Dear DM and Unarmed Combat

[Bjarkmundur]

Dear DM

- I have a very specific character concept in my mind, and I was wondering if you'd allow me a couple of things, outside the rules?
- What did you have in mind?
- Well, I want to make a slight change to my character's weapon loadout.
- So you want a bigger damage dice, is that it?
- Uhm, no, smaller actually?
- Smaller?
- Yeah, I want two one-handed weapons dealing 1d6 bludgeoning damage each.
- Yeah, sure that works.
- Ok, can we rule it that it doesn't occupy my hand?
- If this is to do some spellcasting shenanigans....
- I'm a full martial character.
- Oh, um, why then?
- I just want to be able to grapple and interact with objects without having to keep track of stowing/sheathing my weapon.
- I mean, we kinda do that anyways, but sure.
- Ok thanks!
- That's it? You want a 1d6 weapon dice and not have to worry about your hands?
- And I want to be able to enchant it, or otherwise not be ignored when it comes to magic weapons!
- What, why would I ever exclude you from being able to use magic weapons?
- Because I want to be an unarmed fighter.





I've read so many threads regarding how to make an unarmed compatant, like simply handwaving it is this big game-breaking tactic that makes DMs cry themselves to sleep.Is there something I'm missing about unarmed fighters? It just sounds like the most reasonable request a player might make: to be able to count as wielding a weapon and not wielding a weapon at the same time, without having to play a Monk.

What it might affect:

Concealing weapons
Disarm effects
The Monk's ego
Nothing that significantly impacts the flow, balance, or verisimilitude of the game


Note: This thread is intended to discuss whether counting fists as a non-light bludgeoning weapons for the sake of meeting requirements of features and abilities is an unreasonable request, not to go into optimizing a grappling barbarian or a multiclass monk. Actually, let's just leave grappling out of the situation as a whole.

[stoutstien]

I think most DM are open to the idea but it does weaken some race picks and isn't legal in AL, which as much as I dislike it, is very popular in some areas.

Of course a single level of monk comes close

[Dungeon-noob]

[INDENT][I]Snip
I've read so many threads regarding how to make an unarmed fighter, like simply handwaving it is this big game-breaking tactic that makes DMs cry themselves to sleep. Is there something I'm missing about unarmed fighters? It just sounds like the most reasonable request a player might make: to be able to count as wielding a weapon and not wielding a weapon at the same time, without having to play a Monk.

Snip
As far as i can tell and speak for myself, it is a mechanical advantage, but not a significant one, especially since it's working with a very weak concept. The bigger issue i think is causing resistance is the fluff; the idea that you, somehow, have bare hands that are as damaging and deadly as shortswords and spears, which are solid weapons used by many largely because they are better then bare hands. That special snowflake feeling and the sheer unrealisticness of it is what i think is putting people off, even though mechanically there isn't anything to worry about in most cases, especially if you're not a spellcaster. And with monk and barbarian providing classes to point to as "you can do it that way", i think a lot of people take that easy way out.

[Protolisk]

To me, the unarmed fighter, or unarmed anyone but Monk, is basically asking "Why don't you just play a Lizardfolk?". Lizardfolk do have 1d6+STR attacks, and their hands are free since it's actually their bite, not their hands.

And it's not like this is all Lizardfolk have to their name. They also have a form of unarmored AC, a bonus action special bite to heal, 2 free skills which can be two of the best, Perception and Stealth, a swim speed and 2nd rate water breathing (okay, holding breathe for 15 minutes), and also free items as long as you find a corpse of a Small or larger creature. "Downsides" is that they have "only" +2 to Con and +1 to Wis instead of other favorable stats like Strength.

And of course the answer to that question is "I don't want to be a lizard. I want to be a human/dwarf/elf/orc/aarakocra/it doesn't really matter, I just don't want to be a lizard."

And it really shouldn't matter, honestly, but it does. I really don't see the problem much either, on the surface. It IS a racial feature, but one of like 7 racial features on this race. I don't think it's all that bad. Other races with in-built weapons like Juggernaut Warforged have similar things, only Warforged is actually weaker (its a 1d4). Tavern brawler is a feat though, and it's worth a 1d4 as well, but this costs a feat. But Lizardfolk are straight stronger.

So the answer comes down to "Because you need to be a specific race, or have a feat. Therefore, it being flat 1d6+STR for all people shouldn't be free, since it does have a cost".

That said, it means some races get it at level 1, like Lizardfolk and even Variant Human, or any race can get it by level 4 at the earliest as a feat.

[Tanarii]

- Oh, um, why then?
- I just want to be able to grapple and interact with objects without having to keep track of stowing/sheathing my weapon.
- I mean, we kinda do that anyways, but sure.
- Ok thanks!
I mean, if you're already house ruling this way ...

And of course if no one at the table is ever subjected to a disarm effect, or needs to conceal their weapon, as you noted.

Of course, there'd need to be some reason you're better at unarmed combat than someone who invested a whole level in Monk or blew an ASI.

Because all four of those things "significantly impacts the flow, balance, or verisimilitude of the game." Okay maybe not verthingy, but that's not a definable thing really. People suspend their disbelief differently.

[JackPhoenix]

Of course, there'd need to be some reason you're better at unarmed combat than someone who invested a whole level in Monk or blew an ASI.

Whole level? More like 4 levels. Monk doen't get 1d6 until level 5.

[HappyDaze]

It just sounds like the most reasonable request a player might make: to be able to count as wielding a weapon and not wielding a weapon at the same time, without having to play a Monk.
I say that "No; just play something that the rules allow" is the most reasonable response that the DM might return.

[Misterwhisper]

As I have said 100s of times, if there were magical + gloves or cestus or knuckles, most monk problems would solve themselves.

Not in some new book like the double scimitar, add it to the dmg so it can actually be rolled for on loot.

[Laserlight]

I say that "No; just play something that the rules allow" is the most reasonable response that the DM might return.

I'm inclined to agree. If a player wanted it...well, it depends on the player. One guy, he just wants it for flavor, doesn't have any mechanical exploit in mind, and I'd probably say yes. Another player, he's asking and avoiding any explanation because he has some clever combination that relies on Rules As He Wants Them To Be; he definitely gets "there's a way to do that in the rules already."

[Bjarkmundur]

One guy, he just wants it for flavor, doesn't have any mechanical exploit in mind, and I'd probably say yes. Another player, he's asking and avoiding any explanation because he has some clever combination that relies on Rules As He Wants Them To Be; he definitely gets "there's a way to do that in the rules already."

This is an important distinction to make!
Very good and important point!

[Hail Tempus]

I've read so many threads regarding how to make an unarmed compatant, like simply handwaving it is this big game-breaking tactic that makes DMs cry themselves to sleep.Is there something I'm missing about unarmed fighters? It just sounds like the most reasonable request a player might make: to be able to count as wielding a weapon and not wielding a weapon at the same time, without having to play a Monk.You’re basically asking for all of the benefits of a fighter, plus something that would typically require four levels of monk. That’s not a request to change the fluff of the fighter; you’re asking for a strait forward power boost. That’s not a reasonable request.

The rules already allow you to create a bare-knuckle brawler from first level, as a variant human. I’m not sure why you would expect a DM to give you a power boost like this.

[stoutstien]

You’re basically asking for all of the benefits of a fighter, plus something that would typically require four levels of monk. That’s not a request to change the fluff of the fighter; you’re asking for a strait forward power boost. That’s not a reasonable request.

The rules already allow you to create a bare-knuckle brawler from first level, as a variant human. I’m not sure why you would expect a DM to give you a power boost like this.

Not necessarily. They won't be light and the lack of martial arts means no bonus action attacks.

My personal rule is if a race that has a built in unarmed/ natural weapons they can take tavern brawler to up the damage die one.

[JackPhoenix]

Not necessarily. They won't be light and the lack of martial arts means no bonus action attacks.

The player specifically wants two weapons, which suggest he's going for Dual Wielder.... which means BA attacks are back in business, and +1 AC besides.

[Kane0]

Even if you didn't want to invest anything into it (race, feat, etc) you could still do 1 + str damage on a hit, which is 3-4 less on average than a d6 or d8 weapon. In the grand scheme of things it's not a dealbreaker, just a little suboptimal.

But hey, if Barbarians get the Battlerager i'm sure we could make a Reaping Mauler or Brawler for the Fighter. Maybe tweak the Brute as a starting point.
Failing that you could substitute one racial class featrue for the 1d4 or 1d6 that Warforged/Aarakocra/Lizardfolk get or have a look at a feat.

[JNAProductions]

If a player asked me to be a brawler Fighter, I'd first direct them towards Monk.

If that's not to their satisfaction, I'd probably make a subclass, an unarmed Fighting Style, or both, to help with their concept.

I would not allow them to just get extra features... Because.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Sounds like you want tavern brawler for free.

[greenstone]

…to be able to count as wielding a weapon and not wielding a weapon at the same time, without having to play a Monk.
I suspect it comes down to the action economy.

Want to hit someone and do medium damage? You need a hand to hold a weapon.
Want to hit someone and do lots of damage? You need two hands to hold a big weapon.
Want to defend yourself? You need a hand to wear a shield.
Want to cast a spell? You need a hand to perform mystical gestures.

Want to cast a spell and defend yourself and do lots of damage? You can't. Pick two (or one). Or play a thri-keen. :smallwink:

Allowing unarmed attacks (a way of dealing a small amount of damage without needing a hand) to do large amounts of damage (including class features and feats and so on) without needing a hand will affect the action economy in non-trivial way.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This comes from a mechanical standpoint, as I prefer to lead with mechanics before fluff. If you don't touch a lot of mechanics with your idea I'm significantly more open to the idea.

Here's a list of mechanics that this "simple" idea interacts with that would give me pause, there could even be more reasons if I thought longer about it:
- 1d6 Die is a somewhat deep investment into Monk normally or very specific Racial Traits
- You're asking for a better version of Tavern Brawler
- Wanting to be a Fighter where Monk is perfectly serviceable makes me think you want a few extra things (lists in lists!)
- You want a higher hit die
- You want Two Weapon Fighting and Extra Attack (3) and (4)
- You want to be Heavily Armored
- You want to avoid the Ability Scored MADness that Monk suffers from while gaining benefits over it
- You want Action Surge on a (better) Monk
- You want the option to use Dual Wielding for its AC bonus
- You don't ever want to risk being disarmed (it could still happen though :smalleek:)
- You're going to ask me later to introduce an Insignia of Claws to enable your fists to be magical since you skipped out on Monk

To be clear, these are just assumptions I would make from the start. The idea would never be outright dismissed before you've made your case but don't be surprised if I end up badgering you with questions to determine whether this is something you really just want to see work without taking it to the extremes that I imagined or if you really just want to play a Monk with none of the downsides.

I could be convinced to allow it, but I would almost always point you in the direction of Monk or VHuman Tavern Brawler first. There are enough ways to make this type of character work already that require less or even no extra rulings.

[Misterwhisper]

Just play a Warforged juggernaut.

Only issue is that you can’t unarmed as part of two weapon fighting. I find that both odd and stupid.

Or just introduce spiked gauntlets:

While wearing these simple weapons your unarmed strikes do 1d4 damage.

Everyone wins.

Monks get unarmed weapons to enchant later, and is a monk weapon.
Non monks can get weapons that make them a low end brawler.

[Nhorianscum]

My response:

How about I just remove the racial lock on armblade. Refluff however you like. Pay the attunment and cash cost.

[Sigreid]

It would become a discussion at the table. The two points I would bring against it

1. It's pretty specifically stealing the monk's shtick. Not necessarily a hard no as they seem to want to give away different classes shticks all the time.
2. It really doesn't matter if you don't want to abuse it on one character because once it's allowed, it's allowed. So all the potential ramifications have to be considered.

[Kane0]

I don't understand the 'monk only' thing. There are three races that get damage die for unarmed attacks, plus a feat.

Unarmed attacks are weapon attacks. 7 out of 12 classes can get access to Extra Attack and could be called 'weapon users'. Why is only one of those classes allowed to be any good with unarmed strikes? Does the same apply to any other kind of weapon?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't understand the 'monk only' thing. There are three races that get damage die for unarmed attacks, plus a feat.

