Ways to make an unarmed strike as a bonus action?

[jaappleton]

I know Monks get it via Martial Arts.

I know one kind of Shifter can do it while shifted, with their fangs.

Is there any other way for a PC to make an unarmed strike with a bonus action? Via a Feat, any sort of subclass option, etc?

[Lavaeolus]

So, if something generally offers 'a weapon attack', that can theoretically be an unarmed strike. That in mind:

* Berserker Barbarians can attack during Frenzy.
* Valor Bards can, at level 14, attack after casting a spell.
* War Priests can make one after taking the Attack action (on a limit based on your WIS modifier).
* Eldritch Knights can attack after casting a cantrip or, at the high-level of 18, after a spell.

Similarly, Charger and Great Weapon Master can be used to make unarmed strikes, although in the latter case only after fulfilling conditions that require weapon-use.

These are pretty situational for an unarmed-focus character, but hey. In the interests of completeness.

[nickl_2000]

The Minotaur has something close.
Goring Rush
Immediately after you use the Dash action on your turn and move at least 20 feet, you can make one melee attack with your horns as a bonus action.


Lizardfolk gets 1 per short rest
Hungry Jaws
In battle, you can throw yourself into a vicious feeding frenzy. As a bonus action, you can make a special attack with your bite. If the attack hits, it deals its normal damage, and you gain temporary hit points (minimum of 1) equal to your Constitution modifier, and you can’t use this trait again until you finish a short or long rest.


That's the best I've got for you though, and its not all that great.

[Unoriginal]

I know Monks get it via Martial Arts.

I know one kind of Shifter can do it while shifted, with their fangs.

Is there any other way for a PC to make an unarmed strike with a bonus action? Via a Feat, any sort of subclass option, etc?

Aside from the Monk's other features that grant it, the only ways I know are:

-the Lizardfolk's Hungry Jaw

-the Berserker Barbarian's Frenzy

EDIT: Well others knew a lot more than me on this subject, it seems.



Similarly, Charger and Great Weapon Master can be used to make unarmed strikes, although in the latter case only after fulfilling conditions that require weapon-use.

These are pretty situational for an unarmed-focus character, but hey. In the interests of completeness.

Charger Fighter with the Unarmed fighting style could be pretty awesome, I must say.

[PhantomSoul]

Depending on whether you want mechanically unarmed (this doesn't count) or visually/thematically unarmed (this could count), there's a corner case for things like the Armorer Artificer's Guardian Armour Gauntlets (your two gauntlets become simple melee weapons) if you have the Dual Wielder Feat (you can dual-wield non-Light Weapons). Granted you're doing Thunder Damage so it's less unarmed-like, but maybe there are similar cases elsewhere.

If Theros is allowed, there's Goring Rush (but you must have Dashed, so it can't be a "flurry" of attacks) and Hammering Horns (Push effect that could be flavoured as an unarmed attack even if it's mechanically not).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Dual Wielder might or might not quite work by RAW, since an unarmed strike isn't technically a weapon you're holding, but I think you'd have a hard time finding a GM who would stop you.

[Zhorn]

Dual Wielder might or might not quite work by RAW, since an unarmed strike isn't technically a weapon you're holding, but I think you'd have a hard time finding a GM who would stop you.

For what it's worth, only the base TWF rule specify the weapons need to be "held in hand"
Once you get the Dual Wielder feat, the wording there only specifies "wielding"
It's a technicality, but if someone wants to lean on precise wording in RAW to try and block it, it's only fair to point at precise wording in RAW to allow it.


Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
...
versus

Dual Wielder
...
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
...
Each fist is one-handed, but you don't have to wield it "in hand" with the feat.

[quindraco]

Yeah, but in common parlance, no-one thinks you're wielding your fists or that a cat is wielding its claws. It's a big stretch to claim that an unarmed fighter is wielding anything, let alone dual-wielding. And since this is 5E, we don't have any game definitions for the word. I would always let you twf with punches - that should be easier than doing it with clubs, and you can do it with clubs - but it's a hard sell that the RAW supports it, even with the feat.

