Making a brawler fighter using the unarmed style. Do unarmed attacks benefit from two-weapon fighting/dual wield feats?
No. Attacking with an unarmed strike is not the same as attacking with a light weapon. Only a monk has the ability to use a bonus action to make an unarmed strike after first taking the attack action using an unarmed strike (or monk weapon, in this case).
Making a brawler fighter using the unarmed style. Do unarmed attacks benefit from two-weapon fighting/dual wield feats?
In an interpretation of RAI I'd allow the use of the ruling regarding combat and two-weapon fighting,
the subject of two-weapon fighting here is that:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, On interpretation that the prohibition is against the use of heavier weapons I think it's possible to infer: When you take the Attack action and attack with [no more than] a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand...
This would be on the basic understanding that "Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit." Each swing would substitute for a weapon attack so you wouldn't get the d8 damage if attacking with both hands and, by selecting the optional unarmed fighting style rather than the bonus adding two weapon fighting style, you wouldn't get a positive str mod for damage on the second attack.
Not Rules as Written. However, there's not really any balance reason to not allow it, so ask your DM if they'll allow it.
Sure there is. Dual wielding two d8 weapons with all the benefits of having empty hands is a lot for a fighting style. Monks need a class feature to do this with d4s to the damage.
The devs knew exactly what they were doing when they designed it this way, and when they wrote the wording for TWF. Because when they wanted to circumvent this to allow more attacks (Martial Arts, Path of the Beast claws), they wrote in those exceptions. This is RAI as well as RAW.
My first approach is sure, as long as you remember Unarmed Fighting Style does not include the light property, so you would need the dual-wielding feat. Since if you account for that it's perfectly balanced (if a little subpar, but that's fine. You're playing a character that punches people to death).
Although even if you ignore that and let people dual-wield fists without the feat it'll only have a minor effect on the balance, so that's a perfectly fine HB rule too, most DMs can handle one character doing +1 extra damage per attack.
Either way just remember that grappling takes up one of your hands, so if you grapple for the +1d4 damage you won't be able to twf unless you have a third hand.
It's generally agreed upon that the dual-wielding feat is usually for flavor rather than mechanical effectiveness and the same applies here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Since an unarmed strike does not have to be a punch (it could be a kick or elbow strike , for example) allowing everyone to essentially have free 2W fighting can be slippery slope. For example, allowing a brawler to attack multiple times (action and bonus action) while carrying someone in both arms. Or allowing someone with a polearm or greatsword a bonus action attack to kick. Or allowing a minotaur to gore someone multiple times a round.
Not gamebreaking, but devalues the two-weapon fighting styles and feats, as well as the monk class.
Try it in your game. Come back here and tell us how it went.
Making a brawler fighter using the unarmed style. Do unarmed attacks benefit from two-weapon fighting/dual wield feats?
Not Rules as Written. However, there's not really any balance reason to not allow it, so ask your DM if they'll allow it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No. Attacking with an unarmed strike is not the same as attacking with a light weapon.
Only a monk has the ability to use a bonus action to make an unarmed strike after first taking the attack action using an unarmed strike (or monk weapon, in this case).
Visit (link) → MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera ← (link) Visit
In an interpretation of RAI I'd allow the use of the ruling regarding combat and two-weapon fighting,
![]()
+ your Strength modifier on a hit." Each swing would substitute for a weapon attack so you wouldn't get the d8 damage if attacking with both hands and, by selecting the optional unarmed fighting style rather than the bonus adding two weapon fighting style, you wouldn't get a positive str mod for damage on the second attack.
the subject of two-weapon fighting here is that:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand,
On interpretation that the prohibition is against the use of heavier weapons I think it's possible to infer:
When you take the Attack action and attack with [no more than] a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand...
This would be on the basic understanding that "Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6
Sure there is. Dual wielding two d8 weapons with all the benefits of having empty hands is a lot for a fighting style. Monks need a class feature to do this with d4s to the damage.
The devs knew exactly what they were doing when they designed it this way, and when they wrote the wording for TWF. Because when they wanted to circumvent this to allow more attacks (Martial Arts, Path of the Beast claws), they wrote in those exceptions. This is RAI as well as RAW.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Ask your DM cause it's most likely not RAW.
My first approach is sure, as long as you remember Unarmed Fighting Style does not include the light property, so you would need the dual-wielding feat. Since if you account for that it's perfectly balanced (if a little subpar, but that's fine. You're playing a character that punches people to death).
Although even if you ignore that and let people dual-wield fists without the feat it'll only have a minor effect on the balance, so that's a perfectly fine HB rule too, most DMs can handle one character doing +1 extra damage per attack.
Either way just remember that grappling takes up one of your hands, so if you grapple for the +1d4 damage you won't be able to twf unless you have a third hand.
It's generally agreed upon that the dual-wielding feat is usually for flavor rather than mechanical effectiveness and the same applies here.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Since an unarmed strike does not have to be a punch (it could be a kick or elbow strike , for example) allowing everyone to essentially have free 2W fighting can be slippery slope. For example, allowing a brawler to attack multiple times (action and bonus action) while carrying someone in both arms. Or allowing someone with a polearm or greatsword a bonus action attack to kick. Or allowing a minotaur to gore someone multiple times a round.
Not gamebreaking, but devalues the two-weapon fighting styles and feats, as well as the monk class.
Try it in your game. Come back here and tell us how it went.