Unarmed attacks are weapon attacks. 7 out of 12 classes can get access to Extra Attack and could be called 'weapon users'. Why is only one of those classes allowed to be any good with unarmed strikes? Does the same apply to any other kind of weapon?

It's more "there are many ways to do this legally, but I want all the benefits for having not chosen to do any of them" that is steering me away.

You can be just fine and dandy as a Pugilist Barb, Fighter, Bard and even Rogue. You just have to do a bit extra to be more effective in that way, such as being a specific race or taking a specific feat. Monks get it as part of their kit because that's what they're known for and they'd better be good at it.

[Sindeloke]

Trying to compare monk's "four levels to earn d6" to the proposed fighter d6-from-start seems like a really weird concern, since the monk d6 comes with a pair of d8s in the same round.

More precisely: at level 1 a monk who spends no resources does 1d8+1d4+2xDex every round, for an average of 11-13 damage, depending on dexterity. The fighter with a d6 fist does literally exactly half that, unless the fist qualifies for dueling and pushes damage up to a whole 7.5 (but restricts the fighter from ever getting strength on the second fist). This is in no possible way "better" than the monk, who also gets Flurry and Stunning Fist while the fighter is spending a feat slot to get a bonus action to catch up.

Now, monk damage falls off past level eleven, but it does that regardless. If you're starting from the premise that baseline, RAW classes are balanced, consider that RAW monk is balanced against a fighter doing up to 2d6, since that is what is naturally available to them without any house rules at all, and halving that weapon die in exchange for immunity to an optional rule buried in the DMG that might see use a dozen times in a campaign at an average table, if it's even in use, is not in any possible way a "buff" relative to the baseline balance of martial classes.

Niche protection is the only argument against this that holds any water. Personally I don't really consider "punchy guy" to be the monk's niche, but I can see where that would be a very table-dependent judgement. (Like, tbh I think niche protection in general has no place in magic elf games but I understand that for some people that's the entire point if a class-based system, so if that's your DM's thing that's fair, y'know?)

[Bjarkmundur]

Trying to compare monk's "four levels to earn d6" to the proposed fighter d6-from-start seems like a really weird concern, since the monk d6 comes with a pair of d8s in the same round.

At level 1 a monk does an average of 11-13 damage. The fighter with a d6 fist does literally exactly half that This is in no possible way "better" than the monk, who also gets Flurry and Stunning Fist while the fighter is spending a feat slot to get a bonus action to catch up.

Halving that weapon die in exchange for immunity to an optional rule buried in the DMG that might see use a dozen times in a campaign at an average table, if it's even in use, is not in any possible way a "buff".

Niche protection is the only argument against this that holds any water. I think niche protection in general has no place in magic elf games.

You pretty much nailed it man

[Sindal]

Give what's available from the rules it's not possible. But:

I'd make some cestus or brass knuckles available as common in the universe and call it a day if the player really really really wanted to be a fighter for some reason. Can only punch with those equipped.

Still follows the idea that fighters implement weapons.

They dont scale with level, like all the other weapons. No finesse. Light so they can be dual wielded. Functionally no different from wielding two smaller hammers. No extra benefit to grappling. Martial weapons

Gives me as a dm a bit more work cause it needs to be catered for but eh.

I'm more interested about what about the fighter is so interesting about the fighter that just playing a strength monk looks unappealing but I suppose thers merit to someone showing up with brass knuckles and full plate just decking you in the face.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

About enchanting ypur unarmed attack.
There is an amulet for it.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/insignia-of-claws

Wait a minute, it is not an amulet, may I remember it being one in older editions.

If I have a player in my table playing unarmed(not without arms, the one without weapons) I will add it to some loot/prize pool.
I will even add some cool Homebrew upgraded versions like I do for regular weapons and armors.

[DeTess]

If that's not to their satisfaction, I'd probably make a subclass, an unarmed Fighting Style, or both, to help with their concept.

I would not allow them to just get extra features... Because.

That's probably what I would do as well. Have them exchange either their fighting style or a feat pick. Maybe both? a fighting style for 1d4 unarmed attacks (and maybe another slight bonus), that explicitly increases to 1d6 if combined with the tavern brawler feat, since this player seems to want to grapple and stuff?

[Fnissalot]

That's probably what I would do as well. Have them exchange either their fighting style or a feat pick. Maybe both? a fighting style for 1d4 unarmed attacks (and maybe another slight bonus), that explicitly increases to 1d6 if combined with the tavern brawler feat, since this player seems to want to grapple and stuff?

Having a fighting style that improves your unarmed strikes die by one step seems fairly reasonable. Maybe add an exception to prevent it from affecting the monk weapon dice

Alone it would be a d4, with a race or tavernbrawler you could get better.

[DevilMcam]

If I were the dm :
- do you have à good fluff reason for your hands to be as deadly as clubs ?
- Yes.
- then for all intent and purposes you are allowed to treat your hands as a non magical club. Any rule or Roleplay reaction to clubs Will apply to your hands (and this means proper restraining in case you get disarmed, that Will prévent you to us your hands as clubs).

[Zhorn]

If I were the dm :
- do you have à good fluff reason for your hands to be as deadly as clubs ?
- Yes.
- then for all intent and purposes you are allowed to treat your hands as a non magical club. Any rule or Roleplay reaction to clubs Will apply to your hands (and this means proper restraining in case you get disarmed, that Will prévent you to us your hands as clubs).
Seems reasonable.
I'd like to imagine the disarming would be like jarring your wrist and needing a moment to shake it out.

[Nagog]

I mean, if you're already house ruling this way ...

And of course if no one at the table is ever subjected to a disarm effect, or needs to conceal their weapon, as you noted.

Of course, there'd need to be some reason you're better at unarmed combat than someone who invested a whole level in Monk or blew an ASI.

Because all four of those things "significantly impacts the flow, balance, or verisimilitude of the game." Okay maybe not verthingy, but that's not a definable thing really. People suspend their disbelief differently.


You’re basically asking for all of the benefits of a fighter, plus something that would typically require four levels of monk. That’s not a request to change the fluff of the fighter; you’re asking for a strait forward power boost. That’s not a reasonable request.

The rules already allow you to create a bare-knuckle brawler from first level, as a variant human. I’m not sure why you would expect a DM to give you a power boost like this.


Sounds like you want tavern brawler for free.

The difference between this and Tavern Brawler is that Tavern Brawler's damage overall kinda just sucks. Granted it's better than straight 1+Str, but overall it's really only all that great for it's grappling mechanic and improvised weapons. The fluff this player is asking for is very reasonable in my eyes, as even 1d6 doesn't really scale all that much past tier 1 without enchanted weapons, which aren't a possibility. Also keep in mind that a Monk's power doesn't come from having a large damage dice, it comes from having a shiz ton of attacks as well as all the passive buffs they get. Frankly, having an effective Unarmed Strike limited to one class feels unnecessarily restrictive. For example, being able to use BM Maneuvers with a fist if trained to do so sounds like a great offensive alternative to a Monk, but such a build will never be optimal or even keep up with anything else at it's level if it's permanently stuck at a 1d4 damage die. 1d6 is still comparatively weak, but it's on-par with short swords so it will at least be decent enough to consider doing without completely nerfing your Fighter's fighting ability. Same thing with making it a light weapon for dual wielding.

So what seems to be the main issue with it? How, pray tell, does it break the game? You can't be disarmed? How frequently as a player or as a DM has disarming come into play? For the most part, disarming is useless compared to many other abilities to lock down a target, particularly considering even the best disarming stuff at most costs the target a few feet of movement and their free action for object interaction to pick it up.

[Contrast]

It's more "there are many ways to do this legally, but I want all the benefits for having not chosen to do any of them" that is steering me away.

You can be just fine and dandy as a Pugilist Barb, Fighter, Bard and even Rogue. You just have to do a bit extra to be more effective in that way, such as being a specific race or taking a specific feat. Monks get it as part of their kit because that's what they're known for and they'd better be good at it.

Just to say a rogue trying to fight unarmed will not be getting sneak attack as fists (even monk ones technically) are not finesse or ranged weapons.

[Quietus]

About enchanting ypur unarmed attack.
There is an amulet for it.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/insignia-of-claws

Wait a minute, it is not an amulet, may I remember it being one in older editions.

If I have a player in my table playing unarmed(not without arms, the one without weapons) I will add it to some loot/prize pool.
I will even add some cool Homebrew upgraded versions like I do for regular weapons and armors.

It used to be an amulet in 3.5 - but I am 100% on board with giving unarmed strikes a way to have a magic bonus to their attack/damage. In my home games, if anyone plays an unarmed fighter, this is an option available to them.


That's probably what I would do as well. Have them exchange either their fighting style or a feat pick. Maybe both? a fighting style for 1d4 unarmed attacks (and maybe another slight bonus), that explicitly increases to 1d6 if combined with the tavern brawler feat, since this player seems to want to grapple and stuff?

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to suggest. It doesn't help if they want to play a barbarian, of course, but a one level Fighter dip can be valuable for barbarians anyway.


I would also give the option of taking one of the races with natural weapons, and just completely refluffing that race as a more typical race with unusual talents. It does mean odd interactions such as "Why does this human have a swim speed and hold breath", but that's something to be worked out at the table.

[Nagog]

I also have a homebrew Paladin Oath (Oath of the Body) that grants proficiency with using Gauntlets as weapons (I.E. as long as you're wearing armor that includes gauntlets you can use them). They deal 1d6 damage and are considered light finesse weapons. This bonus is balanced by having less Oath spells than normal, but it works.

[CorporateSlave]

You pretty much nailed it man

Well, I guess if you define "nailed it" as "took a close and one-sided look at a single aspect of a complex issue in strict isolation in order to justify it," then yes, yes he did.

Trying to look at this as just the damage die and pretend that's the only issue is pretty misleading.

As an "unarmed fighter:"
You're also getting past the MAD of a Monk, allowing yourself to concentrate on at most two stats (DEX/STR and CON).
You're also getting the better hit die, not just the damage die.
You're also getting proficiency (and the ability to wear) up to heavy armor - and the Feat compatibility to go along with it (Heavy Armor Master) that would combine quite nicely with your higher HP and higher AC.
You're also getting a fighting style, which even if you can't use Dueling or TWF, could net you another +1AC unavailable to the Monk.
You're also getting two more ASI's, which combines quite nicely with not having to worry about Monk MADness.
You're also getting whatever sub-class you're planning to take, which could be adding more damage and versatility to those attacks (Battle Master Maneuvers, for example)
You're doing this all while retaining your ability to remain armed when unarmed, have hands free to grapple, take Dual Wielder for a bonus action attack and +1 AC more (all the time, since you're always "armed" - which gives the feat a pretty significant undesigned power boost) and whatever else.

I've played in a campaign with an "unarmed fighter" built within the existing RAW, and he was very effective - but had to make choices when attacking regarding reduced physical damage as the tradeoff for the other advantages not replying on a weapon garnered his character. I'm pretty sure the DM would have laughed at a "reasonable request" to buff this character build with a d6 unarmed damage die.

[tchntm43]

Maybe consider making it a Fighting Style and give it a tradeoff - if a fighter selects that fighting style, that fighter loses proficiency with all melee weapons, meaning that you become so used to just using your fists that holding a weapon feels awkward and you're not good at it.

[Quietus]

Well, I guess if you define "nailed it" as "took a close and one-sided look at a single aspect of a complex issue in strict isolation in order to justify it," then yes, yes he did.

Trying to look at this as just the damage die and pretend that's the only issue is pretty misleading.

