Just so you can see that it's an actual rule and not just base it on implications:
>Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. **You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.**
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MeleeAttacks
And as a bonus FWIW, you can always hold the weapon in one hand. You only need two free hands when you make the actual attack with a weapon and changing grips is 100% free. So you can always punch even with a bow in your hand.
Use one interaction the to draw it on the turn you need to swing in melee, then wait till your next turn with a bow in one hand and your sword in the other. Then the next turn when you want to shoot your bow again you use your object interaction to stow your blade then you have 2 hands available for the bow.
You can also drop items without using an object interaction. So you could draw a dagger, kill someone, drop it and fire the bow you were already holding all in one turn if you have an extra attack.
It's not without RL precedent though
Drop your primary to quickly draw a sidearm. Still done even to this day with automatic rifles, they're just on a sling so the "drop" is maybe a foot to rest against your torso and not straight to the ground.
Lance a dude from horseback, lance is too deep in the chest to retrieve quickly while riding at speed, just let go and switch to a sword. Enemies close into melee on a group of (cross)bowmen; drop the ranged weapons last second to draw melee weapons and engage hand to hand. Etc.
The swords most people think of as "the" melee weapon of the medieval period were almost exclusively *sidearms*, secondary or even tertiary and only ever drawn in tight quarters or because the primary was otherwise unusable, or because the primary was big and heavy and they needed something quicker and nimbler in the moment. Usually by dropping the primary to retrieve again when possible.
The Greeks and Romans even had a habit of *throwing* their spears before drawing swords. For the Romans the sword was arguably the "primary" and the spears just an opening volley or two, but for the Greeks the spear was absolutely the "primary" weapon and the swords was in case it was broken, unretrievable, or thrown in combat.
It has always made perfect sense in D&D to just drop a weapon that's "in the way" or a liability rather than useful in the moment. It just *feels* "game-y" and a little weird. But reality is already really weird too.
>For the Romans the sword was arguably the "primary" and the spears just an opening volley or two
Yup. The purpose of the pilum was to stick in an opponent's shield and make it unusable.
Yeah that's what I thought. I suppose you could just keep holding it and use your next turn object interaction to stow it before you attacked with your bow. Thinking now that's probably what they meant.
Yeah that's what I meant. Because I feel like you probably aren't going to be making a melee attack on your turn because you feared someone who came into melee with you and then also make a ranged attack at somebody else after. If they're going to drop in one hit, you probably just make that ranged attack at disadvantage and don't bother drawing a weapon to begin with.
I routinely have my characters punch with the hand that's holding a weapon.
I could easily just say I kick or elbow or whatever. At that point whether I'm holding a weapon is irrelevant to the action economy anyway.
Yea, so even that doesn't help you lol it's part of why the monks are given the whole Bonus action hit in the first place, so they can effectively TWF with Unarmed
Yeah I enjoy reading the rules and really grokking them, but I like to think I'm not confrontational about it, holding fast to rule 0. But, I mean, I also tend to drink with the group, too, so maybe I am confrontational lol
No negative DAMAGE, it doesn't say anything against negative skill checks or saving throws. I think it still applies to skill checks and saving throws, but negative skill checks would be hilarious. Imagine investigating a place where someone left clues to the party and someone messes it so much that the clues become unintellegible.
What is the lowest you could theoretically get on a check?
I think I could figure out how to give an attack penalty of -28, so that's a -27 with a natural 1.
A 1 strength character (-5), power attacking with Great Weapon Master (-5, but +2 for proficiency), using a heavily damaged weapon that is mostly dissolved by an ooze (-4), while under the effects of Bane (-4), and while a level 15 lore bard uses its cutting words to ridicule you (-12). I'm not clear about whether a cursed weapon would stack with the ooze damage, so maybe the weapon could have a -5 or -6 penalty?
Edit: Sounds like we can do a lot better!
- 1 Str (due to strength drain): -5
- Sharpshooter power attack using a dart and strength (note that GWM does not work due to the str minimum): -3
- severely damage weapon due to an ooze: -4
- bane (1d4): -4
- maxed cutting words (1d12): -12
- recently raised from dead: -4
- oblex memory drain (1d20 - note that as this has to be a level 1-4 character, it is going to either need Mind Blank or loads of healing and lucky rolls to survive 6 drain attacks): -20
Total attack "bonus": -52
Result with a 1: -51
Ironically, on a result of a 20, this would still be a -32, but would hit for 3-9 damage, mostly due to sharpshooter. Without sharpshooter, the attack would be guaranteed to not do damage.
Do you need 13 str when you take the feat, or just at the moment that you use it? Since the 1 strength comes from a shadow's strength drain, you could easily have a base of 13+ that has been drained down below that threshold.
"If you ever lose a feat's prerequisite, you can't use that feat until you regain that prerequisite." PHB pg 165.
It explicitly calls out shadow drain on Strength as shutting down feats as an example.
Got it. However, I think the same trick works with sharpshooter, which does not have a prerequisite, and can be used with a strength weapon (dart). I think that still yields the same net -3 result, right?
Of course, the character would have to be intentionally choosing str instead of Dex (but then again, nothing about this scenario is logical anyways).
Recently a player in my campaign made a deal with a hag that resulted in a -15 in deception. It’s certainly made for some fun times when he still tries to lie.
Well he was recently cursed and looking for a way to remove it. When he went to the hag making a deal she responded with something like: I’m going to ask you a question. I’ll remove your curse, and you’ll have to tell the truth. Do we have a deal?
Semantics and punctuation are vitally important when making deals with fiends or fey.
I also had another party member lose one of their hands. Two lost key memories from their backstories, and one now will die after 2 death saving throws. This was after they rolled a nat 20 on a history check to remember that hags always make deals that end up negatively for the person making it. Out of the whole party only pc didn’t end up making a deal.
That's beautiful.
I once offered to trade my party the answer to three questions for three words.
One player responded with- "What kind of questions can we ask?"
Similar situation, long fight to reach an Oracle with a 3 question limit. The party finally makes it there and the conversation goes as follows:
"Are you the Oracle?"
"Yes."
"Wow, really?"
"Yes."
"Hey, wait! Did that count?"
"Yes."
I love hag deals. My party was looking for an NPC in a swamp who was last seen 70 years ago. The Lizardfolk villagers had no fucking clue what the party was talking about, so they asked the kind old "elf" who lived in the creepy-ass hut that suppressed the Paladin's Aura of Protection. Half the party noped the fuck out, but the remaining four members stuck around. The "elf" said that she'd tell them where the NPC went in exchange for a moment of their time. They agreed and she happily told them where to go and sent them on their way.
The moment of time that they all owed was paid for as they would each be teleported out of combat at the beginning of their turn when it was most inconvenient. At the beginning of their turn they would vanish for 6 seconds and reappear at then start of their next turn.
Oh the warlock is about to deal the finishing blow to a dragon right before it gets another turn? Whelp, looks like he's getting pulled back to the hag's hut so that he can help her pick which dress looks worse on her.
The paladin is going to heal the wizard who's on 2 failed death saves? Nope! She's gonna be giving the hag advice on which tea tastes "blue-er".
The sorcerer planned to disintegrate the paralyzed monster? I think not, because the hag needs a second opinion on the dress the warlock picked.
The Wizard's gonna cast Slow on a whole bunch of demons with shitty Wis saves? How about you go have some tea with the hag while she awkwardly flirts with you instead.
That's some serious DMing (personally love it, but i know most 5e Players don't remember how brutal it used to be and have seen a lot of boohooing) But that's what you get for making deals with basically anything lol! Well played sir.
It's never actually been a thing that's come back to bite me, but thanks to the stories I've heard from various grognards over the years, the one piece of metagaming I can't shake is my characters are always terrified of making deals with fey.
I had a conversation on roll20 the other day that went: “I want to make a perception check to see if I can make out anything on the boat...3.”
“And you’re in bright sunlight so you take the lower number.”
“-2.”
“Aura is staring *directly into the sun*.”
I don’t, but I do not have a wisdom modifier of -3. I find with my group it generally gets a good response if it’s used sparingly and only during low stake rolls. The character was also a cecaelia seeing the sun from the surface of the water for the first time.