For OP: This also costs a reaction, but an order cleric can cast healing word on themselves as a bonus action, then use their reaction to make a weapon attack, which can be an unarmed strike. Battlemaster fighters can do the same thing but worse, spending an attack and a bonus action and a reaction and a superiority die to punch someone with the superiority die added to damage.

There are corner-cases that are GM-dependent, like the dual wielder feat we just discussed. For example, I expect most GMs to house-rule in some fashion Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade's monetary requirement, since RAW that means neither spell works with most magic weapons, as they don't have costs. A GM that simply tosses the material component requirement out entirely and merely mandates that you make a weapon attack as part of the spell is allowing Sorcerers, who can already use Quickened Booming Blade with a sword, to use it with an unarmed strike. Same thing for if they require a weapon but houserule that unarmed strikes count as weapons.

[Unoriginal]

I would always let you twf with punches

I wouldn't.

If you rule it that way, my question is: what are you giving to the Monks to replace the feature of theirs that just became an everyone thing ?

[jaappleton]

I wouldn't.

If you rule it that way, my question is: what are you giving to the Monks to replace the feature of theirs that just became an everyone thing ?

Monk hits become innately magical.
Monks get Ki to further empower their strikes with abilities.
Monks strikes scale as they level.

A Fighter with Unarmed Fighting gets none of that.

[Ertwin]

I wouldn't.

If you rule it that way, my question is: what are you giving to the Monks to replace the feature of theirs that just became an everyone thing ?

No Ki flurry?

[nickl_2000]

Monks strikes scale as they level.

A Fighter with Unarmed Fighting gets none of that.

Except unarmed Fighter gets 1d8 damage with their offhand at level 1 when they take fighting style. Monks get it at level 11.


However, the other points are valid and
-monks get to use dexterity.
-monk add dex bonus to damage without a feat


I'm not sure if I would allow it or not, or my table would though. No one has ever asked the question.

[quindraco]

I wouldn't.

If you rule it that way, my question is: what are you giving to the Monks to replace the feature of theirs that just became an everyone thing ?

You mean how they get the two-weapon fighting style with unarmed attacks? I'm not extending that to anyone. It would work like this:

*Absolutely anyone can engage in two-weapon fighting, counting one or two different body parts as unarmed strike weapons.
*Anyone with the two-weapon fighting style adds their ability modifier to the offhand attack; Monks functionally get this, but only for unarmed strikes.
*Monks and only monks get pseudo-finesse on their unarmed strikes.
**I think this is stupid as well, and I would probably just give them genuine finesse on their unarmed strikes, so a monk-rogue can function as expected.
*Anyone with the unarmed fighting style hits harder with unarmed strikes - monks get this as well, but with level-dependent, weird scaling.
**I don't like the PHB's scaling, and I think monks should hit harder, so I would change their martial arts die to match their proficiency die. Among other changes, this means their punches cap out at 1d12, not 1d10.

L1 monks are clearly designed to compete directly with twf fighters, by the way.

L1 monk: 1d8+dex/str,1d4+dex/str = 2*dex/str+7, usually 13
L1 twf fighter: 1d6+dex/str + 1d6 + dex/str = 2*dex/str+7, usually 13

Absolutely nothing breaks with my interpretation if the fighter takes unarmed fighting style:

L1 unarmed fighter: 1d8+str+1d8 = 9+str, usually 12

After that, it's a question of scaling, but at L1, I'm not being overly generous to fighters or anything, especially since I'm not giving them pseudo-finesse, so they're stuck using strength to punch.

[Unoriginal]

Monk hits become innately magical.
Monks get Ki to further empower their strikes with abilities.
Monks strikes scale as they level.

A Fighter with Unarmed Fighting gets none of that.


No Ki flurry?

You're telling me what the Monk have, and what people who aren't monk don't have.

You're not telling me what you're giving to the Monk to compensate giving their "make an unarmed strike as a bonus action" feature to everyone.

Let me put it differently: if you rule that everyone get one Fighting Style at lvl 1 for free, then my opinion is you need to give something else to the classes that get one Fighting Style already in order to compensate. Otherwise you're turning "this is what this class can do" into "they're just like everyone else on this point", and IMO it's not a good thing.