As an "unarmed fighter:"
You're also getting past the MAD of a Monk, allowing yourself to concentrate on at most two stats (DEX/STR and CON).
You're also getting the better hit die, not just the damage die.
You're also getting proficiency (and the ability to wear) up to heavy armor - and the Feat compatibility to go along with it (Heavy Armor Master) that would combine quite nicely with your higher HP and higher AC.
You're also getting a fighting style, which even if you can't use Dueling or TWF, could net you another +1AC unavailable to the Monk.
You're also getting two more ASI's, which combines quite nicely with not having to worry about Monk MADness.
You're also getting whatever sub-class you're planning to take, which could be adding more damage and versatility to those attacks (Battle Master Maneuvers, for example)
You're doing this all while retaining your ability to remain armed when unarmed, have hands free to grapple, take Dual Wielder for a bonus action attack and +1 AC more (all the time, since you're always "armed" - which gives the feat a pretty significant undesigned power boost) and whatever else.

I've played in a campaign with an "unarmed fighter" built within the existing RAW, and he was very effective - but had to make choices when attacking regarding reduced physical damage as the tradeoff for the other advantages not replying on a weapon garnered his character. I'm pretty sure the DM would have laughed at a "reasonable request" to buff this character build with a d6 unarmed damage die.

However, consider what an unarmed fighter (the class) has over a fighter using a longsword. Say they're given a d6 unarmed strike - they're losing a die size, to have.. a free hand? Which I think is going to limit which battlemaster maneuvers they have, because it isn't a weapon attack? Sure, this helps grappling builds, but plenty of grappling builds would just use a two handed weapon so they could have a free hand anyway. Am I missing some other benefit?

"It's stronger than a commonly-recognized underpowered class" is not a great reason to say no. "It overshadows most other options" would be a reason to say no, and I'm not sure this qualifies. And besides, others have pointed out how this really doesn't allow you to be better than the monk, because they'll usually be using quarterstaff with bonus action unarmed, and doing twice as much damage as you to start.

[Bjarkmundur]

Maybe consider making it a Fighting Style and give it a tradeoff - if a fighter selects that fighting style, that fighter loses proficiency with all melee weapons, meaning that you become so used to just using your fists that holding a weapon feels awkward and you're not good at it.

This is an interesting proposition. Now at least there's SOME opportunity cost.

Bare-Knuckle Fighter: When making unarmed attacks your damage dice is 1d6 and are considered using a weapon with the light property for the sake of meeting requirements.

Now, I'm not a fighter, but. Aren't opportunity attacks near-impossible when you don't have the extended reach a weapon provides?

Just to be clear, I would never allow this at a table where it would undermine someone else's character creation choices.

[JNAProductions]

However, consider what an unarmed fighter (the class) has over a fighter using a longsword. Say they're given a d6 unarmed strike - they're losing a die size, to have.. a free hand? Which I think is going to limit which battlemaster maneuvers they have, because it isn't a weapon attack? Sure, this helps grappling builds, but plenty of grappling builds would just use a two handed weapon so they could have a free hand anyway. Am I missing some other benefit?

"It's stronger than a commonly-recognized underpowered class" is not a great reason to say no. "It overshadows most other options" would be a reason to say no, and I'm not sure this qualifies. And besides, others have pointed out how this really doesn't allow you to be better than the monk, because they'll usually be using quarterstaff with bonus action unarmed, and doing twice as much damage as you to start.

Did you just call Monk underpowered? This ain't 3rd, the Monk is AWESOME.

[Nagog]

Well, I guess if you define "nailed it" as "took a close and one-sided look at a single aspect of a complex issue in strict isolation in order to justify it," then yes, yes he did.

Trying to look at this as just the damage die and pretend that's the only issue is pretty misleading.

As an "unarmed fighter:"
You're also getting past the MAD of a Monk, allowing yourself to concentrate on at most two stats (DEX/STR and CON).
You're also getting the better hit die, not just the damage die.
You're also getting proficiency (and the ability to wear) up to heavy armor - and the Feat compatibility to go along with it (Heavy Armor Master) that would combine quite nicely with your higher HP and higher AC.
You're also getting a fighting style, which even if you can't use Dueling or TWF, could net you another +1AC unavailable to the Monk.
You're also getting two more ASI's, which combines quite nicely with not having to worry about Monk MADness.
You're also getting whatever sub-class you're planning to take, which could be adding more damage and versatility to those attacks (Battle Master Maneuvers, for example)
You're doing this all while retaining your ability to remain armed when unarmed, have hands free to grapple, take Dual Wielder for a bonus action attack and +1 AC more (all the time, since you're always "armed" - which gives the feat a pretty significant undesigned power boost) and whatever else.

I've played in a campaign with an "unarmed fighter" built within the existing RAW, and he was very effective - but had to make choices when attacking regarding reduced physical damage as the tradeoff for the other advantages not replying on a weapon garnered his character. I'm pretty sure the DM would have laughed at a "reasonable request" to buff this character build with a d6 unarmed damage die.

Ngl, I do feel you're selling the Monk short with this. Monks are much more mobile and versatile than fighters due to their Ki abilities. Monks are always at their full armor potential, you can't un-armor a Monk. Monks get scaling damage and the quickest scaling multi-attack, as well as the ability to augment those attacks in a multitude of ways, the best of which is Stunning Strike, an ability that no other class can quite replicate.

Monks also only need 2 stats to be effective, depending on the playstyle you want to play them. Monks are built to be mobile martial damage dealers, guerrilla combatants that primarily rely on hit-and-run tactics to harass the enemy and stay out of reach. If you wish to play that way (as intended), boost Dex and Wis. If you want to remain still and tank all the damage and such, you can still just boost Dex and Wis, and make use of Patient Defense to avoid being hit. Under your logic, there is no such thing as a SAD class because every class needs to boost Con. How else is my Wizard going to survive taking hits on the front line?

Fighters definitely need Con because they actually are meant to be on the front lines. tanking hits and absorbing the damage the BBEG puts out. Monks aren't built for that, they're built for hit and run, as stated earlier. And when they hit, they hit hard, fast, and plenty of times.
Meanwhile, a fighter that uses a 1d6 weapon that they cannot be disarmed of is in almost every way, shape, and form, weaker than the typical fighter. They cannot access magic items, their damage dice never scales up, and in return, the only thing they gain is grappling (which normally isn't an issue anyway) and they cannot be disarmed.

But because the Fighter is using their fist to attack with the stats of a shortsword and none of the benefits of a shortsword, Monk is no longer a good class.

[Reevh]

Dear DM

- I have a very specific character concept in my mind, and I was wondering if you'd allow me a couple of things, outside the rules?
- What did you have in mind?
- Well, I want to make a slight change to my character's weapon loadout.
- So you want a bigger damage dice, is that it?
- Uhm, no, smaller actually?
- Smaller?
- Yeah, I want two one-handed weapons dealing 1d6 bludgeoning damage each.
- Yeah, sure that works.
- Ok, can we rule it that it doesn't occupy my hand?
- If this is to do some spellcasting shenanigans....
- I'm a full martial character.
- Oh, um, why then?
- I just want to be able to grapple and interact with objects without having to keep track of stowing/sheathing my weapon.
- I mean, we kinda do that anyways, but sure.
- Ok thanks!
- That's it? You want a 1d6 weapon dice and not have to worry about your hands?
- And I want to be able to enchant it, or otherwise not be ignored when it comes to magic weapons!
- What, why would I ever exclude you from being able to use magic weapons?
- Because I want to be an unarmed fighter.





I've read so many threads regarding how to make an unarmed compatant, like simply handwaving it is this big game-breaking tactic that makes DMs cry themselves to sleep.Is there something I'm missing about unarmed fighters? It just sounds like the most reasonable request a player might make: to be able to count as wielding a weapon and not wielding a weapon at the same time, without having to play a Monk.

What it might affect:

Concealing weapons
Disarm effects
The Monk's ego
Nothing that significantly impacts the flow, balance, or verisimilitude of the game


Note: This thread is intended to discuss whether counting fists as a non-light bludgeoning weapons for the sake of meeting requirements of features and abilities is an unreasonable request, not to go into optimizing a grappling barbarian or a multiclass monk. Actually, let's just leave grappling out of the situation as a whole.

If I were DMing, I'd be OK with reflavoring some short swords as... I dunno, weighted gloves or bladed bracers, or something like that. And then whenever an appropriate sword swords showed up on the loot tables (or when I'm feeling like it's time for a character upgrade), I'd give them some new magical bracers or gloves or whatever.

[Reevh]

Well, I guess if you define "nailed it" as "took a close and one-sided look at a single aspect of a complex issue in strict isolation in order to justify it," then yes, yes he did.

Trying to look at this as just the damage die and pretend that's the only issue is pretty misleading.

As an "unarmed fighter:"
You're also getting past the MAD of a Monk, allowing yourself to concentrate on at most two stats (DEX/STR and CON).
You're also getting the better hit die, not just the damage die.
You're also getting proficiency (and the ability to wear) up to heavy armor - and the Feat compatibility to go along with it (Heavy Armor Master) that would combine quite nicely with your higher HP and higher AC.
You're also getting a fighting style, which even if you can't use Dueling or TWF, could net you another +1AC unavailable to the Monk.
You're also getting two more ASI's, which combines quite nicely with not having to worry about Monk MADness.
You're also getting whatever sub-class you're planning to take, which could be adding more damage and versatility to those attacks (Battle Master Maneuvers, for example)
You're doing this all while retaining your ability to remain armed when unarmed, have hands free to grapple, take Dual Wielder for a bonus action attack and +1 AC more (all the time, since you're always "armed" - which gives the feat a pretty significant undesigned power boost) and whatever else.

I've played in a campaign with an "unarmed fighter" built within the existing RAW, and he was very effective - but had to make choices when attacking regarding reduced physical damage as the tradeoff for the other advantages not replying on a weapon garnered his character. I'm pretty sure the DM would have laughed at a "reasonable request" to buff this character build with a d6 unarmed damage die.

The only things on your list that are any different from a fighter dual wielding short swords is the "always armed," which could be the case with an Eldritch Knight as well, and the ability to always have hands free, which is generally easy to manage with a free object interaction to sheath a sword anyway. I don't see your complaint, unless you have a problem with dual-wielding Eldritch Knights as a concept.

[JNAProductions]

The only things on your list that are any different from a fighter dual wielding short swords is the "always armed," which could be the case with an Eldritch Knight as well, and the ability to always have hands free, which is generally easy to manage with a free object interaction to sheath a sword anyway. I don't see your complaint, unless you have a problem with dual-wielding Eldritch Knights as a concept.

To be fair, Eldritch Knights have a lot of use for their bonus action, making TWF extra bad for them. Whereas a Champion or Battlemaster, not so much.

[Reevh]

To be fair, Eldritch Knights have a lot of use for their bonus action, making TWF extra bad for them. Whereas a Champion or Battlemaster, not so much.

I mean sure. It would be a bad build, but that just makes my argument stronger. You're basically asking for a badly built fighter, compared to a normal monk.

[JNAProductions]

I mean sure. It would be a bad build, but that just makes my argument stronger. You're basically asking for a badly built fighter, compared to a normal monk.

My main issue is twofold:

1) Bjark is asking for something for free. It's minor, but it's better than nothing, and that's what they're giving up for it: Nothing.

2) They said it's the most reasonable request in the world, as if you'd be a bad DM to refuse them that.

Like I said, I'd be totally down for making a Fighting Style, Fighter subclass, or both to facilitate the concept. But I don't think adding a bonus for no cost is the best way to go.

[Reevh]

I think a minor handwave that doesn't have a significant effect on balance in order to allow a player to enjoy playing their character in the way they envision is extremely reasonable and adds to the fun at the table. I especially enjoy non-mechanical re-skins (which is almost entirely what this is) because it keeps every game from feeling like it has the same flavor.

Now if you as a DM don't want to allow that, it's your prerogative. But I don't entirely understand the "he can't have this character concept for free, even though it effectively doesn't change anything in the game." If it helps your player have more fun at the table and doesn't have a real impact on game mechanics, why not?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ngl, I do feel you're selling the Monk short with this. Monks are much more mobile and versatile than fighters due to their Ki abilities. Monks are always at their full armor potential, you can't un-armor a Monk. Monks get scaling damage and the quickest scaling multi-attack, as well as the ability to augment those attacks in a multitude of ways, the best of which is Stunning Strike, an ability that no other class can quite replicate.