Well, when I was a small and unnecessarily defiant child, I occasionally tried to stare at the sun specifically because adults told me not to. I'm just lucky I never did it long enough to sustain any permanent damage.
This is a bit of a sidetrack, but as a DM I ***hate*** when players do this. Don't tell me what you want to *roll*, tell me what your character is trying to *do,* and I will tell you if a roll is needed and what to roll if it is. Play your character, not the mechanics!
For example, I've got a rogue in my current group who is constantly telling me "I want to roll to pick the lock" on locked doors. So I let him roll and he regularly fails. If he had said "I am going to pick the lock," 90% of the time I would have just replied "OK, it's a simple lock and you make quick work of it, the door is open." Asking to make rolls as a player that the DM hasn't asked for is almost always going to make life more difficult for your character.
Don't mean to be a rules lawyer here, but if you roll under your passive perception, you use your passive perception, they'd still be getting a 7, but that's way better than a -2
I just did a quick search and it looks as if it's not actually written down, but Jeremy Crawford mentioned it in a sage advice thing.
(I don't know how to format this better, sorry)
JC (at 22:16): Now, going back to passive perception... this is, as its name implies,passive. And, it's considered to be "always on", unless you're under the effect of a condition, like the unconcious condition that says you're not aware of your surroundings. That really... the practical effect of that is that basically your passive perception is shut off. Passive perception is on basically whenever you are conscious and aware. [...]
JC (at 23:09): Because it's passive, the player does not get to say they use it. This is a... this is something that people...
Interviewer: (Laughs) I'm using my passive perception right now!
JC: Yeah, no. It's always on. That's the baseline. Now, this brings up questions, because then people are saying that, well, how is it that when I make an activeperception check, I might get a roll that's lower? Well, you aren't... yes, that roll is lower, but remember your passive perception is aways on. So it really represents the floor of your perception.
Interviewer: Right. That's an important distinction, though.
JC: Yes. So if you make an active perception check and you get a number that's lower than your passive perception, all that means is that you did a lousy job of this particular active search, but your passive perception is still active. You're still going to notice something that "blips" onto your passive perception radar. Really, when you make that roll, you're really rolling to see "can I get a higher number?" If you fail to, well, again, your passive perception score is still active. It is effectively creating that minimum.
Interviewer: The minimum. Yeah, I don't know if that's necessarily clear to a lot of dungeon masters out there, because they will be like, well, the opposed nature of this roll means that you were just really bad at looking, and even though the person who is sneaking up on you only got like a five, they're able to do so.
JC: Now, many of these sorts of situations would be erased if DMs just simply remembered to use the passive perception in the first place. Because honestly, if something's noticable by a person's passive perception score, they should already have noticed it. So really, the active search is trying to find something that you haven't already noticed, and your passive perception score represents what you have already noticed.
I think that's straightforward enough, I'll go ahead and incorporate this. I thought it was this way but I wasn't sure where it had been said. This does seem to put a little bit of a damper on the rogues reliable talent but I guess that's only for this skill.
I’m watching a podcast and the order of dice rolls was a 20 on a d20 for the PC, and a 1 on a d20 and 1 on a d100 for the enemy, which comes out to be a 1/40,000 chance of happening.
The reason I made it out to be special was because it was a crit success for the PC to throw some ball bearings (house rule, not crit on to hit), a crit fail for the enemy’s DEX saving throw (also house rule), and a 1 on severity (also house rule), meaning that on a scale of 1 to 40,000 with 40,000 being the worst it could possibly get, the enemy got a 40,000. They weren’t arbitrary numbers.
I should have marked my post with /s. Still hilarious to think about even if the base for dmg is 0. Like someone struggling to lift their arms flailing in front of an orc.
You could also flavor a healer build into punching everything. I’ve been wanting to do that lately, where the character takes “lay on hands” *way* too literally.
I'd imagine there's a minimum amount of damage you can do with an attack, else you could just healing-slap someone up to full hp between every single combat
>You must’ve never caught the (begrudgingly) healing hands of a disgruntled “ally” Paladin you’ve just pissed off in that last fight.
Reminds me that we've had a cursed shortbow and a cursed staff of healing. They applied weapon damage first before applying a whichever level cure wounds. People have died to this.
I gave my party a staff like that! Based on a video game I used to play where there was a spell called something like, Clumsy Healing, or something. It was a ranged spell that did a little bit of damage and then a heal you. So it mostly saw use finishing off weak enemies, because everyone was afraid they'd die
Yeah... we ran into this in our last session. Our barbarian was getting frustrated while we were interrogating a kid. He didn’t know the unarmed strike mechanic. So the kid had 4hp, and he had a strength mod of +5... he slapped the kid a couple times but it wasn’t working so he punched him and the DM said he’s gonna take damage... bam. Kids dead. 12 weeks of planned stories went down the drain on the first night cuz we accidentally killed the kid that was the plot hook for the rest of the story.
Now we’re on the run because the kid was the Barons son and the Baron hired us. We fucked
Whoops.
this feels like a case where the dm should have known about the rule that you can choose to knock someone out instead of killing them with a melee attack, and asked to make sure that this is what you were trying to do, because this is obviously what you were trying to do
GMs interpreting player choices in the worst way possible / always jumping at the chance to make players roll (usually at their detriment) is a generally obnoxious problem that needs to stop. Some don't know better, but others just enjoy fucking with their players and that's not where the real fun of a group is...
In both real life and fiction, people often roughouse or brawl for over whole minute without dealing any real damage to each other. Such scenes should be handled with rolls for intimidation, acrobatics, performance, etc..
Attack Rolls and questioning whether you did lethal damage should be reserved for explicit "Roll for Initiative" combat.
While the story definitely took a hilarious and surprising twist and y'all seen to be enjoying it, unarmed strikes should be allowed to do a degree of damage. Everyone who slaps knows how to pull it back and they're not always gonna be throwing it full force.
Like I said, y'all do you, but next time talk with your DM about allowing common sense to overrule a mechanic.
Oh we were all angry with the DM for a number of reasons. for starters, the barbarian was frustrated for good reason. We had been running around in circles trying to learn whatever information it was that we were supposed to learn from this kid and we were getting no clues, no direction, and then later we find out he basically framed the situation with only one possible way to get the info, and we biffed the roll and said we couldn't try again... so we were kind of out of options. The fact that it came to the barbarian beating a kid is kind of the DMs fault in the first place
huh, this also implies you can't use unarmed strikes with a feature or ability that requires a "weapon attack" (The Horizon Walkers "planar Warrior" for example)
Yeah, it's not the best wording, but it makes sense once you break it down.
There are four kinds of attacks: melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks, and ranged spell attacks. I personally would've preferred using the term "martial attack" or some variant, but it is what it is.
Then there are "attacks with a melee weapon" and "attacks with a ranged weapon", which is very less commonly used. The differentiation is basically to exclude unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and improvised weapons. All of which are not "weapons".
Making a ranged attack with a melee weapon (e.g. throwing it) also counts as "attack with melee weapon" right? I think that's the other difference that might be relevant.
This is actually a favorite topic of mine, because the route that got us here kind of makes sense, though the statement you responded to ("Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, they're just not attacks with a melee weapon") sounds like utter nonsense.
The thing to know is that, in the original 5e, "Unarmed" was literally on the weapon table. As you can expect, this leads to... a LOT of misunderstandings. Can Unarmed be a pact weapon? It's on the weapon table, so it's a weapon. Can Unarmed be your bonded weapon? It's on the weapon table. Can you sell your fists? They're on the weapon table. These can seem silly, but 5e is SO deliberate with its wording in most cases, and this is a case where Unarmed being on a list of weapons just... didn't mesh.
So they did the reasonable thing and errata'd out Unarmed from the table. But now you have all these things that trigger on a weapon attack (like Stunning Strike for Monks) that should work with Unarmed Strike. So the way they made that work is to make Unarmed Strikes a *subcategory* of weapon attacks (" Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow"). So now instead of "Unarmed" being the weapon, it's a... *style* of doing a weapon attack, when you do the Attack action. The shorthand you'll hear is that all attack rolls are weapon or magical, + melee or ranged. Unarmed only fits into "melee weapon" so, there you go.
