So not sure where to put this but is there a rule on fighting in combat unarmed against an armed opponent if you are not a class that is normally capable of doing so (ie. say an unarmed thief fighting an armed fighter)?
Oh, well you don't add your proficiency modifier to your strikes, and when you hit you deal 1 +STR Modifier bludgeoning damage (no dice roll involved).
No, the disadvantage is just that you don't really get any modifiers to your attack. Unless you're playing as a character with very high strength, you'll likely be doing just 2 or 3 damage and struggling to break their AC with each attack.
Indeed, everyone is proficient in Unarmed Strikes, meaning for your attack roll you will roll a d20 + your proficiency bonus + your strength modifier, so it's not all that difficult to hit for any Strength based class. However, as stated, unless you're a Monk or have the Tavern Brawler feat, your damage will only be 1 + your strength modifier.
So no disadvantage when in combat unarmed against someone who has a weapon in other words?
Not mechanically, but I'd say it's a huge disadvantage to be stuck doing 1+Str damage, on top of possibly having a lower chance to hit (if you'd be using non-Strength weapons).
That kind of extra disadvantage used to exist in older editions, but those extra mechanics were clunky and frequently forgotten. One of the best parts of 5e is how streamlined it is.
There is no minimum damage rule in 5e so the minimum is technically 0 since negative damage doesn't make a lot of sense.
And DNDB will show this on the character sheet. Any character with a -1 or less Strength modifier will get a damage for their unarmed strike as simply two dashes "- -" meaning they do nothing.
Wait, so if my elf rogue character uses STR as a dump stat, I would be doing 0 damage with my unarmed strikes...is that right?
As written, I'd have to say yes. Can't find anything about an attack dealing at least 1 damage.
This being said, I would personally put that at a minimum of 1 damage, that is unable to kill, and would only KO someone reduced to 0 this way.
Unarmed Strikes are 1+STR modifier (without martial arts or feats) so even if your modifier is 0 you still do 1 damage minimum. I inquired as to this very thing and my DM conferred with his manual at the time and this is the answer i was given; You can't do negative damage (that would heal be like healing them on accident, lol.) but if you succeed on the attack roll you're still going to be capable of doing something to the target. On the off chance that your strength is so low that it wouldn't be possible to do any kind of damage with an unarmed strike, you're likely not in the position or capable of utilizing one anyway, say something like a handicap or not having extremities.
Having a Strength of 8(-1) isn't so weak as to be considered "handicap or lacking extremities," but you still don't do damage with unarmed attacks. You can't do negative damage, but you can do 0.
Unarmed Strikes are 1+STR modifier (without martial arts or feats) so even if your modifier is 0 you still do 1 damage minimum.
If your modifier is 0 you do 1 damage but if your modifier is -1 you do zero damage. If your modifier is -2 RAW you start healing the opponent but everyone I know just says 0 damage. What I am not sure about is if the "1" should be treated as a 1 sided dice. I think a critical unarmed hit should be 2 + STR though it isn't strictly RAW.
I never understood why people suggest healing as the result of negative damage. That would be extremely exploitable. Get a low strength (7 score or less) to hit an unconscious person to wake them up.
There are only two reasonable results to negative damage. Ignore it and just say you do 0 or hurt yourself for the damage dealt. I think most people go with first option as that's RAW.
What I am not sure about is if the "1" should be treated as a 1 sided dice. I think a critical unarmed hit should be 2 + STR though it isn't strictly RAW.
The 1 is not treated as a dice roll. A critical unarmed strike is still just 1 + Strength per RAW.
Unarmed Strikes are 1+STR modifier (without martial arts or feats) so even if your modifier is 0 you still do 1 damage minimum.
If your modifier is 0 you do 1 damage but if your modifier is -1 you do zero damage. If your modifier is -2 RAW you start healing the opponent but everyone I know just says 0 damage. What I am not sure about is if the "1" should be treated as a 1 sided dice. I think a critical unarmed hit should be 2 + STR though it isn't strictly RAW.
You're right in that it's not RAW at all. RAW, a critical unarmed strike from a non-monk not using natural weapons does 1+STR. I would, on the other hand, fully support a house rule doubling the unarmed damage on a crit (as in 2+STR, not as in (1+STR)x2). In fact, it feels odd that base damage isn't doubled on a crit for unarmed strikes, more like an accident of the rules ("on crit, you double all dice, but not modifiers") than a conscious decision. Another house rule that would probably be completely fine is unarmed damage doing 1d2 rather than 1. It would add a bit of variability to unarmed combat, allow for doubling on crits, and allow those 8 STR characters to still do some damage half the time. (Of course, a more "proper" solution would be to introduce damage reduction by way of armor; AC "works", but is overly simple from a realistic point of view: full plate doesn't make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to damage with hits. Unarmed damage could then be significantly higher as a base, but be reduced to 0 by all/most armor. As it stands, two naked weaklings (8 or lower Strength) will never be able to hurt each other with unarmed combat, which is obviously unrealistic. But that goes firmly against the 5e concept of simplifying and streamlining combat, so although such a solution would be more "proper", it wouldn't be appropriate to base D&D 5e.)
