With the new Unarmed Fighting Style that has come out with Tasha's, there is a question that has been brought up by a few people regarding if you can take the attack action make your unarmed strike and then bonus action unarmed strike again. I know that the monk's martial art ability specifically states that you can do this but I am curious if you would be able to do so as your first have now become your weapons. I am aware the fighting style doesn't actually make them weapons but seeing as you have two fists that you use as weapons and two weapon fighting involves fighting with two weapons, I was curious if anyone knows if you can actually make a bonus action attack with your offhand but lack the Mod in damage.
If no one knows RAW if this would be allowed or not then I'm curious what you would rule as a DM if you would allow it or not?
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.
I would personally probably ask my DM to make a custom feat to allow this, maybe in addition to a few other benefits similar to feats like polearm master... It seems entirely logical that you someoenn trained in unarmed combat would be able to take a bonus ation attack, if anyone with minimal weapon training can do it with two daggers.
Alternative is to grab a lvl 1 monk dip.. but honestly I think asking for a feat is cleaner.
As a DM, I would also say no. I like to prevent players from using stuff that is special to a class with other classes, to make sure picking those classes has a meaning. For that reason, I won't let a player try to trip an enemy over with a spear attack. They can attack with the spear. They can take the shove action. They can't do both. Why? If they could just do both, why would anyone pick the battle master fighter?
The same logic applied, why would you take the monk if you can take the fighter and still gain all the benefits. Okay, it's not all of them, but a fighter has a lot of benefits too.
If you think about it thematically, the way I see it anyhow, the monk makes many quick strikes that are well made and he had trained for years to do so. The fighter is a guy who likes to punch stuff more than he likes to slash stuff. Instead of training for years, his experience comes from street-fights and tavern-brawls. TBH, if someone who is not a monk wants to play this, they should take the tavern-brawler feat. The fighting style is unjustified.
As a DM, I would also say no. I like to prevent players from using stuff that is special to a class with other classes, to make sure picking those classes has a meaning. For that reason, I won't let a player try to trip an enemy over with a spear attack. They can attack with the spear. They can take the shove action. They can't do both. Why? If they could just do both, why would anyone pick the battle master fighter?
The same logic applied, why would you take the monk if you can take the fighter and still gain all the benefits. Okay, it's not all of them, but a fighter has a lot of benefits too.
If you think about it thematically, the way I see it anyhow, the monk makes many quick strikes that are well made and he had trained for years to do so. The fighter is a guy who likes to punch stuff more than he likes to slash stuff. Instead of training for years, his experience comes from street-fights and tavern-brawls. TBH, if someone who is not a monk wants to play this, they should take the tavern-brawler feat. The fighting style is unjustified.
I don't think the fighting style is ment to reflect someone who spent their time fighting in taverns instead of specialising in a type of weapon.. It's ment to reflect someone who spent their time training in unarmed combat... I think the fighting style is entirely justified in that sense.
There are a number of reasons why you would pick a Monk over a Fighter but the Pugilist/Unarmed Fighter is very on brand with the idea of what the Fighter is meant to be: the well rounded warrior. Soldiers in nearly all eras of history have equal amounts of training with unarmed fighting as they do with their weapons...thats where things such as wrestling and boxing came from.
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.
This. Highlighted for relevance.
Two-weapon fighting doesn't work with unarmed strikes for the same reasons that it doesn't work with natural weapons. The game does not consider either of them weapons, and even when a specific subclass does (such as the beast barb), they do not have any hand-heaviness classification (light, versatile, etc.). This means Dual Wielder does not enable two-weapon fighting with fists or natural attacks as they are not one-handed weapons or light weapons even when they are considered weapons. This is a big miss for natural weapon and unarmed strike builds as it's just silly from a flavor perspective they don't have a style that mimics flurry.
There are plenty of non-monk character archetypes trained in martial arts. Just like in real life Asia is not the only continent and group of cultures with martial arts traditions. A big miss when it comes to enabling characters. But considered they only just printed an unarmed fighting style I'm not surprised. I bet there will be a PAM style feat for unarmed strikes in a supplement or two.
Monks are landing a flurry of light punches at level 1. In contrast, a Fighter winds up and delivers one heavier blow. As the fighter levels up, he gets more attacks. As the monk levels up, he hits harder. Makes sense to me.
As other folks have said, the answer is RAW, no. I'd probably allow it though.
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 absolutely say no. In fact, I did. I am running a couple of sessions long one-off right now where a barbarian/fighter combination has allowed for a very impressive “punchbarian” who would be hitting harder with the same number of attacks as the monk in the group if I had opted to allow the build that way. Instead, the “punchbarian” is built with Grappler and throws fists before initiating a Bonus Action grapple that has proven to be his own unique and effective fighting style without stepping on the toes of the monk, even though they are both built with fisticuffs in mind. There are plenty of creative and interesting ways to make an iconic brawler with dirty tricks up their sleeves without having to encroach upon another class’s basic features or adding something as dull and uncreative as another 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. Otherwise, dualwielding punches would literally beat out every single other dual wielding weapon until you get the dual wielding feat!