Monks also only need 2 stats to be effective, depending on the playstyle you want to play them. Monks are built to be mobile martial damage dealers, guerrilla combatants that primarily rely on hit-and-run tactics to harass the enemy and stay out of reach. If you wish to play that way (as intended), boost Dex and Wis. If you want to remain still and tank all the damage and such, you can still just boost Dex and Wis, and make use of Patient Defense to avoid being hit. Under your logic, there is no such thing as a SAD class because every class needs to boost Con. How else is my Wizard going to survive taking hits on the front line?

Fighters definitely need Con because they actually are meant to be on the front lines. tanking hits and absorbing the damage the BBEG puts out. Monks aren't built for that, they're built for hit and run, as stated earlier. And when they hit, they hit hard, fast, and plenty of times.
Meanwhile, a fighter that uses a 1d6 weapon that they cannot be disarmed of is in almost every way, shape, and form, weaker than the typical fighter. They cannot access magic items, their damage dice never scales up, and in return, the only thing they gain is grappling (which normally isn't an issue anyway) and they cannot be disarmed.

But because the Fighter is using their fist to attack with the stats of a shortsword and none of the benefits of a shortsword, Monk is no longer a good class.

The reason that Monks are mad is because they're Melee characters. They need Dex and Wisdom to reach an AC on par with a fighter and as a Melee with a D8 hit die they're prone to getting blown apart. You may think "what does this say about Rogues then" and my response would be Cunning Action. A free (not costing your Ki points) way to disengage goes a tremendous way.

This isn't to sell Monks short, I think they're a very powerful class, but I also think it's undeniable that they're a very demanding class. You can't afford to go too low with any of those 3 ability scores without sacrificing a lot. No matter what between Wisdom and Constitution you're always sacrificing durability. There's a lot to manage and keep track of as a Monk, I find them personally to be a very tactical minded class. Fighter, Battle Master included ironically, has always been a very straightforward class with little considerations to be made about your own positioning and resources. This has been my experience anyway, you're free to disagree.

That last line is a bit disingenuous in my opinion, as in both the example given in OP and the criticism listed by many (including myself) is that the player is going to expect a way to overcome that lack of magical weapon with the same fiat they were granted to start picking and choosing their favorite features from other sources at no cost.

My complaint is entirely focused on the "no cost" assumption that the example given presents. There should be an opportunity cost for this, because everything the player is asking for is already available to them if they (a) Take Monk (b) Take Tavern Brawler or (c) pick a race with an unarmed attack modifier. Asking to have a feature like that and the other benefits of, say, being a VHuman Battlemaster starting with Dual Wielder seems a bit gamey to me. If you want to be an everyman who hasn't spent time learning to harness mystical energy in their fists, maybe you shouldn't be handed the convenient magic fist mcguffin as soon as possible.

That might just be a bit of cynicism on my part, I'm sure that a majority of people aren't trying to be malicious by asking for such things. Even so, I would have them look at already accessible means before I start making changes to accomodate. There's plenty of room to be creative with what's available.

[CorporateSlave]

Meanwhile, a fighter that uses a 1d6 weapon that they cannot be disarmed of is in almost every way, shape, and form, weaker than the typical fighter. They cannot access magic items, their damage dice never scales up, and in return, the only thing they gain is grappling (which normally isn't an issue anyway) and they cannot be disarmed.

Well, first of all, his demand was specific that somehow he will still be able to enchant or somehow otherwise use unarmed attacks with magic weapons.

Maybe in a basic basic hack and slash campaign grappling and inability to be disarmed "normally isn't an issue," but if you build especially for it this guy gets to effectively pin* an opponent to the dirt and pummel them with their free hand with Advantage, while enjoying a high AC and possibly doing quite significant unarmed damage (maybe scaling Brute damage, or some 1d8 fire damage magical fist shenanigans - see sentence above). I'm glad everybody else's DM never disarms their PC's.
*I'm not talking about the silly "Grappler Feat" less than worthless "Pin" feature, I just mean Grapple, Shove Prone, now can't get up because Grappled and Move is 0.


But because the Fighter is using their fist to attack with the stats of a shortsword and none of the benefits of a shortsword, Monk is no longer a good class.

That's not the point I'm making at all. My point is that this smells like a trick. Why not just get Tavern Brawler, live with a d4 instead of a d6? A fighter generally ends up with feats to spare anyway. Asking for an ability that circumvents an established Feat smells of Shenanigans.

[Zhorn]

Agreeing with JNAProductions and a few of the other; there should be a cost involved.

One of my players a while back was wanting to make an unarmed barbarian focusing of punching and grapples (we have it in the wings as his backup character if his rogue dies).

The house ruling we agreed to would be abilities that grants improved unarmed strike damage would now stack, up to a max damage dice of 1d12's.
eg: a warforged with the tavern brawler feat would get 1d4 unarmed strikes from two sources, combined to make it a 1d6.
This would also apply to the party's monk, so if they picked up tavern brawler, their unarmed strike's dice would also go up by one step.

[JNAProductions]

I think a minor handwave that doesn't have a significant effect on balance in order to allow a player to enjoy playing their character in the way they envision is extremely reasonable and adds to the fun at the table. I especially enjoy non-mechanical re-skins (which is almost entirely what this is) because it keeps every game from feeling like it has the same flavor.

Now if you as a DM don't want to allow that, it's your prerogative. But I don't entirely understand the "he can't have this character concept for free, even though it effectively doesn't change anything in the game." If it helps your player have more fun at the table and doesn't have a real impact on game mechanics, why not?

You're undervaluing the advantages of free hands. You cannot grapple with TWF, and grappling is quite the potent ability. (Well, I think Loxodons and some Simic Hybrids can, but Humans can't.)

[Nagog]

My main issue is twofold:

1) Bjark is asking for something for free. It's minor, but it's better than nothing, and that's what they're giving up for it: Nothing.

2) They said it's the most reasonable request in the world, as if you'd be a bad DM to refuse them that.

Like I said, I'd be totally down for making a Fighting Style, Fighter subclass, or both to facilitate the concept. But I don't think adding a bonus for no cost is the best way to go.


The reason that Monks are mad is because they're Melee characters. They need Dex and Wisdom to reach an AC on par with a fighter and as a Melee with a D8 hit die they're prone to getting blown apart. You may think "what does this say about Rogues then" and my response would be Cunning Action. A free (not costing your Ki points) way to disengage goes a tremendous way.

This isn't to sell Monks short, I think they're a very powerful class, but I also think it's undeniable that they're a very demanding class. You can't afford to go too low with any of those 3 ability scores without sacrificing a lot. No matter what between Wisdom and Constitution you're always sacrificing durability,

That last line is a bit disingenuous in my opinion, as in both the example given in OP and the criticism listed by many (including myself) is that the player is going to expect a way to overcome that lack of magical weapon with the same fiat they were granted to start picking and choosing their favorite features from other sources at no cost.

My complaint is entirely focused on the "no cost" assumption that the example given presents. There should be an opportunity cost for this, because everything the player is asking for is already available to them if they (a) Take Monk (b) Take Tavern Brawler or (c) pick a race with an unarmed attack modifier. Asking to have a feature like that and the other benefits of, say, being a VHuman Battlemaster starting with Dual Wielder seems a bit gamey to me. If you want to be an everyman who hasn't spent time learning to harness mystical energy in their fists, maybe you shouldn't be handed the convenient magic fist mcguffin as soon as possible.

That might just be a bit of cynicism on my part, I'm sure that a majority of people aren't trying to be malicious by asking for such things. Even so, I would have them look at already accessible means before I start making changes to accomodate. There's plenty of room to be creative with what's available.


The cost of it is that magic weapons aren't going to do anything for it, and there are plenty of abilities and features that won't be available to it that are available for short swords. If anything, this change would nerf the character rather than buff them. As I've mentioned earlier, the inability to be disarmed is an innate buff, but in your games, how often has disarming been used? the best disarm thing I've ever seen was in the Gunslinger, which they had a save against and it would make them drop their weapon and it would be on the ground 10 feet away. You could argue that an ally could go pick up their weapon, and that's true, but in all fairness you could cast a spell to stun, paralyze, or otherwise hinder them and do the same exact thing but better in both action economy and execution.

[JNAProductions]

Dear DM

- I have a very specific character concept in my mind, and I was wondering if you'd allow me a couple of things, outside the rules?
- What did you have in mind?
- Well, I want to make a slight change to my character's weapon loadout.
- So you want a bigger damage dice, is that it?
- Uhm, no, smaller actually?
- Smaller?
- Yeah, I want two one-handed weapons dealing 1d6 bludgeoning damage each.
- Yeah, sure that works.
- Ok, can we rule it that it doesn't occupy my hand?
- If this is to do some spellcasting shenanigans....
- I'm a full martial character.
- Oh, um, why then?
- I just want to be able to grapple and interact with objects without having to keep track of stowing/sheathing my weapon.
- I mean, we kinda do that anyways, but sure.
- Ok thanks!
- That's it? You want a 1d6 weapon dice and not have to worry about your hands?
- And I want to be able to enchant it, or otherwise not be ignored when it comes to magic weapons!
- What, why would I ever exclude you from being able to use magic weapons?
- Because I want to be an unarmed fighter.





I've read so many threads regarding how to make an unarmed compatant, like simply handwaving it is this big game-breaking tactic that makes DMs cry themselves to sleep.Is there something I'm missing about unarmed fighters? It just sounds like the most reasonable request a player might make: to be able to count as wielding a weapon and not wielding a weapon at the same time, without having to play a Monk.

What it might affect:

Concealing weapons
Disarm effects
The Monk's ego
Nothing that significantly impacts the flow, balance, or verisimilitude of the game


Note: This thread is intended to discuss whether counting fists as a non-light bludgeoning weapons for the sake of meeting requirements of features and abilities is an unreasonable request, not to go into optimizing a grappling barbarian or a multiclass monk. Actually, let's just leave grappling out of the situation as a whole.

From the OP.

[Nagog]

You're undervaluing the advantages of free hands. You cannot grapple with TWF, and grappling is quite the potent ability. (Well, I think Loxodons and some Simic Hybrids can, but Humans can't.)

TWF can grapple by dropping their weapon and initiating grapple. Picking up and dropping a weapon is both free action, so...? Yeah there's the risk of another enemy running over to pick up the weapon, but you've got another hand/weapon for an AoO. Better yet, use the free action to sheath the weapon. Done and done. Unless you're restricting the action economy of Free Actions?

[Reevh]

You're undervaluing the advantages of free hands. You cannot grapple with TWF, and grappling is quite the potent ability. (Well, I think Loxodons and some Simic Hybrids can, but Humans can't.)

You can stow a weapon as a free action and then grapple with your free hand. It works the same.

[JNAProductions]

TWF can grapple by dropping their weapon and initiating grapple. Picking up and dropping a weapon is both free action, so...? Yeah there's the risk of another enemy running over to pick up the weapon, but you've got another hand/weapon for an AoO. Better yet, use the free action to sheath the weapon. Done and done. Unless you're restricting the action economy of Free Actions?


You can stow a weapon as a free action and then grapple with your free hand. It works the same.

But then you're not TWF, since one hand is holding the enemy. You certainly can have two weapons and grapple, but unless you have a third arm, you cannot fight with two weapons and grapple at the same time.

[Reevh]

But then you're not TWF, since one hand is holding the enemy. You certainly can have two weapons and grapple, but unless you have a third arm, you cannot fight with two weapons and grapple at the same time.

Attack, Grapple, stow mainhand, bonus action attack. Or Attack, Attack, Stow offhand, bonus action grapple.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Attack, Grapple, stow mainhand, bonus action attack. Or Attack, Attack, Stow offhand, bonus action grapple.
This only works if you've already got your weapons drawn and you have the Dual Wielder feat. You're limited to one free object interaction on your turn.

You can either draw your weapon or stow/drop a weapon you have already drawn. If you want to do both it's going to take your action.


You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.

In this hypothetical, the Pugilist Fighter is able to draw both his weapons and stow one or both whenever he likes with no feat or action investment.

[JNAProductions]

Attack, Grapple, stow mainhand, bonus action attack. Or Attack, Attack, Stow offhand, bonus action grapple.