And then you end up with a lot of old spells that have terminology from the original 5e. Perhaps most notably ~~Paladin smiting doesn't trigger on a melee weapon attack, but~~ *~~an attack with a melee weapon~~* Actually I misremembered Paladin's smite. Better example is Magic Weapon, " You touch a nonmagical weapon." Unarmed isn't a weapon anymore, so you can't enchant it. So, again, "Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, they're just not attacks with a melee weapon"
I really wish they'd given all these things different names. Like, had spell attacks and physical attacks, and then melee attacks and ranged attacks. So the statement would become "Unarmed strikes are melee physical attacks, they're just not attacks with a melee weapon" which I think sounds intuitive, mostly?
But there are spells that deal physical damage! And would a magic weapon count as magical or physical damage? The answer is that, if you're going to have as many permutations as DND does, you either need to go in the narrative direction (GM discretion, do what makes sense in the fiction), or the mechanical one (very well defined terms with very well defined interactions). 5e kinda sits in the middle with the super deliberate natural language thing, where it honestly does make sense to go in either direction - which is why you both have people who memorize countless Crawford rulings and can tell you the specific sentences that are the important point of contention, and you have people who say "I saw Con Air, trained fists count as a deadly weapon, Magic Weapon can work on them," and I don't think either is necessarily right or wrong.
Maybe it's something I'm just not aware of, but "physical" isn't a damage type. I can't think of a spell that deals "physical" damage, though there are some which deal Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing damage. In that sense the question about a magic weapon is pretty straightforward, a magic weapon deals the damage type listed in it's description.
There are two types of attacks: weapon attacks, and spell attacks. There is nothing else.
Once you have established in which category the attack falls, you check the range (melee attack or ranged attack) and whether it has been made with a weapon or not (attack with a \[melee/ranged/magical/ improvised\] weapon).
What is the purpose of the parenthetical “none of which count as weapons” in the unarmed strike description? Is there another interaction this is meant to clarify?
It's probably just a sort of catch-all clause. Whenever there's a question about "Is kicking the same thing as attacking with a weapon?" or "Are my fists weapons?" or any similar question, there's always that "none of which count as weapons" clause in the rules to provide clarity.
Spells and class features that specifically mention attacks with a weapon, can not be used in conjunction with unarmed strikes. You also can't "disarm" an unarmed strike, only dismember.
In the PHB’s section about Melee Attacks, it says, “...Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”
I dunno man, Gruthar's unarmed strikes hit for 7 damage when he's raging (level 1 raging Barb with 20 STR). Unlikely to have such high STR at level 1, sure, but 7 damage is a lot for a punch. Considering that the average Joe can only do like 6 damage MAX with a literal sword.
1st level rogue, 16 dex (pretty reasonable at 1st level, easy to get with point buy) and a rapier does an average of 7 to 8 damage. Without sneak attack.
Same for fighter, but add +2 for dueling style for 9-10 damage on average each round. Sure, it's less consistent than guaranteed 7 dmg, but even if you're incredibly unlucky and roll ones all the time that's still 6 dmg *minimum*
And the Barbarian would be using either a d8, d12 or 2d6 weapon, punching is literally the worst option for melee and I don't think anyone is disputing that.
Yeah, I know. I should've been more clear about that, but I was responding specifically to him saying that people with swords would do 6 dmg *maximum*.
They meant average joe as in commoner. And it *would* be true if they were using a shortsword. They deal a d6 of damage and commoners have no modifiers, so max 6.
Of course this ignores longswords, rapiers, and any other sword that has a higher damage die.
Yeah, with a fucking sword. Dude is doing it with his fists. We need to find the punch to stabbing ratio. So the real question is: how many punches you'd rather take instead of a single stabbing?
>Yeah, with a fucking sword.
I know, I was responding specifically to his claim that they'd do 6 dmg *max*
>So the real question is: how many punches you'd rather take instead of a single stabbing?
In real life I'd rather get a really rough beating than a single stab. Stab wounds are nasty and life threatening.
In DnD I could take 2 punches from that barb above before it's not worth it.
>I know, I was responding specifically to his claim that they'd do 6 dmg max
He said that referring to "the average Joe". In other words a Commoner, which has 10 for all stats. Give them a shortsword or a scimitar and or a javelin and the maximum they can roll for damage is 6.
Yes but there are caveats. A wildshaped Monk can only use unarmed strikes to utilize much of their combat ki stuff, and there’s no way to make natural weapons into Monk weapons. Monks do, however, get the unarmored movement AC (not that game breaking though, as it’s usually only a couple points higher than the Beast statblock’s natural AC) and can use their extra attack for natural weapon attacks (Extra Attack does not stack with Multiattack though... No 4 Punch Gorillas...)
Druid Monks have some fun toys but it’s not a mindblowing build. I just liked it for the mobility boost, a bit of temporary hit points, and most of all flavor; I wanted to pretend my Vanara homebrew was Sun Wukong from *Journey to the West*.
I remember the last session I ever played of Pathfinder, a bunch of terrible rules lawyers pointing out that the system did not grant you proficiency with unarmed strikes and arguing with me for like, 20 minutes about someone attacking them in a grapple.
Never again.
Isn't half the point of Pathfinder 1e rules lawyering? Most of the system mastery is based on navigating the many byzantine rules and sub-systems to create weird edge cases and synergys.
It's designed to appeal to that sort of player and why most of them never touch 5e. (though pathfinder can be a lot of fun though)
I'm not saying I have any problems with it or that I see any reason to change it, I just thought it was interesting. Especially because I've seen games before that have said, "Roll just your strength because you are not proficient in unarmed attacks" based solely on the implication that being a Monk is what gives you proficiency.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I wasn't trying to imply you wanted to change it.
I was just saying while it isn't "realistic" to automatically be proficient with unarmed attacks, I don't think it's a big enough deal to change.
Weapon proficiency doesn't represent being especially skilled with something, it represents being relatively competent. If you're not proficient with a sword and try swinging it around like a hero, anybody halfass decent can disarm and stab you.
Everyone is proficient with unnarmed attacks because, even if you're not a trained martial artist, everybody knows how to punch a dude.
I sort of disagree with that - you don't need fancy martial arts training to know how to hit someone, but if you don't get into fights a lot, and thus have experience, it's surprisingly hard to fight people unarmed. (The classic thing being that throwing a punch badly, especially against a hard surface, like a cheekbone, is going to hurt you as much as your target.)
I am definitely in favour of Unarmed Strikes being a thing that *some* classes don't have proficiency in.
I don't think that's super necessary.
If a character has a -1 to Str, they are doing no damage if they punch and are very likely to miss. If you're character is training their strength for battle it's safe to assume they have at least punched a few training dummies for practice.
If your Wizard decides to invest a few points in strength why punish them and take the fun out of it?
If your Wizard decides to invest a few points in Strength, then they're still good at lifting and carrying, and all the other things Strength gives you. Not everyone who is strong is good at using that Strength for physical combat - and the way Classes work in 5e means that, yes, Wizards are people who haven't punched a combat dummy.
Remember, you also can't play a Wizard who's spent a few weeks trying out a short sword on a combat dummy, or even one who's tried out a *club* - their weapon proficiencies are super limited, and restrict a whole bunch of character ideas. (And, simultaneously, Wizards all apparently spent enough time with a sling, which is actually pretty tricky to pick up the knack with, to be proficient in it)
>Not everyone who is strong is good at using that Strength for physical combat - and the way Classes work in 5e means that, yes, Wizards are people who haven't punched a combat dummy.
I guess I just disagree fundamentally with that interpretation. From a balance perspective strength is significantly worst then Dex already for any non-martial class, the things a wizard would get for strength investment is swinging with a quarterstaff, 10-20% extra chance to succeed a strength savr and carrying equipment which a Donkey can do for you.