You mean how they get the two-weapon fighting style with unarmed attacks? I'm not extending that to anyone. It would work like this:

*Absolutely anyone can engage in two-weapon fighting, counting one or two different body parts as unarmed strike weapons.
*Anyone with the two-weapon fighting style adds their ability modifier to the offhand attack; Monks functionally get this, but only for unarmed strikes.
*Monks and only monks get pseudo-finesse on their unarmed strikes.
**I think this is stupid as well, and I would probably just give them genuine finesse on their unarmed strikes, so a monk-rogue can function as expected.
*Anyone with the unarmed fighting style hits harder with unarmed strikes - monks get this as well, but with level-dependent, weird scaling.
**I don't like the PHB's scaling, and I think monks should hit harder, so I would change their martial arts die to match their proficiency die. Among other changes, this means their punches cap out at 1d12, not 1d10.

L1 monks are clearly designed to compete directly with twf fighters, by the way.

L1 monk: 1d8+dex/str,1d4+dex/str = 2*dex/str+7, usually 13
L1 twf fighter: 1d6+dex/str + 1d6 + dex/str = 2*dex/str+7, usually 13

Absolutely nothing breaks with my interpretation if the fighter takes unarmed fighting style:

L1 unarmed fighter: 1d8+str+1d8 = 9+str, usually 12

After that, it's a question of scaling, but at L1, I'm not being overly generous to fighters or anything, especially since I'm not giving them pseudo-finesse, so they're stuck using strength to punch.

So a Fighter will have to make the choice between the Unarmed Fighting Style and the Two-Weapon Fighting Fighting Style?

[quindraco]

So a Fighter will have to make the choice between the Unarmed Fighting Style and the Two-Weapon Fighting Fighting Style?

That's how fighter fighting styles work, yes. Everyone can engage in two-weapon fighting, but not everyone just gets a fighting style, and when you get the opportunity to get one, you have to choose just one.

[nickl_2000]

You're not telling me what you're giving to the Monk to compensate giving their "make an unarmed strike as a bonus action" feature to everyone.



This is a perfectly fair question. Personally, I would say that you are giving a niche ability to other PCs. Most PCs, unless they take the unarmed fighting style won't be fighting without a weapon (and if you allowed this, I would definitely only allow 1d6 per unarmed strike instead of the 1d8). So, in return you give the monk a niche ability that won't break the game...

How about Monks can use wisdom for athletics checks instead of strength and they can attempt a grapple in place of the bonus action unarmed strike if they desire. This gives Monks something unique and represents the knowledge/ability aspect of martial arts of the pure strength of typical grappling.

This isn't making a monk excessively more powerful in combat, they aren't dealing more damage. However it makes them a more dynamic class, which is never a bad thing.

[quindraco]

This is a perfectly fair question. Personally, I would say that you are giving a niche ability to other PCs. Most PCs, unless they take the unarmed fighting style won't be fighting without a weapon (and if you allowed this, I would definitely only allow 1d6 per unarmed strike instead of the 1d8). So, in return you give the monk a niche ability that won't break the game...

How about Monks can use wisdom for athletics checks instead of strength and they can attempt a grapple in place of the bonus action unarmed strike if they desire. This gives Monks something unique and represents the knowledge/ability aspect of martial arts of the pure strength of typical grappling.

This isn't making a monk excessively more powerful in combat, they aren't dealing more damage. However it makes them a more dynamic class, which is never a bad thing.

Tasha's stomped all over Kensei - let's not repeat their mistake and stomp all over Astral Self monks. I would let monks replace any Athletics check with an Acrobatics check.

[Ertwin]

You're telling me what the Monk have, and what people who aren't monk don't have.

You're not telling me what you're giving to the Monk to compensate giving their "make an unarmed strike as a bonus action" feature to everyone.