And the next turn? Because you don't grapple people you kill in one go, you grapple people that take a couple turns to wail on.

[Reevh]

This only works if you've already got your weapons drawn and you have the Dual Wielder feat. You're limited to one free object interaction on your turn.

You can either draw your weapon or stow/drop a weapon you have already drawn. If you want to do both it's going to take your action.



In this hypothetical, the Pugilist Fighter is able to draw both his weapons and stow one or both whenever he likes with no feat or action investment.

OK, so if your DM is a stickler for not letting you pull out both of your weapons on the first round of combat, then you get a tiny benefit. I've never played at a table where this would have been an issue, though. If you rule this way as a DM, then I have a hard time imagining that you'd allow this handwave anyway. And I certainly wouldn't want to play at your table.

Which isn't to say you're bad for taking this approach. Just that it wouldn't be the style of DMing I'd want to play with.

[Reevh]

And the next turn? Because you don't grapple people you kill in one go, you grapple people that take a couple turns to wail on.

The next turn you attack just like you would if you were unarmed attacking. If you're a level 11 fighter, for example, you'd get 3 attacks while grappling either way.

[NNescio]

Attack, Grapple, stow mainhand, bonus action attack. Or Attack, Attack, Stow offhand, bonus action grapple.

Can't bonus action grapple. It's not part of the Attack action. You only get to substitute grapples on attacks made as part of the Attack action. It's the same technicality that prevents OA and Multiattack grapples.

The first part cam also be somewhat contentious depending on how the word "When..." is interpreted. Most DMs, I'll say, would be somewhat lenient if it doesn't pop up frequently, but they might look askance at a player repeatedly stowing a weapon in the same fight to initiate grapples, since it can run a bit counter to verisimilitude.


OK, so if your DM is a stickler for not letting you pull out both of your weapons on the first round of combat, then you get a tiny benefit. I've never played at a table where this would have been an issue, though. If you rule this way as a DM, then I have a hard time imagining that you'd allow this handwave anyway. And I certainly wouldn't want to play at your table.

Take the Dual Wielder feat. It's what it is for. It's explicitly one of the listed functions of the feat, and allowing it for free undervalues the value of said feat.

[ProsecutorGodot]

OK, so if your DM is a stickler for not letting you pull out both of your weapons on the first round of combat, then you get a tiny benefit. I've never played at a table where this would have been an issue, though. If you rule this way as a DM, then I have a hard time imagining that you'd allow this handwave anyway. And I certainly wouldn't want to play at your table.

The developers designed a feat specifically to enable you to pull both of your weapons out with one object interaction, I understand it's not a well liked rule, but it's there plain as day.

I'm not sure I appreciate you implying that because I prefer to play by the books that I somehow run a worse game. My players don't mind.

EDIT: Just caught the edit. Still seems a bit confrontational but if you didn't mean for it to be, no harm done.

[Reevh]

The developers designed a feat specifically to enable you to pull both of your weapons out with one object interaction, I understand it's not a well liked rule, but it's there plain as day.

I'm not sure I appreciate you saying that because I prefer to play by the books that I somehow run a worse game. My players don't mind.

Hah, I edited my comment to say that I don't think this makes you a bad DM. Just that I wouldn't be a good fit for your table.

But by the time I finished that edit, you'd already posted this. :(

But yeah, if you’re that much of a “play by the books” DM, I wouldn’t expect you to allow something like this anyway.

[Quietus]

Did you just call Monk underpowered? This ain't 3rd, the Monk is AWESOME.

At high levels, sure. When their attacks are using a die that isn't a d4 or d6, when they can flurry or stun more often. When they have enough ki to do their "thing" more than once a combat. When they have three or four ASI's under their belt due to wanting two stats maxed, a good constitution, and maybe the Mobility feat.

That's the real issue with monks - they're fine once you reach tier 3, and if you can get into a game where you get reasonable amounts of short rests. A short rest every 2-3 fights, even in tier 1, means you can choose to Flurry, Patient Defense, or Step of the Wind once per fight. If you've got a DM who will put pressure on the dungeon so you can't short rest, you get to do that even less. Once you reach tier 2 and pick up Stunning Fist, you have enough ki to spend 2 points per fight, which is still very limiting. Heaven forbid if you're using a ki-heavy subclass like 4 elements.

I don't know about you, but I've never played a character (of any class) into tier 3, when monks start having the ability to drop 3-4 ki per fight, freely using flurry/patient defense and stunning fist. That's a long time to wait for a class to be awesome.

[Nagog]

This only works if you've already got your weapons drawn and you have the Dual Wielder feat. You're limited to one free object interaction on your turn.

You can either draw your weapon or stow/drop a weapon you have already drawn. If you want to do both it's going to take your action.

In this hypothetical, the Pugilist Fighter is able to draw both his weapons and stow one or both whenever he likes with no feat or action investment.

So what? It's a free action, so unless you're debunking an otherwise harmless reflavor because you think it'll kill the Free Action Economy, it's a moot point.


But then you're not TWF, since one hand is holding the enemy. You certainly can have two weapons and grapple, but unless you have a third arm, you cannot fight with two weapons and grapple at the same time.

Ok... But what does this have to do with the OP's question? Whether or not you are using two short swords or 1d6 fists, you only have 2 hands, one must be used to grapple. Therefore, that hand is occupied with a non-weapon and TWF's AC bonus does not apply.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So what? It's a free action...


Point of order (not caring about the rest of the debate)--free actions are not a thing in 5e.

Interacting with an object is either
a) part of another action or movement, if it's a logical part of doing the other action or movement. Drawing a weapon as part of the Attack action, opening a door to move through it, etc.
b) a separate action in its own right (if it's not part of another action).

Even speaking a short phrase (of DM-dependent length) is a non-action, not a free action.

Totally pedantic difference, but it's important to distinguish between things that were carried over from 3e and things that are not.

The specific wording is (emphasis added)

Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.

You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.

You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.

The GM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the GM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.

[Nagog]

Point of order (not caring about the rest of the debate)--free actions are not a thing in 5e.

Interacting with an object is either
a) part of another action or movement, if it's a logical part of doing the other action or movement. Drawing a weapon as part of the Attack action, opening a door to move through it, etc.
b) a separate action in its own right (if it's not part of another action).

Even speaking a short phrase (of DM-dependent length) is a non-action, not a free action.

Totally pedantic difference, but it's important to distinguish between things that were carried over from 3e and things that are not.

The specific wording is (emphasis added)

Valid point, thanks for pointing this out! In this case, drawing a weapon (or weapons) is part of the Attack action.

[Sindeloke]

So here's the secret about monks:

Several of their features are not actually features.

The game has a set of tools for characters who use weapon attacks to kill things. All of those characters get those tools. They are the baseline competency expectation of that role. Ranger, barbarian, fighter, rogue, and paladin can all expect to have between 17 and 20 AC if they wear the best (nonmagical) armor available to them and spend their ASIs in the way their class naturally inclines them to. They can all expect to have to invest in 2 attributes to take full advantage of their class. They can all expect to deal ~ 10 damage per round at level 1, twice that at level 5. In tier 2, when mundane-resistant enemies become more common, they can all expect to have access to at least one magic weapon, either from a spellcaster in the party or from finding one as loot.

The way the game solves this issue for all of these classes is exactly the same: proficiency in armor, one or more class features that boost damage by 1-3 per hit in tier 1 and another ~9-11 per round by 11, the Extra Attack feature, and proficiency with weapon types dealing 1d8 or more damage.

But monks aren't supposed to use those things, so what did WotC do? They gave monks "armor without armor" feature gives them 20 AC if they invest ASIs where their class wants them to invest in, higher than the ranger or rogue before magic. They gave monks a "weapon without a weapon" that has the exact same damage curve as every other martial class from level 5 to 11, and starts higher than anyone else at level 1. They gave them a "my fists are magical" feature with the exact same ability to overcome enemy damage resistance that every other martial has access to by level 7. A monk's ascetic stuff is 100% flavor, a pure visual reskin of the exact same baseline martial competency other classes get.

When y'all say Bjark wants "something for nothing" or to "get the best part of monk without any of the tradeoffs" you're talking about flavor like it's a feature. It simply isn't. Monks are awesome in 5e! It's true! Because of Stunning Strike. Or Evasion. Or dodge and disengage without losing an action. Or turning an archer's arrows against them. Or proficiency in all saving throws. Or speed like a cheetah on crack (all of which make the d8 hit die at least as safe as a d10 without them, much like the rogue). Or the ability to teleport between shadows or kill people with a touch. Not because they have exactly the same weapon damage as every other class, the exact same ability to grapple and hit for d6 at the same time as every other class, the exact same ability to have a weapon ready at the start of every fight as every other class. Bjark's reflavored club guy, even if you let his fists count as magical, is not going to have any of what actually makes a monk powerful. Not even the damage, because two 1d6 non-light weapons is a deeply suboptimal fighter build. He's not stealing any monk features, because a monk's unarmed damage is not a real feature to begin with, it's just "martial weapons proficiency" reskinned.

Y'all are making me feel like Pex here. This is a player asking to give up power in exchange for flavor and people are acting like he wants free short-rest Wish or something.


If you've got a DM who will put pressure on the dungeon so you can't short rest, you get to do that even less.

Much like the warlock, if I were playing in a game where I knew short rests were likely to be restricted, I wouldn't play a monk.

[Nagog]

So here's the secret about monks:

Several of their features are not actually features.

The game has a set of tools for characters who use weapon attacks to kill things. All of those characters get those tools. They are the baseline competency expectation of that role. Ranger, barbarian, fighter, rogue, and paladin can all expect to have between 17 and 20 AC if they wear the best (nonmagical) armor available to them and spend their ASIs in the way their class naturally inclines them to. They can all expect to have to invest in 2 attributes to take full advantage of their class. They can all expect to deal ~ 10 damage per round at level 1, twice that at level 5. In tier 2, when mundane-resistant enemies become more common, they can all expect to have access to at least one magic weapon, either from a spellcaster in the party or from finding one as loot.

The way the game solves this issue for all of these classes is exactly the same: proficiency in armor, one or more class features that boost damage by 1-3 per hit in tier 1 and another ~9-11 per round by 11, the Extra Attack feature, and proficiency with weapon types dealing 1d8 or more damage.

But monks aren't supposed to use those things, so what did WotC do? They gave monks "armor without armor" feature gives them 20 AC if they invest ASIs where their class wants them to invest in, higher than the ranger or rogue before magic. They gave monks a "weapon without a weapon" that has the exact same damage curve as every other martial class from level 5 to 11, and starts higher than anyone else at level 1. They gave them a "my fists are magical" feature with the exact same ability to overcome enemy damage resistance that every other martial has access to by level 7. A monk's ascetic stuff is 100% flavor, a pure visual reskin of the exact same baseline martial competency other classes get.

When y'all say Bjark wants "something for nothing" or to "get the best part of monk without any of the tradeoffs" you're talking about flavor like it's a feature. It simply isn't. Monks are awesome in 5e! It's true! Because of Stunning Strike. Or Evasion. Or dodge and disengage without losing an action. Or turning an archer's arrows against them. Or proficiency in all saving throws. Or speed like a cheetah on crack (all of which make the d8 hit die at least as safe as a d10 without them, much like the rogue). Or the ability to teleport between shadows or kill people with a touch. Not because they have exactly the same weapon damage as every other class, the exact same ability to grapple and hit for d6 at the same time as every other class, the exact same ability to have a weapon ready at the start of every fight as every other class. Bjark's reflavored club guy, even if you let his fists count as magical, is not going to have any of what actually makes a monk powerful. Not even the damage, because two 1d6 non-light weapons is a deeply suboptimal fighter build.

Y'all are making me feel like Pex here. This is a player asking to give up power in exchange for flavor and people are acting like he wants free short-rest Wish or something.

Thank you! This is exactly what I was trying to say, but you've worded it much clearer.

[Reevh]

So here's the secret about monks:

Several of their features are not actually features.