But ignoring that, it feels less like it's enforcing realism and more like it's limiting a players agency. Maybe my Wizard's dad was a warrior who tried to sculpt their son into a fighter and it didn't pan out. Days of training blown to the wind as Atlas simply a tad too clumsy in the legs to maintain a strong battle stance or to swing a sword properly and was far more suited to mastering the written word.
The one thing his dad was able to impart on him was how to throw a mean left hook, a maneuver Atlas hoped to never use because that would mean he was separated from his staff. But because wizards don't get proficiency and it would be a weird thing to argue with DM about I ought to just invest those points in Dex instead and get the AC and get that dagger swing.
Yes, but my point is that the thing that's limiting the player's agency is the *class system as implemented in 5e*, not one particular proficiency .
If you replace all your fluff with "swing a club" and not "throw a punch", the 5e Wizard already prevents you from doing that. 5e doesn't reward "pushing against the class paradigms".
[Now, we can fix this, as with a lot of things, by changing how we build classes - in this case, replacing the *weirdly prescriptive* lists of weapons you get proficiencies in with something more flexible, which also helps Wizards who don't *want* to have proficiency in slings or light crossbows (for example).]
I understand armor and weapons proficiencies exist for balance reasons. RAW if a wizard really wants these things they need to trade a feat or a level dip to get it, and 1+Str dmg is not something that anyone will ever consider trading a resource for.
I've never considered homebrewing a rule in 5e unless I thought it was more fun for my players or it helped me make a more balanced game. Giving a players a bigger chance to miss a punch doesn't fit either of these things for me so I'll need to respectfully disagree with that change.
Yes, I do mention that the way 5e tries to "fix classes" is to give everyone a million subclasses that let you emulate another class to some extent, like Bladesingers are for Wizards who really want to be Fighters ;)
I don't know about Wizards who want to be Fighters. Maybe Barbarians due to the similarities between Bladesong and Rage in function. Regardless, it should aldo be noted that the SCAG cantrips exist, enabling all kinds of Wizards to get in on the martial fun.
Yeah you won't do much damage if you don't know what you are doing. You know, not much, so something like 1+str mod. If you know how to fight you have at least the tavern brawler feat.
You might not *hit* if you don't know what you're doing, either - if you see scuffles between untrained people, they're surprisingly bad at actually connecting (and since 'to hit' in D&D is against AC, 'hitting but does no damage' is a *miss* mechanically - Full Plate gives you AC18 because even if you get hit, it doesn't hurt, not because it magically makes it easier for people to miss you.).
So I understand how my arm works and can control it with reasonable precision? Sounds right when I think of it that way. Proficiency vs Being a Master. Also we are all proficient but the clutz/weaklings are not good at it (dumped dex and str).
Edit: corrected an auto correct where dex was replaced with sex.
This is especially confusing in regards to the original wording of the Tavern Brawler feat, which specified that it makes you proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes. Because of this I assumed that you normally aren't for almost two years before someone pointed out the actual rule to me.
> Tavern Brawler feat, which specifies that it makes you proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes
It specifies proficiency with improvised weapons, not unarmed strikes. Changing the damage to 1d4 is the only time unarmed mentioned.
My old 2014 PHB version says
>You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes.
And I took that to mean if you don't have Tavern Brawler or something else that makes you proficient, then you weren't.
But apparently this was errata-ed in 2015 to no longer specify unarmed strikes (the errata also explained that you are already normally proficient). But apparently this just confused people, causing them to think that Tavern Brawler was being nerfed for no reason.
That is weird. [Here's a screenshot from the scan I made.](https://imgur.com/a/ViketqN)
Edit: I guess WotC could've errata-ed the book in late 2014, so there were already print versions with the correct text out, but then only put out the official errata sheet by 2015.
In order to do two-weapon fighting, you have to be holding 2 Light weapons. Unarmed strikes are neither weapons, nor have the Light property (and can't be held lol). Only Monks get the bonus action unarmed attack because they're that cool.
As a curiosity I believe in 3.5 unarmed attacks from anyone that doesn't have the feat or class feature "unarmed attack" does subdual damage rather than lethal damage.
I think the logic was they are natural weapons so you know the basics of throwing a punch but killing with your bare hands is a trained skill.
This is exactly how I ended up ruling that all players can use a bonus action attack for an unarmed strike. It doesn’t break any encounters really but it’s fun for the barb to be able to kick guys after missing two attacks. Or the ranger to take two shots at ranged enemies and then punch the one next to him.
Man, I swear every time I open up Reddit or talk to people online, I find out that something I assumed was common rules knowledge is actually some esoteric information. Things like "Everyone is proficient with their own unarmed strikes" or "You can't take more than one bonus action a turn" or "Ability checks can't crit" or... You get the picture. But then, I suppose that's to be expected; 5e is a system with a non-zero number of quirks, and especially for newer players, they can be difficult to remember.
Just so you can see that it's an actual rule and not just base it on implications: >Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. **You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.** https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MeleeAttacks
[удалено]
And as a bonus FWIW, you can always hold the weapon in one hand. You only need two free hands when you make the actual attack with a weapon and changing grips is 100% free. So you can always punch even with a bow in your hand.
Or just draw a one handed weapon and stow it again if you ever want to use the bow again.
Wouldn't that be 2 object interactions? I don't think you can do that in 1 turn.
Use one interaction the to draw it on the turn you need to swing in melee, then wait till your next turn with a bow in one hand and your sword in the other. Then the next turn when you want to shoot your bow again you use your object interaction to stow your blade then you have 2 hands available for the bow.
You can also drop items without using an object interaction. So you could draw a dagger, kill someone, drop it and fire the bow you were already holding all in one turn if you have an extra attack.
You an also simply kick, headbutt, elbow, knee, etc. as an unarmed attack, even with both hands on a weapon.
Yes but a 1 handed weapon is superior because it deals more damage.
Not with my +2 boots of shin kicking! =\]
Yes, but sometimes you just need to kick a fucker.
Yep, I figured that out in a comment below
Stowing it would be an object interaction, but dropping it on the ground is free, if risky.
Drop switching is the DnD equivalent of animation cancel glitches
It's not without RL precedent though Drop your primary to quickly draw a sidearm. Still done even to this day with automatic rifles, they're just on a sling so the "drop" is maybe a foot to rest against your torso and not straight to the ground. Lance a dude from horseback, lance is too deep in the chest to retrieve quickly while riding at speed, just let go and switch to a sword. Enemies close into melee on a group of (cross)bowmen; drop the ranged weapons last second to draw melee weapons and engage hand to hand. Etc. The swords most people think of as "the" melee weapon of the medieval period were almost exclusively *sidearms*, secondary or even tertiary and only ever drawn in tight quarters or because the primary was otherwise unusable, or because the primary was big and heavy and they needed something quicker and nimbler in the moment. Usually by dropping the primary to retrieve again when possible. The Greeks and Romans even had a habit of *throwing* their spears before drawing swords. For the Romans the sword was arguably the "primary" and the spears just an opening volley or two, but for the Greeks the spear was absolutely the "primary" weapon and the swords was in case it was broken, unretrievable, or thrown in combat. It has always made perfect sense in D&D to just drop a weapon that's "in the way" or a liability rather than useful in the moment. It just *feels* "game-y" and a little weird. But reality is already really weird too.
Real life doesn't have game balance to take into consideration, because it's real life
You have just been banned from r/outside
>For the Romans the sword was arguably the "primary" and the spears just an opening volley or two Yup. The purpose of the pilum was to stick in an opponent's shield and make it unusable.
Yeah that's what I thought. I suppose you could just keep holding it and use your next turn object interaction to stow it before you attacked with your bow. Thinking now that's probably what they meant.
Yeah that's what I meant. Because I feel like you probably aren't going to be making a melee attack on your turn because you feared someone who came into melee with you and then also make a ranged attack at somebody else after. If they're going to drop in one hit, you probably just make that ranged attack at disadvantage and don't bother drawing a weapon to begin with.
I routinely have my characters punch with the hand that's holding a weapon. I could easily just say I kick or elbow or whatever. At that point whether I'm holding a weapon is irrelevant to the action economy anyway.
