass, and expecting to keep up with a cleric's healing.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Fighters, IMO, aren't just people who use weapons in D&D. They're really, really good at it. I don't see any reason why a game where the characters are basically super heroes shouldn't let a person deal as much damage with a punch as they can with a two-handed quarterstaff. They just have to invest their Fighting Style to do so.
TBH, I'm probably going to make a feat that is the punching version of the Dual Wielder feat, allowing them to punch as a bonus action.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't see a problem with it either at the cost of a fighting style, one attack at 1d6/1d8. But a bonus action attack ends up better than a quarterstaff with the investment of Polearm Master, which only does 1d4 on the second attack. You can homebrew a feat if you like, that's what is great about the game, you can play it how you like. But personally, I wouldn't allow the bonus action attack.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The bonus action attack from Polearm Master is not the only thing that feat grants, and if the Quarterstaff user wants to make their bonus action attack as effective as the Fighter that gave up their Fighting Style and Feat to slightly exceed their damage, that player can take the Dueling feat or Shillelagh.
The Unarmed Fighter gives up a fighting style and a feat to get the bonus action attack, while the quarter-staff user would only have to give up a feat.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm with InquisitiveCoder on this one.
If you want to build a Fighter around the Unarmed Style and want the extra attack, you're going to need to take a Monk level.
Even so, that extra attack should be using the Monk's Martial Arts damage die (a 1d4) and not the 1d6/1d8 damage die from the Unarmed Fighting Style class feature.
That's not how the rules work. Your bonus action attack from multiclassing into Monk would still be 1d8+STR or DEX mod.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No kidding?
That's cool as hell! :D
If you really want to do this I have a build....
Fighter 1/Monk 1/Barbarian Beast Path X
You get unarmed fighting style with fighter (1d8 unarmed)
Monk 1 ( you get BA unarmed attack)
Barbarian: You get to use claws unarmed and make 4 attacks per turn when you get to Barb 5: Claws 3(1d6+STR+Rage) then as a BA make an unarmed strike (d8+STR+Rage)
Can Monk take the unarmed fighting style via the Fighting Initiate feat?
If so would that make all their unarmed strikes do D8 damage, though (according to the feat) only while using their strength rather than dexterity?
The first part is true and if you really just want monk for some low level stuff (BA unarmed attack) you could do the V. human route and skip the whole 1st level fighter dip and go for the feat instead.
Would get you online a bit faster.
The second part is always true as unarmed is actually defaulted as STR and its martial arts that lets monk use dexterity.
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.
"Does it require more exertion swinging a fist over a light weapon?"
In order to deal actual damage? Yes. Unarmed strikes aren't inherently quick, simple punches. 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. Simply jabbing your other hand at the enemy after throwing your weight behind your main attack isn't going to be enough to do any real damage.
A dagger, on the other hand, just needs a clean hit to deal its damage. You can easily just attempt to swing in your offhand dagger after your main strike and still get a good stab off.