The game has a set of tools for characters who use weapon attacks to kill things. All of those characters get those tools. They are the baseline competency expectation of that role. Ranger, barbarian, fighter, rogue, and paladin can all expect to have between 17 and 20 AC if they wear the best (nonmagical) armor available to them and spend their ASIs in the way their class naturally inclines them to. They can all expect to have to invest in 2 attributes to take full advantage of their class. They can all expect to deal ~ 10 damage per round at level 1, twice that at level 5. In tier 2, when mundane-resistant enemies become more common, they can all expect to have access to at least one magic weapon, either from a spellcaster in the party or from finding one as loot.

The way the game solves this issue for all of these classes is exactly the same: proficiency in armor, one or more class features that boost damage by 1-3 per hit in tier 1 and another ~9-11 per round by 11, the Extra Attack feature, and proficiency with weapon types dealing 1d8 or more damage.

But monks aren't supposed to use those things, so what did WotC do? They gave monks "armor without armor" feature gives them 20 AC if they invest ASIs where their class wants them to invest in, higher than the ranger or rogue before magic. They gave monks a "weapon without a weapon" that has the exact same damage curve as every other martial class from level 5 to 11, and starts higher than anyone else at level 1. They gave them a "my fists are magical" feature with the exact same ability to overcome enemy damage resistance that every other martial has access to by level 7. A monk's ascetic stuff is 100% flavor, a pure visual reskin of the exact same baseline martial competency other classes get.

When y'all say Bjark wants "something for nothing" or to "get the best part of monk without any of the tradeoffs" you're talking about flavor like it's a feature. It simply isn't. Monks are awesome in 5e! It's true! Because of Stunning Strike. Or Evasion. Or dodge and disengage without losing an action. Or turning an archer's arrows against them. Or proficiency in all saving throws. Or speed like a cheetah on crack (all of which make the d8 hit die at least as safe as a d10 without them, much like the rogue). Or the ability to teleport between shadows or kill people with a touch. Not because they have exactly the same weapon damage as every other class, the exact same ability to grapple and hit for d6 at the same time as every other class, the exact same ability to have a weapon ready at the start of every fight as every other class. Bjark's reflavored club guy, even if you let his fists count as magical, is not going to have any of what actually makes a monk powerful. Not even the damage, because two 1d6 non-light weapons is a deeply suboptimal fighter build. He's not stealing any monk features, because a monk's unarmed damage is not a real feature to begin with, it's just "martial weapons proficiency" reskinned.

Y'all are making me feel like Pex here. This is a player asking to give up power in exchange for flavor and people are acting like he wants free short-rest Wish or something.



Much like the warlock, if I were playing in a game where I knew short rests were likely to be restricted, I wouldn't play a monk.

Well said.

[JackPhoenix]

Now, I'm not a fighter, but. Aren't opportunity attacks near-impossible when you don't have the extended reach a weapon provides?

What extended reach? If anything, reach weapons make it HARDER to take opportunity attacks, as they give your enemy more space to move around you.

[Tanarii]

Now if you as a DM don't want to allow that, it's your prerogative. But I don't entirely understand the "he can't have this character concept for free, even though it effectively doesn't change anything in the game." If it helps your player have more fun at the table and doesn't have a real impact on game mechanics, why not?
Now if you as a DM want to allow that, it's your prerogative. But I don't entirely understand the "he can have this character concept for free, even though it changes several things in the game." If your player wants to eek out a mechanical advantage by trying to disguise it as a more fun at the table, why allow it?

[CorporateSlave]

Y'all are making me feel like Pex here. This is a player asking to give up power in exchange for flavor and people are acting like he wants free short-rest Wish or something.


Well, that would appear to be all he is asking for, based on the way (very specifically worded) he is asking for it...but... as a DM, I would view it as a player asking for something a Feat already gives him access to, without having to spend the Feat on it, and in a way that gives certain other mechanical, non-flavor advantages (I'm sure it's different at different tables, but having hands always free and them being your weapons is a big thing where I play, with far greater implications that mere re-flavor of a club.).

I mean, maybe if you make them special gauntlets or something that a) justify the damage, b) can be taken away, c) have to be donned/doffed, and d) make grappling/manipulating objects harder or impossible.

[Misterwhisper]

Essentially he wants the unarmed damage of a level 5 monk with no investment, or the equivalent of using a pair of maxes but keeping his hands free.

No.

Monk is the only way under the normal rules to make bonus action unarmed attacks other than racial once per rest abilities, unarmed is not a weapon so not even dual wielder would help.

[Bjarkmundur]

What extended reach? If anything, reach weapons make it HARDER to take opportunity attacks, as they give your enemy more space to move around you.

I'm not talking about Reach Weapons.
Stand up. Hold out your hand.
Now grab the nearest thing, and hold out your hand again.
Hand + object goes further than just hand?
I imagine hitting an enemy running past you is easier if you have something to hit him with as he whooses past you. Trying to punch someone who's running past you sounds like a difficult thing to do. Just a point I made to see if anyone would respond.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm not talking about Reach Weapons.
Stand up. Hold out your hand.
Now grab the nearest thing, and hold out your hand again.
Hand + object goes further than just hand?
I imagine hitting an enemy running past you is easier if you have something to hit him with as he whooses past you. Trying to punch someone who's running past you sounds like a difficult thing to do. Just a point I made to see if anyone would respond.

That's not how things work. Unarmed strike has 5' reach. Non-reach weapons also have 5' reach. There's literally no difference between the two as far as opportunity attacks are concerned.

[DarknessEternal]

Because no matter how much of a badass you think a person is, they aren’t as deadly as a short sword.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because no matter how much of a badass you think a person is, they aren’t as deadly as a short sword.

Two things:

The best weapon is not held in the hands, but in the mind and soul of the user.

Also, you can be much deadlier with your hands than with a short sword...with the appropriate number of levels in the monk class.

[Zhorn]

The best weapon is not held in the hands, but in the mind and soul of the user

so.... fireball? :smallbiggrin:

[Misterwhisper]

so.... fireball? :smallbiggrin:

Pretty sure he meant psychic damage.

Or maybe psionics.

That is the key, Mystics.

[Zalabim]

As I have said 100s of times, if there were magical + gloves or cestus or knuckles, most monk problems would solve themselves.

Not in some new book like the double scimitar, add it to the dmg so it can actually be rolled for on loot.
There's the insignia of claws. It doesn't need to be added to the table because it's already precedent for any "any weapon" item to be as an insignia, making its effects apply to unarmed strikes and natural weapon attacks. Like "Weapon +1" could be an insignia of claws +1. For the purposes of the replacement, an insignia has the same attunement requirement as the enchantment it copies and can be given a more appropriate name and appearance. An Insignia of Warning, for example.

About enchanting ypur unarmed attack.
There is an amulet for it.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/insignia-of-claws

Wait a minute, it is not an amulet, may I remember it being one in older editions.

If I have a player in my table playing unarmed(not without arms, the one without weapons) I will add it to some loot/prize pool.
I will even add some cool Homebrew upgraded versions like I do for regular weapons and armors.
Not an amulet, but an insignia. The basic kind doesn't even require attunement. For those without D&D beyond access to hoard of the dragon queen, imagine it's exactly like the Weapon +1/+2/+3 entry, but you wear it, it lights up when active, and it applies the benefit to unarmed strikes and natural weapons. So it's probably easier to remove than an amulet worn around the neck and it is at least obviously magical in some way, so someone might think to remove or steal it in combat.

So here's the secret about monks:

Several of their features are not actually features.

The game has a set of tools for characters who use weapon attacks to kill things. All of those characters get those tools. They are the baseline competency expectation of that role. Ranger, barbarian, fighter, rogue, and paladin can all expect to have between 17 and 20 AC if they wear the best (nonmagical) armor available to them and spend their ASIs in the way their class naturally inclines them to. They can all expect to have to invest in 2 attributes to take full advantage of their class. They can all expect to deal ~ 10 damage per round at level 1, twice that at level 5. In tier 2, when mundane-resistant enemies become more common, they can all expect to have access to at least one magic weapon, either from a spellcaster in the party or from finding one as loot.

The way the game solves this issue for all of these classes is exactly the same: proficiency in armor, one or more class features that boost damage by 1-3 per hit in tier 1 and another ~9-11 per round by 11, the Extra Attack feature, and proficiency with weapon types dealing 1d8 or more damage.

But monks aren't supposed to use those things, so what did WotC do? They gave monks "armor without armor" feature gives them 20 AC if they invest ASIs where their class wants them to invest in, higher than the ranger or rogue before magic. They gave monks a "weapon without a weapon" that has the exact same damage curve as every other martial class from level 5 to 11, and starts higher than anyone else at level 1. They gave them a "my fists are magical" feature with the exact same ability to overcome enemy damage resistance that every other martial has access to by level 7. A monk's ascetic stuff is 100% flavor, a pure visual reskin of the exact same baseline martial competency other classes get.

When y'all say Bjark wants "something for nothing" or to "get the best part of monk without any of the tradeoffs" you're talking about flavor like it's a feature. It simply isn't. Monks are awesome in 5e! It's true! Because of Stunning Strike. Or Evasion. Or dodge and disengage without losing an action. Or turning an archer's arrows against them. Or proficiency in all saving throws. Or speed like a cheetah on crack (all of which make the d8 hit die at least as safe as a d10 without them, much like the rogue). Or the ability to teleport between shadows or kill people with a touch. Not because they have exactly the same weapon damage as every other class, the exact same ability to grapple and hit for d6 at the same time as every other class, the exact same ability to have a weapon ready at the start of every fight as every other class. Bjark's reflavored club guy, even if you let his fists count as magical, is not going to have any of what actually makes a monk powerful. Not even the damage, because two 1d6 non-light weapons is a deeply suboptimal fighter build. He's not stealing any monk features, because a monk's unarmed damage is not a real feature to begin with, it's just "martial weapons proficiency" reskinned.

Y'all are making me feel like Pex here. This is a player asking to give up power in exchange for flavor and people are acting like he wants free short-rest Wish or something.



Much like the warlock, if I were playing in a game where I knew short rests were likely to be restricted, I wouldn't play a monk.
I only have one small point of contention. The scaling damage of martial arts is part of the monk's class-based damage scaling, and not something to replace magical weapons with bonuses to damage. Monks can use magical weapons and magical weapon-likes for monks (and moon druids, lizardfolk and the like) exist. The gap that exists for non-weapon users is silvered weapons and spells that apply a bonus to manufactured weapons, like Magic Weapon, and I don't see any particular reason Magic Weapon shouldn't be allowed on a creature's natural weapon, at least.

[patchyman]

Two things:

The best weapon is not held in the hands, but in the mind and soul of the user.

Also, you can be much deadlier with your hands than with a short sword...with the appropriate number of levels in the monk class.

While that is true, there are some people (myself included) who don’t like monks, including for genre reasons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While that is true, there are some people (myself included) who don’t like monks, including for genre reasons.

Sure. De gustibas. But in context of someone trying to get the benefits of multiple levels in the monk class without actually taking those levels, it's a key point. Getting a partial 5-level multiclass (dual wielding d6 unarmed attacks) without spending any build resources is rather the definition of "seeking mechanical advantage".

[stoutstien]

Sure. De gustibas. But in context of someone trying to get the benefits of multiple levels in the monk class without actually taking those levels, it's a key point. Getting a partial 5-level multiclass (dual wielding d6 unarmed attacks) without spending any build resources is rather the definition of "seeking mechanical advantage".

I think I does come down to cost. What is the player willing to give up for said unarmed damage+ the opportunity to cast weapon enhancing spell on them.
Maybe fighting style, medium/heavy/shield proficiency, and give them a scaled down unarmed monk progression. Starts at d4 and caps at d8.

[Misterwhisper]

There's the insignia of claws. It doesn't need to be added to the table because it's already precedent for any "any weapon" item to be as an insignia, making its effects apply to unarmed strikes and natural weapon attacks. Like "Weapon +1" could be an insignia of claws +1. For the purposes of the replacement, an insignia has the same attunement requirement as the enchantment it copies and can be given a more appropriate name and appearance. An Insignia of Warning, for example.