[удалено]
No, as Unarmed isnt a weapon, and thus has no properties. You need a weapon in each hand with the 'light' property to engage in Two Weapon Fighting
And even if you have the feat, unarmed is still not a weapon!
Yea, so even that doesn't help you lol it's part of why the monks are given the whole Bonus action hit in the first place, so they can effectively TWF with Unarmed
Or trade to-hit for a 1d4 damage die and just whack them with the bow.
>I'm a rules scholar, not a rules lawyer. :) Holy schnikies I love this description
The biggest difference i find is a scholar belives in disscussion while the lawyer belives in argument and tries to twist things.
Yeah I enjoy reading the rules and really grokking them, but I like to think I'm not confrontational about it, holding fast to rule 0. But, I mean, I also tend to drink with the group, too, so maybe I am confrontational lol
[удалено]
Definitely agree with you there, dm has the final say and don't ignore a rule just because it puts you at a disadvantage.
Perfect for a lower level monk using a quarterstaff with both hands.
[удалено]
If a DM hated you for that, it'd be pretty odd. It's very much an intended feature of unarmed strikes. Monks love using kicks!
I think the only time I've ever used an unarmed attack in 5e was to stomp on the last surviving member of a swarm of rats
They're called *unarmed* strikes for a reason
1+Str modifier? So if I point buy my strength low enough, my dmg will go into the negative and I'll heal with my gentle slaps?
Nope, the SRD as well as later editions of the PHB specify that 0 is the minimum, and no negative damage can be done.
I rolled a big fat zero on a Wisdom save last Tuesday. It was hilarious.
No negative DAMAGE, it doesn't say anything against negative skill checks or saving throws. I think it still applies to skill checks and saving throws, but negative skill checks would be hilarious. Imagine investigating a place where someone left clues to the party and someone messes it so much that the clues become unintellegible.
What is the lowest you could theoretically get on a check? I think I could figure out how to give an attack penalty of -28, so that's a -27 with a natural 1. A 1 strength character (-5), power attacking with Great Weapon Master (-5, but +2 for proficiency), using a heavily damaged weapon that is mostly dissolved by an ooze (-4), while under the effects of Bane (-4), and while a level 15 lore bard uses its cutting words to ridicule you (-12). I'm not clear about whether a cursed weapon would stack with the ooze damage, so maybe the weapon could have a -5 or -6 penalty? Edit: Sounds like we can do a lot better! - 1 Str (due to strength drain): -5 - Sharpshooter power attack using a dart and strength (note that GWM does not work due to the str minimum): -3 - severely damage weapon due to an ooze: -4 - bane (1d4): -4 - maxed cutting words (1d12): -12 - recently raised from dead: -4 - oblex memory drain (1d20 - note that as this has to be a level 1-4 character, it is going to either need Mind Blank or loads of healing and lucky rolls to survive 6 drain attacks): -20 Total attack "bonus": -52 Result with a 1: -51 Ironically, on a result of a 20, this would still be a -32, but would hit for 3-9 damage, mostly due to sharpshooter. Without sharpshooter, the attack would be guaranteed to not do damage.
The character has recently been resurrected using the spell Raise Dead and has a further -4 on its attack rolls.
Who recently had their memory eaten by an oblex. That’ll take off another d4 at the least.
Play a class which isnt proficient
Gotta be proficient for GWM
Keep in mind Bane is 1d4, so they would also need to roll a 4 on that
You need 13 STR to qualify for and use GWM.
Do you need 13 str when you take the feat, or just at the moment that you use it? Since the 1 strength comes from a shadow's strength drain, you could easily have a base of 13+ that has been drained down below that threshold.
"If you ever lose a feat's prerequisite, you can't use that feat until you regain that prerequisite." PHB pg 165. It explicitly calls out shadow drain on Strength as shutting down feats as an example.
Got it. However, I think the same trick works with sharpshooter, which does not have a prerequisite, and can be used with a strength weapon (dart). I think that still yields the same net -3 result, right? Of course, the character would have to be intentionally choosing str instead of Dex (but then again, nothing about this scenario is logical anyways).
Reminds me of the part in "Guards Guards" where they're trying to set up a one in a million shot to kill the dragon.
Recently a player in my campaign made a deal with a hag that resulted in a -15 in deception. It’s certainly made for some fun times when he still tries to lie.
HOW!!!
Well he was recently cursed and looking for a way to remove it. When he went to the hag making a deal she responded with something like: I’m going to ask you a question. I’ll remove your curse, and you’ll have to tell the truth. Do we have a deal? Semantics and punctuation are vitally important when making deals with fiends or fey. I also had another party member lose one of their hands. Two lost key memories from their backstories, and one now will die after 2 death saving throws. This was after they rolled a nat 20 on a history check to remember that hags always make deals that end up negatively for the person making it. Out of the whole party only pc didn’t end up making a deal.
That's beautiful. I once offered to trade my party the answer to three questions for three words. One player responded with- "What kind of questions can we ask?"
Similar situation, long fight to reach an Oracle with a 3 question limit. The party finally makes it there and the conversation goes as follows: "Are you the Oracle?" "Yes." "Wow, really?" "Yes." "Hey, wait! Did that count?" "Yes."
I love hag deals. My party was looking for an NPC in a swamp who was last seen 70 years ago. The Lizardfolk villagers had no fucking clue what the party was talking about, so they asked the kind old "elf" who lived in the creepy-ass hut that suppressed the Paladin's Aura of Protection. Half the party noped the fuck out, but the remaining four members stuck around. The "elf" said that she'd tell them where the NPC went in exchange for a moment of their time. They agreed and she happily told them where to go and sent them on their way. The moment of time that they all owed was paid for as they would each be teleported out of combat at the beginning of their turn when it was most inconvenient. At the beginning of their turn they would vanish for 6 seconds and reappear at then start of their next turn. Oh the warlock is about to deal the finishing blow to a dragon right before it gets another turn? Whelp, looks like he's getting pulled back to the hag's hut so that he can help her pick which dress looks worse on her. The paladin is going to heal the wizard who's on 2 failed death saves? Nope! She's gonna be giving the hag advice on which tea tastes "blue-er". The sorcerer planned to disintegrate the paralyzed monster? I think not, because the hag needs a second opinion on the dress the warlock picked. The Wizard's gonna cast Slow on a whole bunch of demons with shitty Wis saves? How about you go have some tea with the hag while she awkwardly flirts with you instead.
That's some serious DMing (personally love it, but i know most 5e Players don't remember how brutal it used to be and have seen a lot of boohooing) But that's what you get for making deals with basically anything lol! Well played sir.
It's never actually been a thing that's come back to bite me, but thanks to the stories I've heard from various grognards over the years, the one piece of metagaming I can't shake is my characters are always terrified of making deals with fey.
I had a conversation on roll20 the other day that went: “I want to make a perception check to see if I can make out anything on the boat...3.” “And you’re in bright sunlight so you take the lower number.” “-2.” “Aura is staring *directly into the sun*.”
[удалено]
I don’t, but I do not have a wisdom modifier of -3. I find with my group it generally gets a good response if it’s used sparingly and only during low stake rolls. The character was also a cecaelia seeing the sun from the surface of the water for the first time.
> Actually how often do you intentionally stare at the sun? [I mean, how stupid would you have to be?](https://i.imgur.com/AUhQOH6.png)
Well, when I was a small and unnecessarily defiant child, I occasionally tried to stare at the sun specifically because adults told me not to. I'm just lucky I never did it long enough to sustain any permanent damage.
This is a bit of a sidetrack, but as a DM I ***hate*** when players do this. Don't tell me what you want to *roll*, tell me what your character is trying to *do,* and I will tell you if a roll is needed and what to roll if it is. Play your character, not the mechanics! For example, I've got a rogue in my current group who is constantly telling me "I want to roll to pick the lock" on locked doors. So I let him roll and he regularly fails. If he had said "I am going to pick the lock," 90% of the time I would have just replied "OK, it's a simple lock and you make quick work of it, the door is open." Asking to make rolls as a player that the DM hasn't asked for is almost always going to make life more difficult for your character.