Wouldn't they deal the same amount of damage as longswords or rapier? Which seems fair to me, since any fighter could do that anyway... ANd you've invested your fighting style for that ability.
Wouldn't they deal the same amount of damage as longswords or rapier? Which seems fair to me, since any fighter could do that anyway... ANd you've invested your fighting style for that ability.
Except that you can't dual wield a longsword or a rapier unless you take a feat since neither is a light weapon. All light weapons deal 1d6 or less damage.
Wouldn't they deal the same amount of damage as longswords or rapier? Which seems fair to me, since any fighter could do that anyway... ANd you've invested your fighting style for that ability.
Except that you can't dual wield a longsword or a rapier unless you take a feat since neither is a light weapon. All light weapons deal 1d6 or less damage.
To be fair, a feat is being used already to upgrade the damage die to d8 from d6. Same opportunity cost.
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.
Wouldn't they deal the same amount of damage as longswords or rapier? Which seems fair to me, since any fighter could do that anyway... ANd you've invested your fighting style for that ability.
Except that you can't dual wield a longsword or a rapier unless you take a feat since neither is a light weapon. All light weapons deal 1d6 or less damage.
To be fair, a feat is being used already to upgrade the damage die to d8 from d6. Same opportunity cost.
Hmm, you do have a point. In a way a feat is being used. And IF it was allowed to do twf with unarmed strikes you would want both this fighting style and the twf fighting style to boost your damage so pretty equal opportunity cost.
Still, the fighting style already allows you to turn your unarmed strikes into a 1d6/1d8 versatile weapon with a bonus to grapples so I really don't feel like it should add even more (why would you even want weapons otherwise?). If you really want to allow it for twf in your own campaigns, i would suggest using the 1d6 for the hit instead of the 1d8 since then you are treating both hands as separate weapons and not 1 weapon (see analogy to versatile weapons)
A fist fighting fighter also runs into the trouble of lacking the ability to overcome magical resistance, unless they get the one magic tattoo in Tasha’s that makes unarmed strikes overcome resistances.
Really, it’s not much of a balance issue when polearm master and gwm exist.
A fist fighting fighter also runs into the trouble of lacking the ability to overcome magical resistance, unless they get the one magic tattoo in Tasha’s that makes unarmed strikes overcome resistances.
Really, it’s not much of a balance issue when polearm master and gwm exist.
I personally don't see the lack of official magic items that help in this case as a very big problem. Sure, if your dm always rolls randomly for which magical items you get you are out of luck but the same could be said for archers. If your DM wants you to have a magical weapon, somehow you will miraculously stumble right upon this one item that does actually help you.
I don't see the extra attack for unarmed fighting as a balance problem perse... just... something feels off to a person doing as much damage with his bare fists as a guy wielding two battleaxes. I feel like smacking a free bonus action on top of everything this fighting style already gets invalidates actually wanting to use i weapon. I see no problems with a fighter wanting to fight unarmed, but i do see a problem with a fighter wanting to fight unarmed and be just as effective or even more so than every other fighter. Fighting unarmed should inherently come with a payoff and never be an optimal style. For me, the entire appeal for the unarmed playstyle is that it is suboptimal. Should it be possible? Certainly! Should it be fun? Hell yeah! Should it add a lot of flavor to your character? Definitly! But should it be used for minmaxing your character?
And before you start me about monks: yes, i know they fight unarmed and to a very effective degree, but for monks the entire flavor and ki do a much better job of validating this. And even they still use a weapon until quite late in the game.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With the new Unarmed Fighting Style that has come out with Tasha's, there is a question that has been brought up by a few people regarding if you can take the attack action make your unarmed strike and then bonus action unarmed strike again. I know that the monk's martial art ability specifically states that you can do this but I am curious if you would be able to do so as your first have now become your weapons. I am aware the fighting style doesn't actually make them weapons but seeing as you have two fists that you use as weapons and two weapon fighting involves fighting with two weapons, I was curious if anyone knows if you can actually make a bonus action attack with your offhand but lack the Mod in damage.
If no one knows RAW if this would be allowed or not then I'm curious what you would rule as a DM if you would allow it or not?
Yeah following this because I wanna make a pugilist fighter.
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.
I would personally probably ask my DM to make a custom feat to allow this, maybe in addition to a few other benefits similar to feats like polearm master... It seems entirely logical that you someoenn trained in unarmed combat would be able to take a bonus ation attack, if anyone with minimal weapon training can do it with two daggers.
Alternative is to grab a lvl 1 monk dip.. but honestly I think asking for a feat is cleaner.
RAW - No.
As a DM, I would also say no. I like to prevent players from using stuff that is special to a class with other classes, to make sure picking those classes has a meaning. For that reason, I won't let a player try to trip an enemy over with a spear attack. They can attack with the spear. They can take the shove action. They can't do both. Why? If they could just do both, why would anyone pick the battle master fighter?
The same logic applied, why would you take the monk if you can take the fighter and still gain all the benefits. Okay, it's not all of them, but a fighter has a lot of benefits too.