Not an amulet, but an insignia. The basic kind doesn't even require attunement. For those without D&D beyond access to hoard of the dragon queen, imagine it's exactly like the Weapon +1/+2/+3 entry, but you wear it, it lights up when active, and it applies the benefit to unarmed strikes and natural weapons. So it's probably easier to remove than an amulet worn around the neck and it is at least obviously magical in some way, so someone might think to remove or steal it in combat.

I only have one small point of contention. The scaling damage of martial arts is part of the monk's class-based damage scaling, and not something to replace magical weapons with bonuses to damage. Monks can use magical weapons and magical weapon-likes for monks (and moon druids, lizardfolk and the like) exist. The gap that exists for non-weapon users is silvered weapons and spells that apply a bonus to manufactured weapons, like Magic Weapon, and I don't see any particular reason Magic Weapon shouldn't be allowed on a creature's natural weapon, at least.

No, they don’t exist in the any weapon magic item because they are not weapons so it is not possible to get them other than dm hand waving.

[Reevh]

I think I does come down to cost. What is the player willing to give up for said unarmed damage+ the opportunity to cast weapon enhancing spell on them.
Maybe fighting style, medium/heavy/shield proficiency, and give them a scaled down unarmed monk progression. Starts at d4 and caps at d8.

Why not just reskin clubs? Make them cestus style armored gloves that they have to put on and take off that interferes with object interactions while equipped.

This whole business of “they’re getting a monk feature” makes zero sense to me. Monk damage scaling isn’t so much a feature as it is just an acknowledgment that they aren’t using weapons and still need damage. This fighter, by real inning clubs, is taking a mechanical disadvantage compared to both monks AND other fighters, so I boggle at how much people are acting like this is a major ask.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why not just reskin clubs? Make them cestus style armored gloves that they have to put on and take off that interferes with object interactions while equipped.

This whole business of “they’re getting a monk feature” makes zero sense to me. Monk damage scaling isn’t so much a feature as it is just an acknowledgment that they aren’t using weapons and still need damage. This fighter, by real inning clubs, is taking a mechanical disadvantage compared to both monks AND other fighters, so I boggle at how much people are acting like this is a major ask.

Except monks are using weapons. Every one I've seen uses a quarterstaff until the unarmed die catches up, and even then they usually have a magic one. It's absolutely a feature.

And you can't DW clubs. They're not light. You also can't wield clubs and keep your hands free. That's the key here--you're getting all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. That's munchkinry at its most basic.

[stoutstien]

Why not just reskin clubs? Make them cestus style armored gloves that they have to put on and take off that interferes with object interactions while equipped.

This whole business of “they’re getting a monk feature” makes zero sense to me. Monk damage scaling isn’t so much a feature as it is just an acknowledgment that they aren’t using weapons and still need damage. This fighter, by real inning clubs, is taking a mechanical disadvantage compared to both monks AND other fighters, so I boggle at how much people are acting like this is a major ask.

Because one of OP stipulations was that they didn't want to be holding weapons for grappling and such.

[Reevh]

Except monks are using weapons. Every one I've seen uses a quarterstaff until the unarmed die catches up, and even then they usually have a magic one. It's absolutely a feature.

And you can't DW clubs. They're not light. You also can't wield clubs and keep your hands free. That's the key here--you're getting all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. That's munchkinry at its most basic.

Ok, make it short swords and spiked gloves then. Light piercing weapons. Regardless, the fighter already has it. It’s a damned reskin. If you’re bothered by the free hands thing, make the gloves closed such that you can’t manipulate objects while wearing them. Whatever.

It’s not a mechanical issue. It’s whether or not you’re willing to let a fighter take a suboptimal build to meet their own vision of how their character will play, in a way that gives them no real mechanical advantage.

[JNAProductions]

Because one of OP stipulations was that they didn't want to be holding weapons for grappling and such.


Ok, make it short swords and spiked gloves then. Light piercing weapons. Regardless, the fighter already has it. It’s a damned reskin. If you’re bothered by the free hands thing, make the gloves closed such that you can’t manipulate objects while wearing them. Whatever.

It’s not a mechanical issue. It’s whether or not you’re willing to let a fighter take a suboptimal build to meet their own vision of how their character will play, in a way that gives them no real mechanical advantage.

See the quote above yours.

[Reevh]

See the quote above yours.

Drop one of the gloves, grapple, punch. Works the same as with short swords. Done. Just make the mechanics identical to short swords and let the player have their fantasy.

[JNAProductions]

Drop one of the gloves, grapple, punch. Works the same as with short swords. Done. Just make the mechanics identical to short swords and let the player have their fantasy.

Right... But Bjark is not asking for that. They're not asking for a reflavor-they're asking for a straight boost.

[Reevh]

Right... But Bjark is not asking for that. They're not asking for a reflavor-they're asking for a straight boost.

OK. I'd consider it an incredibly minor boost, personally, but if you don't want to give it to them, it seems like you could disallow that without killing the whole concept for the player. Just renegotiate that detail and suggest an alternative (like reskinning short swords).

[JNAProductions]

OK. I'd consider it an incredibly minor boost, personally, but if you don't want to give it to them, it seems like you could disallow that without killing the whole concept for the player. Just renegotiate that detail and suggest an alternative (like reskinning short swords).

I already suggested what I'd do-I'd homebrew a Fighting Style and/or subclass. Then, there's a cost associated with the benefits.

[Reevh]

I already suggested what I'd do-I'd homebrew a Fighting Style and/or subclass. Then, there's a cost associated with the benefits.

Needing to use a fighting style in order to have hands free while fighting feels like the cost is way out of line with the benefit, but I guess that's a discussion with your DM.

[Misterwhisper]

Needing to use a fighting style in order to have hands free while fighting feels like the cost is way out of line with the benefit, but I guess that's a discussion with your DM.

Not when they want to go from 1 damage to 1d6 damage on those attacks.

[Reevh]

Not when they want to go from 1 damage to 1d6 damage on those attacks.

They already had 1d6 on attacks. They can do that with short swords. The benefit of doing that damage unarmed is that you have your hands free while doing so, not that you're getting more damage. It's the same damage (and actually lower, since dual wielding is sub-par for fighters).

[Misterwhisper]

They already had 1d6 on attacks. They can do that with short swords. The benefit of doing that damage unarmed is that you have your hands free while doing so, not that you're getting more damage. It's the same damage (and actually lower, since dual wielding is sub-par for fighters).

Or you could just consider it making unarmed do 1d6.

Also unarmed can’t be used for dual wielding.

[Reevh]

Or you could just consider it making unarmed do 1d6.

Also unarmed can’t be used for dual wielding.

The only benefit making unarmed do 1d6 is the ability to fight without your hands full, though, because there are already ways to do that 1d6. That's what I'm saying.

Yeah, unarmed can't do dual wielding. Which is why this isn't really unarmed. It's a reskin of existing fighter mechanics with weapons to make it feel like you're playing a bruiser punch man, even if it's short swords mechanically.

[Sigreid]

This whole thread displays why it is a discussion at the table.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Personally I would allow it. The fighter would still be less effective than a straight monk or a fighter who uses a traditional weapon set, even if they gain some very minor advantages in return (Can't be disarmed, which I personally almost never do, but if it was a big deal in a campaign I would simply rule disarm effects temporarily cripple your hands) and seems to be entirely for flavor rather than mechanical advantage. Some DMs seem to be instantly suspicious of any player requests that change mechanics in any way, shape, or form, which I can understand if you've had bad experiences with player behavior at the table. Personally I game only with friends so I trust them not to try to game the system like that, and if a request like this ended up being super overpowered somehow (I don't really see how a TWF fighter with essentially slightly better shortswords is going to outperform anybody, but I could be wrong) I'd just later explain that we might have to change it to a reskin because it isn't working out.

In my opinion telling a player they HAVE to be a monk to get unarmed stuff is just a little stifling, its kind of a big niche to be the sole purview of one class, especially one with such a strong, specific flavor tied to it as Monk. I know somebody who absolutely loves being a strength based punch-y character, and as the current rules don't allow for it and as its mostly worse than being a GWM, Polearm, or Dual Wielder fighter, doing the absolute bare minimum to allow them to keep up with the rest of the group doesn't seem like it's going too far and they've never really been more effective than anyone else in a group, in fact often times less so.

I would also argue that Tavern Brawler is an under powered feat, and would fill this gap nicely if it simply added a Bonus Action attack, or at least upped the damage die to a 1d6, rather than a d4.

[Sigreid]

Personally I would allow it. The fighter would still be less effective than a straight monk or a fighter who uses a traditional weapon set, even if they gain some very minor advantages in return (Can't be disarmed, which I personally almost never do, but if it was a big deal in a campaign I would simply rule disarm effects temporarily cripple your hands) and seems to be entirely for flavor rather than mechanical advantage. Some DMs seem to be instantly suspicious of any player requests that change mechanics in any way, shape, or form, which I can understand if you've had bad experiences with player behavior at the table. Personally I game only with friends so I trust them not to try to game the system like that, and if a request like this ended up being super overpowered somehow (I don't really see how a TWF fighter with essentially slightly better shortswords is going to outperform anybody, but I could be wrong) I'd just later explain that we might have to change it to a reskin because it isn't working out.

In my opinion telling a player they HAVE to be a monk to get unarmed stuff is just a little stifling, its kind of a big niche to be the sole purview of one class, especially one with such a strong, specific flavor tied to it as Monk. I know somebody who absolutely loves being a strength based punch-y character, and as the current rules don't allow for it and as its mostly worse than being a GWM, Polearm, or Dual Wielder fighter, doing the absolute bare minimum to allow them to keep up with the rest of the group doesn't seem like it's going too far and they've never really been more effective than anyone else in a group, in fact often times less so.

I would also argue that Tavern Brawler is an under powered feat, and would fill this gap nicely if it simply added a Bonus Action attack, or at least upped the damage die to a 1d6, rather than a d4.

At least for me, it's far less about individual player intent than the fact that once it's approved at the table it's available at the table. Therefore all potential consequences need to be considered, regardless of the initiating player's intent.

[MagneticKitty]

You can use brute fighter and tavern brawler.... Or pugilist

[Tiadoppler]

Dear DM

- I have a very specific character concept in my mind, and I was wondering if you'd allow me a couple of things, outside the rules?
- What did you have in mind?
- Well, I want to make a slight change to my character's weapon loadout.
- So you want a bigger damage dice, is that it?
- Uhm, no, smaller actually?
- Smaller?
- Yeah, I want two one-handed weapons dealing 1d6 bludgeoning damage each.
- Yeah, sure that works.
- Ok, can we rule it that it doesn't occupy my hand?
- If this is to do some spellcasting shenanigans....
- I'm a full martial character.
- Oh, um, why then?
- I just want to be able to grapple and interact with objects without having to keep track of stowing/sheathing my weapon.
- I mean, we kinda do that anyways, but sure.
- Ok thanks!
- That's it? You want a 1d6 weapon dice and not have to worry about your hands?
- And I want to be able to enchant it, or otherwise not be ignored when it comes to magic weapons!
- What, why would I ever exclude you from being able to use magic weapons?
- Because I want to be an unarmed fighter.



This is not asking for a smaller damage die. This is asking for a larger damage die on unarmed strikes. In fact, it's asking for a larger damage die than the Tavern Brawler feat give you. If a player asks me for a favor and lies to make their point, that makes me less likely to be agreeable.



I've read so many threads regarding how to make an unarmed compatant, like simply handwaving it is this big game-breaking tactic that makes DMs cry themselves to sleep.Is there something I'm missing about unarmed fighters? It just sounds like the most reasonable request a player might make: to be able to count as wielding a weapon and not wielding a weapon at the same time, without having to play a Monk.

The most reasonable request a player can make is a simple reskin (I want my longsword to be a katana). There are already ways to increase your unarmed damage. What is the precise reason that you want to 'count as wielding a weapon'? When a player comes to me asking for "fluff", but describes it in specific mechanical terms, I get suspicious, because it's usually a precursor to using some specific rules interaction (for example: duel wielding, sneak attack or whatever). This makes me less likely to be agreeable.