So not sure where to put this but is there a rule on fighting in combat unarmed against an armed opponent if you are not a class that is normally capable of doing so (ie. say an unarmed thief fighting an armed fighter)?
Oh, well you don't add your proficiency modifier to your strikes, and when you hit you deal 1 +STR Modifier bludgeoning damage (no dice roll involved).
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
So no disadvantage when in combat unarmed against someone who has a weapon in other words?
No, the disadvantage is just that you don't really get any modifiers to your attack. Unless you're playing as a character with very high strength, you'll likely be doing just 2 or 3 damage and struggling to break their AC with each attack.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Everyone is proficient in Unarmed combat per the Basic Rules.
Oh, thanks for clarifying :) lol this means I've got a few fights from my game I probably should have done better in...
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Indeed, everyone is proficient in Unarmed Strikes, meaning for your attack roll you will roll a d20 + your proficiency bonus + your strength modifier, so it's not all that difficult to hit for any Strength based class. However, as stated, unless you're a Monk or have the Tavern Brawler feat, your damage will only be 1 + your strength modifier.
Not mechanically, but I'd say it's a huge disadvantage to be stuck doing 1+Str damage, on top of possibly having a lower chance to hit (if you'd be using non-Strength weapons).
That kind of extra disadvantage used to exist in older editions, but those extra mechanics were clunky and frequently forgotten. One of the best parts of 5e is how streamlined it is.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Wait, so if my elf rogue character uses STR as a dump stat, I would be doing 0 damage with my unarmed strikes...is that right?
As written, I'd have to say yes. Can't find anything about an attack dealing at least 1 damage.
This being said, I would personally put that at a minimum of 1 damage, that is unable to kill, and would only KO someone reduced to 0 this way.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
There is no minimum damage rule in 5e so the minimum is technically 0 since negative damage doesn't make a lot of sense.
And DNDB will show this on the character sheet. Any character with a -1 or less Strength modifier will get a damage for their unarmed strike as simply two dashes "- -" meaning they do nothing.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Heh. So it becomes a slapfight.
Wow, my caster Cleric has a dex and str of 8. I better always have a weapon handy.
I guess this is where the saying: "You couldn't fight your way out of a wet paper bag" came from.
Unarmed Strikes are 1+STR modifier (without martial arts or feats) so even if your modifier is 0 you still do 1 damage minimum. I inquired as to this very thing and my DM conferred with his manual at the time and this is the answer i was given; You can't do negative damage (that would heal be like healing them on accident, lol.) but if you succeed on the attack roll you're still going to be capable of doing something to the target. On the off chance that your strength is so low that it wouldn't be possible to do any kind of damage with an unarmed strike, you're likely not in the position or capable of utilizing one anyway, say something like a handicap or not having extremities.
"He poked me in the eye!"
"Captain Insano shows no mercy."
See...better than nothing!
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
Having a Strength of 8(-1) isn't so weak as to be considered "handicap or lacking extremities," but you still don't do damage with unarmed attacks. You can't do negative damage, but you can do 0.
If your modifier is 0 you do 1 damage but if your modifier is -1 you do zero damage. If your modifier is -2 RAW you start healing the opponent but everyone I know just says 0 damage. What I am not sure about is if the "1" should be treated as a 1 sided dice. I think a critical unarmed hit should be 2 + STR though it isn't strictly RAW.
I never understood why people suggest healing as the result of negative damage. That would be extremely exploitable. Get a low strength (7 score or less) to hit an unconscious person to wake them up.
There are only two reasonable results to negative damage. Ignore it and just say you do 0 or hurt yourself for the damage dealt. I think most people go with first option as that's RAW.
The 1 is not treated as a dice roll. A critical unarmed strike is still just 1 + Strength per RAW.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
You're right in that it's not RAW at all. RAW, a critical unarmed strike from a non-monk not using natural weapons does 1+STR. I would, on the other hand, fully support a house rule doubling the unarmed damage on a crit (as in 2+STR, not as in (1+STR)x2). In fact, it feels odd that base damage isn't doubled on a crit for unarmed strikes, more like an accident of the rules ("on crit, you double all dice, but not modifiers") than a conscious decision. Another house rule that would probably be completely fine is unarmed damage doing 1d2 rather than 1. It would add a bit of variability to unarmed combat, allow for doubling on crits, and allow those 8 STR characters to still do some damage half the time. (Of course, a more "proper" solution would be to introduce damage reduction by way of armor; AC "works", but is overly simple from a realistic point of view: full plate doesn't make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to damage with hits. Unarmed damage could then be significantly higher as a base, but be reduced to 0 by all/most armor. As it stands, two naked weaklings (8 or lower Strength) will never be able to hurt each other with unarmed combat, which is obviously unrealistic. But that goes firmly against the 5e concept of simplifying and streamlining combat, so although such a solution would be more "proper", it wouldn't be appropriate to base D&D 5e.)
Slapfight RPG: Laurel and Har-D&D. Also a good excuse to break out that black -and-white grid map.