Why does a battle master have to have a weapon for these maneuvers to work especially things like pushing attack, trip attack, goading attack, riposte, ect? Seriously each of those could be done with an unarmed strike such as a shove, a slap, ect. especially with the new unarmed fighting style. I know that is relatively new but still they are a master of battle. I have seen and read scenarios where these same feats were done with a hand, foot, ect such as a slap for as a taunt, hitting someone hard enough they stammer back, and that list just goes on. Why is there a need for a weapon in these attack maneuvers?
I ask this as it literally says weapon attack and melee weapon attack on a lot of these abilities. It seriously doesn't make any sense to me. I honestly think the need for a weapon needs to be removed from these options.
Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks despite not using weapons. They qualify for Battle Master maneuvers.
So if I go Battlemaster/Monk I'm covered? Shiny!
Anyone can use unarmed strikes. Monks just do it better than most, and with a particular flair.
Monk's the only class that gives you anything that would make you actually want to use unarmed strikes instead of weapons. Fighter with the one specific fighting style can hit harder with his individual unarmed attacks, and that's great, but the minute he finds a weapon that deals more than a d8, or, gods forbid, a magic weapon, he'd be a fool not to use that instead.
But if you're playing Monk, you should probably just play Monk. Every level you put into it gives you more ki, plus great features that largely don't even synergize that well with multiclassing.
Monk's the only class that gives you anything that would make you actually want to use unarmed strikes instead of weapons. Fighter with the one specific fighting style can hit harder with his individual unarmed attacks, and that's great, but the minute he finds a weapon that deals more than a d8, or, gods forbid, a magic weapon, he'd be a fool not to use that instead.
All true, but there's also niche situations where a Fighter that doesn't focus on unarmed strikes might want to use a maneuver that way. For example, if they've got a shield and their other hand is unavailable (e.g. grappling), or an enemy's closed into melee range while they're wielding a ranged weapon.
Monks also can use weapons for their main attacks and, especially at low levels when you're looking at a d4 damage dice on your unarmed strikes, probably better to use especially if you get a magic weapon you can use. Then using unarmed strikes for the bonus action/flurry of blows stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why does a battle master have to have a weapon for these maneuvers to work especially things like pushing attack, trip attack, goading attack, riposte, ect? Seriously each of those could be done with an unarmed strike such as a shove, a slap, ect. especially with the new unarmed fighting style. I know that is relatively new but still they are a master of battle. I have seen and read scenarios where these same feats were done with a hand, foot, ect such as a slap for as a taunt, hitting someone hard enough they stammer back, and that list just goes on. Why is there a need for a weapon in these attack maneuvers?
I ask this as it literally says weapon attack and melee weapon attack on a lot of these abilities. It seriously doesn't make any sense to me. I honestly think the need for a weapon needs to be removed from these options.
Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks despite not using weapons. They qualify for Battle Master maneuvers.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The reason I brought this up is I was told the opposite and everything I looked up said if it said weapon you had to be holding a weapon.
Edit: most have been in my phrasing so I looked I looked it up again and it does say it counts. Ah, gotta love phrasing.
The only maneuvers you can't do with unarmed strike are the ones that ask for a weapon specifically, such as Brace.
So if I go Battlemaster/Monk I'm covered? Shiny!
Anyone can use unarmed strikes. Monks just do it better than most, and with a particular flair.
Monk's the only class that gives you anything that would make you actually want to use unarmed strikes instead of weapons. Fighter with the one specific fighting style can hit harder with his individual unarmed attacks, and that's great, but the minute he finds a weapon that deals more than a d8, or, gods forbid, a magic weapon, he'd be a fool not to use that instead.
But if you're playing Monk, you should probably just play Monk. Every level you put into it gives you more ki, plus great features that largely don't even synergize that well with multiclassing.
All true, but there's also niche situations where a Fighter that doesn't focus on unarmed strikes might want to use a maneuver that way. For example, if they've got a shield and their other hand is unavailable (e.g. grappling), or an enemy's closed into melee range while they're wielding a ranged weapon.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Monks also can use weapons for their main attacks and, especially at low levels when you're looking at a d4 damage dice on your unarmed strikes, probably better to use especially if you get a magic weapon you can use. Then using unarmed strikes for the bonus action/flurry of blows stuff.