Unarmed Combat

[Barbarian Horde]

I need some clarification. Maybe I can get some rule lawyers or interpertations for the following.

Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren't wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.

At the start of each of your turns, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to one creature grappled by you.
Source: TCE, page 42


Taking the attack action whilst wielding a light weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack with your offhand weapon as a bonus action.
Do not add the modifier you’re making the attack roll with, to damage from the offhand weapon attack.
Source: PHB, pg.149


You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding arenÂ’t light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Source: PHB
--------------------------------------------

Using the Duel Wielder feat to remove the light property I can now use both fist in two weapon fighting.
So what I need clarification on is as a bonus action when your allowed to punch somone. Does the bonus action attack change to 1d8+str?

[ftafp]

RAW your unarmed attacks are not considered weapons (though they do oddly enough make weapon attacks) so you can't really dual-wield them the way you could other weapons.

[JNAProductions]

RAW looks like a d8.

And I see no reason to change that-it’s not OP or anything.

Edit: ah, yeah-RAW you can’t dual wield fists.

So I would change that.

[Barbarian Horde]

Does not taking the feat bypass that though?

[Gignere]

Unfortunately unarmed fighting isn’t considered a melee weapon that satisfies requirements for two weapon fighting. So your 2 feat combo doesn’t work RAW.

[Kuulvheysoon]

RAW, Unarmed Fighting isn't compatible with Two Weapon Fighting.

Two Weapon Fighting and the associated feat both require weapons, which fists are not. you make a (melee) weapon attack with them, but they're not weapons. A Paladin's Improved Divine Smite is an example of an ability that specifically requires a weapon, for instance.

[Hytheter]

Does not taking the feat bypass that though?

Taking the feat bypasses the need for light weapons in particular. It doesn't bypass the need for weapons or let you you treat something that isn't a weapon as a weapon.

Personally, I wouldn't be so uptight about this if I was running the game - it's not like Dual-Wielding is overpowered or anything. I reckon a lot of DM's would make this allowance and it's worth asking yours to do the same. However, note that unless you also have the TWF weapon style, your off-hand attack won't add your Strength Modifier.

[DwarfFighter]

I think it is commonly accepted that unarmored attacks can be, well, any attack made without a weapon, not just your fists: Head butts, kicks, shoulder slams, etc.

Those attacks will leave your hands free for stuff like dual weapons, two-handed weapons, weapon and shield.

I don't think anyone is advocating that a character can benefit from free bonus unarmed attacks in addition to the benefit of those armed alternatives.

-DF

[Greywander]

Every time a topic like this comes up, I'm reminded of Final Fantasy 5 and how OP it was to make all of your characters monks to get the Brawler ability (gives you same unarmed damage as the monk) then switch them to another class. In FF5, you could dual-wield fists, and with the Brawler ability it was much stronger than any weapon you were going to find for quite some time.

But yeah, you can't dual-wield fists because they're not weapon. Your unarmed strikes do count as weapon attacks, though, because every attack is either a weapon attack or a spell attack, and unarmed strikes are definitely not spell attacks. I'll admit, it's a bit silly, and you could potentially get around this by equipping a fist weapon like a caestus, brass knuckles, or claws, though such weapons aren't RAW. Natural weapons I believe count as both an unarmed strike and a weapon, which can lead to some interesting interactions (e.g. a monk/paladin who adds Improved Smite to their BA unarmed attacks), but I still don't think they can be dual-wielded.

[meandean]

(e.g. a monk/paladin who adds Improved Smite to their BA unarmed attacks)Well, they've made the rules around this a complete cluster, so YMMV.

[Kane0]

Get yourself some brass knuckles or something.

[Greywander]

Addendum to my previous post: The reason natural weapons can't be dual-wielded is because dual-wielding requires the weapons to be held in your hands. Natural weapons aren't held in the hand, as they are part of your body. Even natural claws are still a part of your hand, not held in them.

Fist weapons like brass knuckles are a bit hazier (especially because they aren't RAW; you have to homebrew them anyway). You could argue that you're wielding the knuckles as a weapon, and thus they are held in the hand. This would in turn prevent you from using that hand for other purposes (unless the knuckles had a special trait that allowed such). If the knuckles count as a weapon, though, then is it even still an unarmed strike?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Unarmed Strick isn't equal to a fist.
It is an attack without weapon it can be a fist but it can also be a lag or a headbutt and every other attack that is done unarmed.

I don't think your fist is the weapon, all your body is a weapon.

Also, if you want to get an unarmed attack as a bonus action you can always take a level in monk.