If you think about it thematically, the way I see it anyhow, the monk makes many quick strikes that are well made and he had trained for years to do so. The fighter is a guy who likes to punch stuff more than he likes to slash stuff. Instead of training for years, his experience comes from street-fights and tavern-brawls. TBH, if someone who is not a monk wants to play this, they should take the tavern-brawler feat. The fighting style is unjustified.
Varielky
I don't think the fighting style is ment to reflect someone who spent their time fighting in taverns instead of specialising in a type of weapon.. It's ment to reflect someone who spent their time training in unarmed combat... I think the fighting style is entirely justified in that sense.
There are a number of reasons why you would pick a Monk over a Fighter but the Pugilist/Unarmed Fighter is very on brand with the idea of what the Fighter is meant to be: the well rounded warrior. Soldiers in nearly all eras of history have equal amounts of training with unarmed fighting as they do with their weapons...thats where things such as wrestling and boxing came from.
This. Highlighted for relevance.
Two-weapon fighting doesn't work with unarmed strikes for the same reasons that it doesn't work with natural weapons. The game does not consider either of them weapons, and even when a specific subclass does (such as the beast barb), they do not have any hand-heaviness classification (light, versatile, etc.). This means Dual Wielder does not enable two-weapon fighting with fists or natural attacks as they are not one-handed weapons or light weapons even when they are considered weapons. This is a big miss for natural weapon and unarmed strike builds as it's just silly from a flavor perspective they don't have a style that mimics flurry.
There are plenty of non-monk character archetypes trained in martial arts. Just like in real life Asia is not the only continent and group of cultures with martial arts traditions. A big miss when it comes to enabling characters. But considered they only just printed an unarmed fighting style I'm not surprised. I bet there will be a PAM style feat for unarmed strikes in a supplement or two.
Monks are landing a flurry of light punches at level 1. In contrast, a Fighter winds up and delivers one heavier blow. As the fighter levels up, he gets more attacks. As the monk levels up, he hits harder. Makes sense to me.
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
As other folks have said, the answer is RAW, no. I'd probably allow it though.
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
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.
I would absolutely say no. In fact, I did. I am running a couple of sessions long one-off right now where a barbarian/fighter combination has allowed for a very impressive “punchbarian” who would be hitting harder with the same number of attacks as the monk in the group if I had opted to allow the build that way. Instead, the “punchbarian” is built with Grappler and throws fists before initiating a Bonus Action grapple that has proven to be his own unique and effective fighting style without stepping on the toes of the monk, even though they are both built with fisticuffs in mind. There are plenty of creative and interesting ways to make an iconic brawler with dirty tricks up their sleeves without having to encroach upon another class’s basic features or adding something as dull and uncreative as another 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. Otherwise, dualwielding punches would literally beat out every single other dual wielding weapon until you get the dual wielding feat!
Wouldn't they deal the same amount of damage as longswords or rapier? Which seems fair to me, since any fighter could do that anyway... ANd you've invested your fighting style for that ability.
Except that you can't dual wield a longsword or a rapier unless you take a feat since neither is a light weapon. All light weapons deal 1d6 or less damage.
That's a fair point
To be fair, a feat is being used already to upgrade the damage die to d8 from d6. Same opportunity cost.
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
Hmm, you do have a point. In a way a feat is being used. And IF it was allowed to do twf with unarmed strikes you would want both this fighting style and the twf fighting style to boost your damage so pretty equal opportunity cost.
Still, the fighting style already allows you to turn your unarmed strikes into a 1d6/1d8 versatile weapon with a bonus to grapples so I really don't feel like it should add even more (why would you even want weapons otherwise?). If you really want to allow it for twf in your own campaigns, i would suggest using the 1d6 for the hit instead of the 1d8 since then you are treating both hands as separate weapons and not 1 weapon (see analogy to versatile weapons)
A fist fighting fighter also runs into the trouble of lacking the ability to overcome magical resistance, unless they get the one magic tattoo in Tasha’s that makes unarmed strikes overcome resistances.
Really, it’s not much of a balance issue when polearm master and gwm exist.
I personally don't see the lack of official magic items that help in this case as a very big problem. Sure, if your dm always rolls randomly for which magical items you get you are out of luck but the same could be said for archers. If your DM wants you to have a magical weapon, somehow you will miraculously stumble right upon this one item that does actually help you.
I don't see the extra attack for unarmed fighting as a balance problem perse... just... something feels off to a person doing as much damage with his bare fists as a guy wielding two battleaxes. I feel like smacking a free bonus action on top of everything this fighting style already gets invalidates actually wanting to use i weapon. I see no problems with a fighter wanting to fight unarmed, but i do see a problem with a fighter wanting to fight unarmed and be just as effective or even more so than every other fighter. Fighting unarmed should inherently come with a payoff and never be an optimal style. For me, the entire appeal for the unarmed playstyle is that it is suboptimal. Should it be possible? Certainly! Should it be fun? Hell yeah! Should it add a lot of flavor to your character? Definitly! But should it be used for minmaxing your character?
And before you start me about monks: yes, i know they fight unarmed and to a very effective degree, but for monks the entire flavor and ki do a much better job of validating this. And even they still use a weapon until quite late in the game.
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.