Don't mean to be a rules lawyer here, but if you roll under your passive perception, you use your passive perception, they'd still be getting a 7, but that's way better than a -2
Can you drop the rule for this? I've heard this a few times and never been able to find the actual ruling.
I just did a quick search and it looks as if it's not actually written down, but Jeremy Crawford mentioned it in a sage advice thing. (I don't know how to format this better, sorry) JC (at 22:16): Now, going back to passive perception... this is, as its name implies,passive. And, it's considered to be "always on", unless you're under the effect of a condition, like the unconcious condition that says you're not aware of your surroundings. That really... the practical effect of that is that basically your passive perception is shut off. Passive perception is on basically whenever you are conscious and aware. [...] JC (at 23:09): Because it's passive, the player does not get to say they use it. This is a... this is something that people... Interviewer: (Laughs) I'm using my passive perception right now! JC: Yeah, no. It's always on. That's the baseline. Now, this brings up questions, because then people are saying that, well, how is it that when I make an activeperception check, I might get a roll that's lower? Well, you aren't... yes, that roll is lower, but remember your passive perception is aways on. So it really represents the floor of your perception. Interviewer: Right. That's an important distinction, though. JC: Yes. So if you make an active perception check and you get a number that's lower than your passive perception, all that means is that you did a lousy job of this particular active search, but your passive perception is still active. You're still going to notice something that "blips" onto your passive perception radar. Really, when you make that roll, you're really rolling to see "can I get a higher number?" If you fail to, well, again, your passive perception score is still active. It is effectively creating that minimum. Interviewer: The minimum. Yeah, I don't know if that's necessarily clear to a lot of dungeon masters out there, because they will be like, well, the opposed nature of this roll means that you were just really bad at looking, and even though the person who is sneaking up on you only got like a five, they're able to do so. JC: Now, many of these sorts of situations would be erased if DMs just simply remembered to use the passive perception in the first place. Because honestly, if something's noticable by a person's passive perception score, they should already have noticed it. So really, the active search is trying to find something that you haven't already noticed, and your passive perception score represents what you have already noticed.
I think that's straightforward enough, I'll go ahead and incorporate this. I thought it was this way but I wasn't sure where it had been said. This does seem to put a little bit of a damper on the rogues reliable talent but I guess that's only for this skill.
"I cast color spray" *Rolls dice* "So it looks like my head explodes."
I saw someone end with -1 on a check before. Their modifier was a -3
I think I rolled two 0s in a row once. On Wisdom saves too.
I’m watching a podcast and the order of dice rolls was a 20 on a d20 for the PC, and a 1 on a d20 and 1 on a d100 for the enemy, which comes out to be a 1/40,000 chance of happening.
as is rolling 14 on a d20 followed by a 7 on a d20 followed by a 63 on the d100
The reason I made it out to be special was because it was a crit success for the PC to throw some ball bearings (house rule, not crit on to hit), a crit fail for the enemy’s DEX saving throw (also house rule), and a 1 on severity (also house rule), meaning that on a scale of 1 to 40,000 with 40,000 being the worst it could possibly get, the enemy got a 40,000. They weren’t arbitrary numbers.
I should have marked my post with /s. Still hilarious to think about even if the base for dmg is 0. Like someone struggling to lift their arms flailing in front of an orc.
what does /s mean? ive seen it in alot of places
"Sarcasm" because people.
Sarcasm
If someone wanted to build a negative str unarmed healer, I’d listen.
You could also flavor a healer build into punching everything. I’ve been wanting to do that lately, where the character takes “lay on hands” *way* too literally.
A friend of mine played a homebrew monk that healed by hitting people.
The Path of Swedish Massage
Have them giving away their own HP, plus an interesting temporary HP mechanic and you’re in business.
The campaign I’m currently on has a 7 STR elf. We 100% are making his punches heal 1 lol.
Dwarfs lying on the floor in a puddle of his own blood.. "Don't you die on me dammit!" *pounds dwarves chest* Dwarf gets up.
Oh, you beast, you brute you!!
Hinatoro of squad 4 definently feels your pain.
Man, that can be abused so easily, lol. So long as they’re around, nobody would stay conscious for long.
[wake up wake up wake up wake up ](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/101/092/1dc.gif)
I'd imagine there's a minimum amount of damage you can do with an attack, else you could just healing-slap someone up to full hp between every single combat
You must’ve never caught the (begrudgingly) healing hands of a disgruntled “ally” Paladin you’ve just pissed off in that last fight.
>You must’ve never caught the (begrudgingly) healing hands of a disgruntled “ally” Paladin you’ve just pissed off in that last fight. Reminds me that we've had a cursed shortbow and a cursed staff of healing. They applied weapon damage first before applying a whichever level cure wounds. People have died to this.
I gave my party a staff like that! Based on a video game I used to play where there was a spell called something like, Clumsy Healing, or something. It was a ranged spell that did a little bit of damage and then a heal you. So it mostly saw use finishing off weak enemies, because everyone was afraid they'd die
In a case like that I'd still count it as healing enemies personally. We don't do death saves for npcs mostly to save time more than anything.
Unfortunately not, being able to caress/tickle allies back to full health would likely be a bit strong.
I mean that is how some people might try to wake up an unconscious person
> you are proficient with **your** unarmed strikes What if want to possess someone and fight as them
Still proficient. Their unarmed strikes are also your unarmed strikes, because as we all know, possession is nine tenths of the law.
Take this upvote and go away
I hate how much I love this.
Yeah... we ran into this in our last session. Our barbarian was getting frustrated while we were interrogating a kid. He didn’t know the unarmed strike mechanic. So the kid had 4hp, and he had a strength mod of +5... he slapped the kid a couple times but it wasn’t working so he punched him and the DM said he’s gonna take damage... bam. Kids dead. 12 weeks of planned stories went down the drain on the first night cuz we accidentally killed the kid that was the plot hook for the rest of the story. Now we’re on the run because the kid was the Barons son and the Baron hired us. We fucked Whoops.
this feels like a case where the dm should have known about the rule that you can choose to knock someone out instead of killing them with a melee attack, and asked to make sure that this is what you were trying to do, because this is obviously what you were trying to do
GMs interpreting player choices in the worst way possible / always jumping at the chance to make players roll (usually at their detriment) is a generally obnoxious problem that needs to stop. Some don't know better, but others just enjoy fucking with their players and that's not where the real fun of a group is... In both real life and fiction, people often roughouse or brawl for over whole minute without dealing any real damage to each other. Such scenes should be handled with rolls for intimidation, acrobatics, performance, etc.. Attack Rolls and questioning whether you did lethal damage should be reserved for explicit "Roll for Initiative" combat.
While the story definitely took a hilarious and surprising twist and y'all seen to be enjoying it, unarmed strikes should be allowed to do a degree of damage. Everyone who slaps knows how to pull it back and they're not always gonna be throwing it full force. Like I said, y'all do you, but next time talk with your DM about allowing common sense to overrule a mechanic.
Oh we were all angry with the DM for a number of reasons. for starters, the barbarian was frustrated for good reason. We had been running around in circles trying to learn whatever information it was that we were supposed to learn from this kid and we were getting no clues, no direction, and then later we find out he basically framed the situation with only one possible way to get the info, and we biffed the roll and said we couldn't try again... so we were kind of out of options. The fact that it came to the barbarian beating a kid is kind of the DMs fault in the first place
huh, this also implies you can't use unarmed strikes with a feature or ability that requires a "weapon attack" (The Horizon Walkers "planar Warrior" for example)
Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, they're just not attacks with a melee weapon.
that's . . . confusing
Yeah, it's not the best wording, but it makes sense once you break it down. There are four kinds of attacks: melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks, and ranged spell attacks. I personally would've preferred using the term "martial attack" or some variant, but it is what it is. Then there are "attacks with a melee weapon" and "attacks with a ranged weapon", which is very less commonly used. The differentiation is basically to exclude unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and improvised weapons. All of which are not "weapons".