If you want a mechanical benefit from your DM, be up-front about it. Many DMs value honesty and are willing to work with a player to make a viable houserule (especially if it's to pursue some un-supported combo or character archetype). At the same time, trying to trap the DM into agreeing to some non-RAW exploit or combo will make them sad (and less likely to be agreeable in the future).




What it might affect:

Concealing weapons
Disarm effects
The Monk's ego


The thing is: concealing weapons and disarm effects are both pretty important balance issues in some games. Sure, if you're doing a basic dungeon crawl against dumb monsters, it won't matter much, but if you're fighting humanoids, or dealing with any sort of intrigue/politics/stealth, it can be a big deal.

Also, what did Monks ever do to you?




Nothing that significantly impacts the flow, balance, or verisimilitude of the game



Nope. Maybe it's true in some campaigns, but saying "my fists are better than clubs" and "I can't be disarmed" at the beginning of a game will prompt other players to ask what they get. You're asking for mechanical benefit at no cost and that's okay, for some games. As long as every player gets a similar power boost, you're not going to cause any problems. If none of the other players are getting benefits, you should instead treat it as a feat or character option that you can spend resources on at higher levels.



Note: This thread is intended to discuss whether counting fists as a non-light bludgeoning weapons for the sake of meeting requirements of features and abilities is an unreasonable request, not to go into optimizing a grappling barbarian or a multiclass monk. Actually, let's just leave grappling out of the situation as a whole.


"I want to count my fighter's fists as non-light bludgeoning weapons that deal 1d6."

Let's rephrase it this way:


"I'm playing a fighter, and I want to start the game with two maces. They're invisible so people can't see that I have them. I can summon them to my hands or make them disappear into a secure extraplanar storage space without spending an action. They don't count as magical yet, but I'll want to enchant them even more once I get some money."



I'd compromise by making some new 'unarmed' weapons to use.

New martial weapons:

Brass Knuckles (5gp) 1d4 bludgeoning damage (1/4 lb) Light, Hands-Free
Spiked Knuckles (10gp) 1d6 piercing damage (1/2 lb) Hands-Free


Special Property: Hands-Free. Instead of holding this weapon normally, you wear it on one of your hands. While wearing this weapon, your hand still counts as free. If your hand is occupied (by another item or effect, such as grappling or climbing), you cannot make attacks with this weapon, and you do not count as wielding this weapon.

[JackPhoenix]

And you can't DW clubs. They're not light. You also can't wield clubs and keep your hands free. That's the key here--you're getting all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. That's munchkinry at its most basic.



Club
1 sp
1d4 bludgeoning
—
2 lb.
light

[PhoenixPhyre]

Club
1 sp
1d4 bludgeoning
—
2 lb.
light



Oops. Misremembered that. But still, having your hands free is a strong benefit. And 1d6 is not 1d4.

I'd be fine with homebrewing some custom knuckles, given the right circumstances. Heck, I'd be fine with just calling a pair of clubs a pair of knuckles. No dice size increase, no free hand, but monk weapons.

But giving it for free? Especially with an attitude of "I deserve this, if you don't you're a bad DM?" No.

[Hail Tempus]

Oops. Misremembered that. But still, having your hands free is a strong benefit. And 1d6 is not 1d4.

I'd be fine with homebrewing some custom knuckles, given the right circumstances. Heck, I'd be fine with just calling a pair of clubs a pair of knuckles. No dice size increase, no free hand, but monk weapons.

But giving it for free? Especially with an attitude of "I deserve this, if you don't you're a bad DM?" No. I'd be suspicious that the player is trying to set up some silly combo a few levels down the road. Wanting his hands free at all times to be able to grapple is a red flag.

The OP's attitude in his post reminds me of some posters on here who consider any DM who disallows metal armor for Druids as being completely unreasonable and unfair.

[patchyman]

Sure. De gustibas. But in context of someone trying to get the benefits of multiple levels in the monk class without actually taking those levels, it's a key point. Getting a partial 5-level multiclass (dual wielding d6 unarmed attacks) without spending any build resources is rather the definition of "seeking mechanical advantage".

I think that ultimately we are in agreement here. Several posters have given mechanical reasons why they dislike the OP’s approach. I was just pointing out their are narrative reasons as well: a DM might allow monks because they are core without wanting Str-based monk clones running around.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I'd be suspicious that the player is trying to set up some silly combo a few levels down the road. Wanting his hands free at all times to be able to grapple is a red flag.

The OP's attitude in his post reminds me of some posters on here who consider any DM who disallows metal armor for Druids as being completely unreasonable and unfair.

While it is not completely unreasonable, I do find it slightly unfair. The metal armor restriction is entirely a flavor decision, not a mechanical balance one (confirmed by the devs in the past).

I think there is just a certain set of DMs who want to adhere to the rules in the book as closely as possible, and that is fine, but I personally find that a little too restricting and it can harm the fun, especially on a more roleplaying focused game where the rule crunch isn't as important as getting across the flavor and style of your character through mechanics. For a dungeon-crawly game where combat is the entire focus, I can understand being more wary about any rules variations, because if they're not for flavor reasons it's more likely its for some sort of mechanical advantage.

In games I run, I wouldn't want to crush someones dreams of having a bare-knuckled brawler type character, and I also wouldn't want them to be so sub-optimal for their choice (like I believe would happen with Tavern Brawler or having to multiclass into monk solely for some martial arts die) that they lag behind others in the game and don't get any time to shine, so I'm willing to work with a player to make sure their character concept can be made to work. But I also don't' overly concern myself with balance. As long as each player isn't contributing excessively more or less than any other player, I can make combats work for them, so it isn't really a big deal, so I have no problem letting a fighter "steal" martial arts die so they can do a concept normally non-viable in the game right now. I sincerely doubt grappling will break anything, since you could already just wield a longsword one handed and grapple with your offhand anyway which generally does not cause any problems. If it was a game where stealth and being able to conceal weapons was very important though, maybe I would have to rethink it, but generally, that very rarely comes up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While it is not completely unreasonable, I do find it slightly unfair. The metal armor restriction is entirely a flavor decision, not a mechanical balance one (confirmed by the devs in the past).


Repeat after me--there is no fluff/crunch distinction. "Flavor" rules are just as much rules as "mechanical" ones. On purpose. For good reason. Heck, IMO "fluff" rules are more important and essential than mechanical ones, because they influence much more than just resolving one particular type of interaction. They dictate how the character should be overall.

[Tanarii]

While it is not completely unreasonable, I do find it slightly unfair. The metal armor restriction is entirely a flavor decision, not a mechanical balance one (confirmed by the devs in the past).
Their answer pretty clearly indicates that insofar as 5e has story elements (which is a stupid term because RPGs aren't about stories, and it's a historical element) and game elements, they are interlinked and blended together. Not separate things, including I their decision making. You seem to read their answer and came to the wrong conclusion, that "flavor" and "mechanical balance" are somehow seperable things in5e.

They also said "you won't break anything" if you change it, and that is probably technically true from their personal definition of "not breaking things". After all, they didn't think GWM, SS, BB, GFB, or the Hexblade breaks things. Their bar for breaking is incredibly high.

[Sigreid]

You know, if one player just wants to have one character punch stuff, the easiest thing would be to introduce gauntlets of pummeling that they could try to find.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Their answer pretty clearly indicates that insofar as 5e has story elements (which is a stupid term because RPGs aren't about stories, and it's a historical element) and game elements, they are interlinked and blended together. Not separate things, including I their decision making. You seem to read their answer and came to the wrong conclusion, that "flavor" and "mechanical balance" are somehow seperable things in5e.

They also said "you won't break anything" if you change it, and that is probably technically true from their personal definition of "not breaking things". After all, they didn't think GWM, SS, BB, GFB, or the Hexblade breaks things. Their bar for breaking is incredibly high.

I would agree with the devs that those things all don't really break things, even though my opinion is in the minority on that. I have had characters using everything you listed in my games,

Also, I disagree entirely on many things you've said. I find RPGs, and DnD, to be primarily about stories, and I think that may be the source of the disconnect between many of the things we think. I personally find all the "fluff" rules to be very particular to a certain style of game, particularly those based in the default forgotten realms that have a strict adherence to standard lore, which is stuff I generally ignore for my games and most DMs I know do similar, or at least are willing to refluff stuff to suit the kind of game they want to run or certain player desires.

I do think flavor and mechanical balance are entirely separable, because I've personally run games that allows players to ignore the standard fluff of their class (Druids can wear metal armor and don't have to care about nature, clerics don't need to pick a god, paladins won't "fall" for minor oath infractions unless the player and I both agree it would be a good story moment. Haven't thought about having a paladin with no oath, but no one has ever asked for it before) and just use the classes as a set of mechanical rules to represent the character they want to play. If the mechanical rules don't necessarily jive with the way they want to play that character, I always allow changes within reason, as long as no player outpaces another, because in the end its all about me and the players telling a story, and having fun. I realize not everyone runs their game that way, and that's fine, but in my personal opinion it tends to work out better for player satisfaction in the end.

[Tanarii]

Its fine if you think 5e is about stories, and fluff/mechanical are seperable.

That just means your opinion matches the dev design philosphy on stories (for example see the entire PHB intro) and mine doesn't.

Conversely your opionion on rules philosphy doesn't match the 5e design philosphy, and mine does.

This means there will be things that dont work for me due to a design vs my philosphy disconnect, and different things where you run into the same problem. To whit, the rule on Druid Armor causes a disconnect for you. And others that share your philosophy have a problem with not being able to easily "reflavor" to unarmed d6 punches.

[HappyDaze]

What about a pair of sticks that can grip like hands and/or do 1d6 crushing damage?
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-0kvv9/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/173947/248310/robothand__33259.1507578896.jpg?c=2&imbypass=on

[NNescio]

What about a pair of sticks that can grip like hands and/or do 1d6 crushing damage?
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-0kvv9/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/173947/248310/robothand__33259.1507578896.jpg?c=2&imbypass=on

Make it an extending arm for reach. Adjustable reach too, even when out of turn, for optimizing Opportunity Attacks!

[Tanarii]

What about a pair of sticks that can grip like hands and/or do 1d6 crushing damage?
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-0kvv9/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/173947/248310/robothand__33259.1507578896.jpg?c=2&imbypass=on
Now we know how Bugbears work.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Now we know how Bugbears work.

Speaking of Bugbears and how it's "unreasonable" to not just allow a player to have better fists, I had a new player who wanted to be the huge dude with long reach. He first made a 7'6 human expecting his height (and by extension [pun intended] his arm length) to factor into his reach.

I told him that wouldn't work for a human but I told him how he could make it work.

He is now Kevenn the Bugbear Monk. He loves playing Kevenn. Kevenn is the long arms of the law.

[Zalabim]

Their answer pretty clearly indicates that insofar as 5e has story elements (which is a stupid term because RPGs aren't about stories, and it's a historical element) and game elements, they are interlinked and blended together. Not separate things, including I their decision making. You seem to read their answer and came to the wrong conclusion, that "flavor" and "mechanical balance" are somehow seperable things in5e.

They also said "you won't break anything" if you change it, and that is probably technically true from their personal definition of "not breaking things". After all, they didn't think GWM, SS, BB, GFB, or the Hexblade breaks things. Their bar for breaking is incredibly high.
Well, those things don't cause the game to stop working. Usually. But they can certainly cause a narrowing of the metagame. There are obvious feats for Heavy melee weapons, but not for Versatile weapons, so Heavy weapons become more popular. Allow druids to wear metal armor and all druids should wear metal armor. A little higher AC isn't going to grind the game to a halt. After all, that's what magic items might do anyway. It just makes druids a little less druid-y.

[AHF]

I would allow this in one of my games with a caveat that I might disallow some object interaction or grappling shenanigans if I thought the player was abusing the “hands free” aspect. I would treat like a reskin of short swords as others have mentioned. Feels like this wouldn’t rank in the top 5 most powerful RAW fighter builds that a player could come up with after spending 30 minutes with the source books.

If I were running a game where disarm was a big deal I would use the gauntlet idea and allow opponents to pry those away with a disarm action.

If the character wants to really focus on grappling then a feat or fighting style seems an appropriate bridge.