My suggestion was to drop the Ki requirement to Flurry (1 point of Ki for 2 BA attacks instead of 1) Instead they'd just straight up get 2 unarmed attacks as a bonus action

[JackalTornMoons]

Remembered this wrong 😀

[Unoriginal]

Fun little thing you can do is that since the Simic Hybrid can flavor their appendages as claws, RAW their BA appendage attack will grant you an extra claw attack from Beast Barbarian 😀

Nah, the feature makes clear you can't do that. Beast Barbarian's claws are specifically not unarmed strikes.

[Lunali]

My suggestion was to drop the Ki requirement to Flurry (1 point of Ki for 2 BA attacks instead of 1) Instead they'd just straight up get 2 unarmed attacks as a bonus action

Which screws with the mechanics that give a bonus if you spend ki, either by giving the bonus on every round or by forcing the monk to spend ki for an effectively lesser effect.

[Mjolnirbear]

If you consider a Grapple as an unarmed attack, then you can add the Tavern Brawler feat. I do consider it an attack personally, because it takes up only one attack, requires the attack action or equivalent, and is an aggressive move to control an opponent. It just doesn't do damage.

As for the monk question posed by unoriginal... I wouldn't give monk anything.

* they didn't give paladins anything when they gave smites to warlocks
* they didn't give warlocks anything when invocations were handed out as a feat
* they didn't give sorcerers anything for the metamagic feat

... And that last one kinda upset me.

Bonus action attacks are nothing special or new, and PAM, GWM, XBE, can be added to the list of items put into this thread. The bonus action attack is not the problem. The unarmed bonus attack is where apparently the worry is, and frankly, you were always able to use a knee, kick, punch, or head butt for any of your attacks; just nobody did, because their fists aren't deadly weapons. It's ludicrous to think fighters shouldn't be able to punch properly, and given all the other class secrets handed out willy-nilly I see no reason for monk to enjoy special protection as the only class with deadly fists. Monks, like all the other classes, have more toys to work with than "Fist master".

[bid]

As for the monk question posed by unoriginal... I wouldn't give monk anything.

* they didn't give paladins anything when they gave smites to warlocks
* they didn't give warlocks anything when invocations were handed out as a feat
* they didn't give sorcerers anything for the metamagic feat

... And that last one kinda upset me.
Those are feats and have a cost (same with the smite invocation).
Should BA punch be a feat too?

[Mjolnirbear]

Those are feats and have a cost (same with the smite invocation).
Should BA punch be a feat too?

Two of the three I listed are feats, but the warlocks have smites as a class feature.

Further, to get a bonus action attack with two-weapon fighting, the fighter is taking Unarmed Fighting (thus no ability damage from twf) or taking Two-Weapon Fighting Style (thus getting STR to damage but having a non-existent damage die). Or, I suppose, taking neither fighting style and doing 1 damage. Oh, the horror.

They could get both as a champion, or with a feat, or by multiclassing, all of which have costs. Since you can get unarmed bonus action attacks with a one-level dip into monk, I'm satisfied the cost is balanced and acceptable and unconcerned with the anguish of monk players.

Monks have so many tools in their toolbelt that only spellcasters have more buttons to press and things to do. They have fun subclasses with a unique flavour and I've addressed the biggest weakness with 4 Elements with my games' homebrew.

I see literally no reason a fighter can't be good at fisticuffs, and even with both fighting styles the monk can still do more attacks, run up walls, and stun the caster while wearing nothing but a loin cloth. The monk is still better at fisting.

[bid]

Those are feats and have a cost (same with the smite invocation).
Should BA punch be a feat too?


Two of the three I listed are feats, but the warlocks have smites as a class feature.
What part of smite invocation did you miss?

[Mjolnirbear]

What part of smite invocation did you miss?

Why did you bother to post if we both said the same thing?

[bid]

As for the monk question posed by unoriginal... I wouldn't give monk anything.


Why did you bother to post if we both said the same thing?
So why would you give nothing for something that has a cost?

[Mjolnirbear]

So why would you give nothing for something that has a cost?

I refer you to my previous post where I did, in fact, explain my position on that.

Basically, I want to, and I can. I don't need to justify that choice to you. Monks aren't owed some massive blessing. It doesn't imbalance the game, and monks are still the best at punching, so I don't care.