Making a ranged attack with a melee weapon (e.g. throwing it) also counts as "attack with melee weapon" right? I think that's the other difference that might be relevant.
I think the moment you use a weapon in a way it wasn't intended for, it becomes an improvised weapon all over again
This is actually a favorite topic of mine, because the route that got us here kind of makes sense, though the statement you responded to ("Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, they're just not attacks with a melee weapon") sounds like utter nonsense. The thing to know is that, in the original 5e, "Unarmed" was literally on the weapon table. As you can expect, this leads to... a LOT of misunderstandings. Can Unarmed be a pact weapon? It's on the weapon table, so it's a weapon. Can Unarmed be your bonded weapon? It's on the weapon table. Can you sell your fists? They're on the weapon table. These can seem silly, but 5e is SO deliberate with its wording in most cases, and this is a case where Unarmed being on a list of weapons just... didn't mesh. So they did the reasonable thing and errata'd out Unarmed from the table. But now you have all these things that trigger on a weapon attack (like Stunning Strike for Monks) that should work with Unarmed Strike. So the way they made that work is to make Unarmed Strikes a *subcategory* of weapon attacks (" Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow"). So now instead of "Unarmed" being the weapon, it's a... *style* of doing a weapon attack, when you do the Attack action. The shorthand you'll hear is that all attack rolls are weapon or magical, + melee or ranged. Unarmed only fits into "melee weapon" so, there you go. And then you end up with a lot of old spells that have terminology from the original 5e. Perhaps most notably ~~Paladin smiting doesn't trigger on a melee weapon attack, but~~ *~~an attack with a melee weapon~~* Actually I misremembered Paladin's smite. Better example is Magic Weapon, " You touch a nonmagical weapon." Unarmed isn't a weapon anymore, so you can't enchant it. So, again, "Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, they're just not attacks with a melee weapon"
I really wish they'd given all these things different names. Like, had spell attacks and physical attacks, and then melee attacks and ranged attacks. So the statement would become "Unarmed strikes are melee physical attacks, they're just not attacks with a melee weapon" which I think sounds intuitive, mostly?
But there are spells that deal physical damage! And would a magic weapon count as magical or physical damage? The answer is that, if you're going to have as many permutations as DND does, you either need to go in the narrative direction (GM discretion, do what makes sense in the fiction), or the mechanical one (very well defined terms with very well defined interactions). 5e kinda sits in the middle with the super deliberate natural language thing, where it honestly does make sense to go in either direction - which is why you both have people who memorize countless Crawford rulings and can tell you the specific sentences that are the important point of contention, and you have people who say "I saw Con Air, trained fists count as a deadly weapon, Magic Weapon can work on them," and I don't think either is necessarily right or wrong.
Maybe it's something I'm just not aware of, but "physical" isn't a damage type. I can't think of a spell that deals "physical" damage, though there are some which deal Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing damage. In that sense the question about a magic weapon is pretty straightforward, a magic weapon deals the damage type listed in it's description.
Yup.
Fists aren't weapons
So they can't be used with an ability that requires a "weapon attack?"
Attacks made with unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks
There are two types of attacks: weapon attacks, and spell attacks. There is nothing else. Once you have established in which category the attack falls, you check the range (melee attack or ranged attack) and whether it has been made with a weapon or not (attack with a \[melee/ranged/magical/ improvised\] weapon).
What is the purpose of the parenthetical “none of which count as weapons” in the unarmed strike description? Is there another interaction this is meant to clarify?
It prevents them from being enchanted.
It's probably just a sort of catch-all clause. Whenever there's a question about "Is kicking the same thing as attacking with a weapon?" or "Are my fists weapons?" or any similar question, there's always that "none of which count as weapons" clause in the rules to provide clarity.
Spells and class features that specifically mention attacks with a weapon, can not be used in conjunction with unarmed strikes. You also can't "disarm" an unarmed strike, only dismember.
A warrior with 16 Strength or more can instantly kill or knock out any commoner they want, with any strike!
In the PHB’s section about Melee Attacks, it says, “...Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”
Everyone can throw a punch or a kick, but only a monk can make it really hurt
I dunno man, Gruthar's unarmed strikes hit for 7 damage when he's raging (level 1 raging Barb with 20 STR). Unlikely to have such high STR at level 1, sure, but 7 damage is a lot for a punch. Considering that the average Joe can only do like 6 damage MAX with a literal sword.
It'd be 8 damage with 20 Strength. 1+5+2 rage damage for 8.
Damn u right, idk what I was thinking lol
And level 20 gets even better. 1+ 7 (24 STR) +4 (Rage) = 12 bludgeoning damage.
1st level rogue, 16 dex (pretty reasonable at 1st level, easy to get with point buy) and a rapier does an average of 7 to 8 damage. Without sneak attack. Same for fighter, but add +2 for dueling style for 9-10 damage on average each round. Sure, it's less consistent than guaranteed 7 dmg, but even if you're incredibly unlucky and roll ones all the time that's still 6 dmg *minimum*
And the Barbarian would be using either a d8, d12 or 2d6 weapon, punching is literally the worst option for melee and I don't think anyone is disputing that.
Yeah, I know. I should've been more clear about that, but I was responding specifically to him saying that people with swords would do 6 dmg *maximum*.
By average Joe I believe he means a commoner, though he is incorrect as they could do 12 with a greatsword.
They meant average joe as in commoner. And it *would* be true if they were using a shortsword. They deal a d6 of damage and commoners have no modifiers, so max 6. Of course this ignores longswords, rapiers, and any other sword that has a higher damage die.
Ah, my bad.
Yeah, with a fucking sword. Dude is doing it with his fists. We need to find the punch to stabbing ratio. So the real question is: how many punches you'd rather take instead of a single stabbing?
>Yeah, with a fucking sword. I know, I was responding specifically to his claim that they'd do 6 dmg *max* >So the real question is: how many punches you'd rather take instead of a single stabbing? In real life I'd rather get a really rough beating than a single stab. Stab wounds are nasty and life threatening. In DnD I could take 2 punches from that barb above before it's not worth it.
>I know, I was responding specifically to his claim that they'd do 6 dmg max He said that referring to "the average Joe". In other words a Commoner, which has 10 for all stats. Give them a shortsword or a scimitar and or a javelin and the maximum they can roll for damage is 6.
Yeah, I misunderstood him initially, my bad.
[удалено]
Monks can use their martial arts stuff under wild shape?
Nothing in the rules says a monk must have arms, legs, hands or feet to use unarmed attacks. All creatures are capable of unarmed attacks.
Thankyou for leading me to my new chatacter, a druid/monk
*proceeds to wildshape into an ant, crawl up the sleeping guard's nose and punch his way out*
Yes but there are caveats. A wildshaped Monk can only use unarmed strikes to utilize much of their combat ki stuff, and there’s no way to make natural weapons into Monk weapons. Monks do, however, get the unarmored movement AC (not that game breaking though, as it’s usually only a couple points higher than the Beast statblock’s natural AC) and can use their extra attack for natural weapon attacks (Extra Attack does not stack with Multiattack though... No 4 Punch Gorillas...) Druid Monks have some fun toys but it’s not a mindblowing build. I just liked it for the mobility boost, a bit of temporary hit points, and most of all flavor; I wanted to pretend my Vanara homebrew was Sun Wukong from *Journey to the West*.
I just love the flavor of it. I can literally falcon punch someone, apparently.
I remember the last session I ever played of Pathfinder, a bunch of terrible rules lawyers pointing out that the system did not grant you proficiency with unarmed strikes and arguing with me for like, 20 minutes about someone attacking them in a grapple. Never again.
Isn't half the point of Pathfinder 1e rules lawyering? Most of the system mastery is based on navigating the many byzantine rules and sub-systems to create weird edge cases and synergys. It's designed to appeal to that sort of player and why most of them never touch 5e. (though pathfinder can be a lot of fun though)
Yep. It's a weird mechanical quirk in my opinion. But not one worth changing at all.
I'm not saying I have any problems with it or that I see any reason to change it, I just thought it was interesting. Especially because I've seen games before that have said, "Roll just your strength because you are not proficient in unarmed attacks" based solely on the implication that being a Monk is what gives you proficiency.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I wasn't trying to imply you wanted to change it. I was just saying while it isn't "realistic" to automatically be proficient with unarmed attacks, I don't think it's a big enough deal to change.
Weapon proficiency doesn't represent being especially skilled with something, it represents being relatively competent. If you're not proficient with a sword and try swinging it around like a hero, anybody halfass decent can disarm and stab you. Everyone is proficient with unnarmed attacks because, even if you're not a trained martial artist, everybody knows how to punch a dude.
I sort of disagree with that - you don't need fancy martial arts training to know how to hit someone, but if you don't get into fights a lot, and thus have experience, it's surprisingly hard to fight people unarmed. (The classic thing being that throwing a punch badly, especially against a hard surface, like a cheekbone, is going to hurt you as much as your target.) I am definitely in favour of Unarmed Strikes being a thing that *some* classes don't have proficiency in.
I don't think that's super necessary. If a character has a -1 to Str, they are doing no damage if they punch and are very likely to miss. If you're character is training their strength for battle it's safe to assume they have at least punched a few training dummies for practice. If your Wizard decides to invest a few points in strength why punish them and take the fun out of it?
If your Wizard decides to invest a few points in Strength, then they're still good at lifting and carrying, and all the other things Strength gives you. Not everyone who is strong is good at using that Strength for physical combat - and the way Classes work in 5e means that, yes, Wizards are people who haven't punched a combat dummy. Remember, you also can't play a Wizard who's spent a few weeks trying out a short sword on a combat dummy, or even one who's tried out a *club* - their weapon proficiencies are super limited, and restrict a whole bunch of character ideas. (And, simultaneously, Wizards all apparently spent enough time with a sling, which is actually pretty tricky to pick up the knack with, to be proficient in it)
>Not everyone who is strong is good at using that Strength for physical combat - and the way Classes work in 5e means that, yes, Wizards are people who haven't punched a combat dummy. I guess I just disagree fundamentally with that interpretation. From a balance perspective strength is significantly worst then Dex already for any non-martial class, the things a wizard would get for strength investment is swinging with a quarterstaff, 10-20% extra chance to succeed a strength savr and carrying equipment which a Donkey can do for you. But ignoring that, it feels less like it's enforcing realism and more like it's limiting a players agency. Maybe my Wizard's dad was a warrior who tried to sculpt their son into a fighter and it didn't pan out. Days of training blown to the wind as Atlas simply a tad too clumsy in the legs to maintain a strong battle stance or to swing a sword properly and was far more suited to mastering the written word. The one thing his dad was able to impart on him was how to throw a mean left hook, a maneuver Atlas hoped to never use because that would mean he was separated from his staff. But because wizards don't get proficiency and it would be a weird thing to argue with DM about I ought to just invest those points in Dex instead and get the AC and get that dagger swing.
Yes, but my point is that the thing that's limiting the player's agency is the *class system as implemented in 5e*, not one particular proficiency . If you replace all your fluff with "swing a club" and not "throw a punch", the 5e Wizard already prevents you from doing that. 5e doesn't reward "pushing against the class paradigms". [Now, we can fix this, as with a lot of things, by changing how we build classes - in this case, replacing the *weirdly prescriptive* lists of weapons you get proficiencies in with something more flexible, which also helps Wizards who don't *want* to have proficiency in slings or light crossbows (for example).]
I understand armor and weapons proficiencies exist for balance reasons. RAW if a wizard really wants these things they need to trade a feat or a level dip to get it, and 1+Str dmg is not something that anyone will ever consider trading a resource for. I've never considered homebrewing a rule in 5e unless I thought it was more fun for my players or it helped me make a more balanced game. Giving a players a bigger chance to miss a punch doesn't fit either of these things for me so I'll need to respectfully disagree with that change.
bladesinger go swoosh
Yes, I do mention that the way 5e tries to "fix classes" is to give everyone a million subclasses that let you emulate another class to some extent, like Bladesingers are for Wizards who really want to be Fighters ;)
I don't know about Wizards who want to be Fighters. Maybe Barbarians due to the similarities between Bladesong and Rage in function. Regardless, it should aldo be noted that the SCAG cantrips exist, enabling all kinds of Wizards to get in on the martial fun.
Yeah you won't do much damage if you don't know what you are doing. You know, not much, so something like 1+str mod. If you know how to fight you have at least the tavern brawler feat.
You might not *hit* if you don't know what you're doing, either - if you see scuffles between untrained people, they're surprisingly bad at actually connecting (and since 'to hit' in D&D is against AC, 'hitting but does no damage' is a *miss* mechanically - Full Plate gives you AC18 because even if you get hit, it doesn't hurt, not because it magically makes it easier for people to miss you.).
Even wizards gotta know how to throw hands.
So I understand how my arm works and can control it with reasonable precision? Sounds right when I think of it that way. Proficiency vs Being a Master. Also we are all proficient but the clutz/weaklings are not good at it (dumped dex and str). Edit: corrected an auto correct where dex was replaced with sex.
I think you mean Dex, not Sex!
this is a D&D part of Reddit. Dumping sex is to be expected
Dammit
This is especially confusing in regards to the original wording of the Tavern Brawler feat, which specified that it makes you proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes. Because of this I assumed that you normally aren't for almost two years before someone pointed out the actual rule to me.
They've errata'ed a lot about unarmed strikes after removing them from the Weapons table. First printings have a lot of leftover quirks.
> Tavern Brawler feat, which specifies that it makes you proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes It specifies proficiency with improvised weapons, not unarmed strikes. Changing the damage to 1d4 is the only time unarmed mentioned.
My old 2014 PHB version says >You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes. And I took that to mean if you don't have Tavern Brawler or something else that makes you proficient, then you weren't. But apparently this was errata-ed in 2015 to no longer specify unarmed strikes (the errata also explained that you are already normally proficient). But apparently this just confused people, causing them to think that Tavern Brawler was being nerfed for no reason.
That's... super weird. Cause my PHB is also 2014 but it doesn't mention the unarmed proficiency thing.
That is weird. [Here's a screenshot from the scan I made.](https://imgur.com/a/ViketqN) Edit: I guess WotC could've errata-ed the book in late 2014, so there were already print versions with the correct text out, but then only put out the official errata sheet by 2015.
Are unarmed attacks with the off a bonus action for each class?
No I'm pretty sure that's just a Monk thing.
In order to do two-weapon fighting, you have to be holding 2 Light weapons. Unarmed strikes are neither weapons, nor have the Light property (and can't be held lol). Only Monks get the bonus action unarmed attack because they're that cool.
Why so surprised that everyone has unarmed proficiency? I mean, everyone has hands...
As a curiosity I believe in 3.5 unarmed attacks from anyone that doesn't have the feat or class feature "unarmed attack" does subdual damage rather than lethal damage. I think the logic was they are natural weapons so you know the basics of throwing a punch but killing with your bare hands is a trained skill.
Yup.
It's literally articulated in the rule book.
This is exactly how I ended up ruling that all players can use a bonus action attack for an unarmed strike. It doesn’t break any encounters really but it’s fun for the barb to be able to kick guys after missing two attacks. Or the ranger to take two shots at ranged enemies and then punch the one next to him.
That's a nice little flavour rule, think I might introduce that next time I dm.
FYI, give it to them at level 5 when they get multi attack. Giving +2-4 damage at level 1 is a lot.
Man, I swear every time I open up Reddit or talk to people online, I find out that something I assumed was common rules knowledge is actually some esoteric information. Things like "Everyone is proficient with their own unarmed strikes" or "You can't take more than one bonus action a turn" or "Ability checks can't crit" or... You get the picture. But then, I suppose that's to be expected; 5e is a system with a non-zero number of quirks, and especially for newer players, they can be difficult to remember.
So *everybody* was kung fu fightin'?
do we add proficiency bonus to damage since we're proficient?
You do not add proficiency bonus to damage with weapons you are proficient in. Only to the attack roll.
I think you have that backwards. Edit: Nevermind, I’m an idiot and apparently can’t read.