What If unarmed strikes counted as simple (or martial) one handed melee weapons...

[Jak]

What breaks?

Asking partially for the purpose of the dual wielder feat, as well as the dual wielding fighting style.

[MoiMagnus]

The main thing that breaks is that kicking is considered an unarmed strike, so now you can "dual wield" with a sword, a shield and your left feet. If you close this loopwhole and only consider empty hands as weapons, then I don't think anything significant breaks.

On something that is improved: suddenly Paladin's divine smite can work with unarmed strikes, which is great for Monk/Paladin multiclassing (still not enough to make it viable, though).

EDIT: the bladesinger (and similar builds) is probably really happy, since he is now "dual wielding" with an empty hand (required for spellcasting) and a sword. Not sure if that count as a "breaking the game" for you.

[PhantomSoul]

The main thing that breaks is that kicking is considered an unarmed strike, so now you can "dual wield" with a sword, a shield and your left feet.

The hands are wielding a sword and the foot is wielding a shoe. Perfectly sensible!

[Jak]

The main thing that breaks is that kicking is considered an unarmed strike, so now you can "dual wield" with a sword, a shield and your left feet. If you close this loopwhole and only consider empty hands as weapons, then I don't think anything significant breaks.

On something that is improved: suddenly Paladin's divine smite can work with unarmed strikes, which is great for Monk/Paladin multiclassing (still not enough to make it viable, though).

EDIT: the bladesinger (and similar builds) is probably really happy, since he is now "dual wielding" with an empty hand (required for spellcasting) and a sword. Not sure if that count as a "breaking the game" for you.


Actually, I think the only way to do that is with the Martial Arts class feature. And now that I think about it, the shield would render that moot anyway.


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. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

It talks about hands rather than feet or headbutts.



On another note, do Bladesingers benefit that much from Two-Weapon Fighting? Or rather, do they benefit considerably from being able to cast spells without having to drop a weapon?

[GooeyChewie]

Another for the "improves, not breaks" category, Psi Warrior would become compatible with Unarmed Fighting Style.

[Yora]

I'm even still wondering if anything would change at all?

[Willie the Duck]

I'm even still wondering if anything would change at all?

There has to be a 'X stacks on Y, and we don't want it to do so' situation. Or at least I assume so since they bothered to rule this way. Monks unarmed attack might be a reason, but why (since they can use weapons with no penalties in this edition)? Maybe shapechanged and summoned monsters? Moon druids turn into a massive-multiattack creature and then get Holy or Elemental weapon cast upon them or the like?

[Jakinbandw]

Could probably fix a lot of unintended interactions by saying that using a hand as a weapon makes it no longer count as an empty hand for abilities that require it. Could even require that a person can only use it if they are in their natural form. Ie: turning into a bear doesn't grant you an understanding of bear martial arts.

[Jak]

There has to be a 'X stacks on Y, and we don't want it to do so' situation. Or at least I assume so since they bothered to rule this way. Monks unarmed attack might be a reason, but why (since they can use weapons with no penalties in this edition)? Maybe shapechanged and summoned monsters? Moon druids turn into a massive-multiattack creature and then get Holy or Elemental weapon cast upon them or the like?


Could probably fix a lot of unintended interactions by saying that using a hand as a weapon makes it no longer count as an empty hand for abilities that require it. Could even require that a person can only use it if they are in their natural form. Ie: turning into a bear doesn't grant you an understanding of bear martial arts.

As far as I'm aware, natural weapons don't count as unarmed strikes except for specific cases with certain races such as lizard folk or tabaxi.
Are natural weapons considered weapons? Things des-
ignated as weapons by the rules, including natural weap-
ons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are
not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed
part of your body.

Therefore, this ruling (that is, the one expressed in this thread's topic) wouldn't interact at all with wildshape.

Further, which classes would actually benefit that much from having a free hand?

[JLandan]

The question isn't just "Can unarmed strikes be considered simple weapons?". It is also "Should unarmed strike be considered a light weapon?".

If it is not light, all the dual wielding issues go away. Beast Barbarian is acutely aware of this issue.

I think unarmed strike should be a light simple weapon. I also think everyone should have proficiency, including Sorcerers and Wizards. A hero that can't duke it out is no hero at all. Damage should remain at 1 point without feats/styles/class features to boost it.

Or, to mix things up... damage equals prof. bonus?

[Jak]

The question isn't just "Can unarmed strikes be considered simple weapons?". It is also "Should unarmed strike be considered a light weapon?".

If it is not light, all the dual wielding issues go away. Beast Barbarian is acutely aware of this issue.

I think unarmed strike should be a light simple weapon. I also think everyone should have proficiency, including Sorcerers and Wizards. A hero that can't duke it out is no hero at all. Damage should remain at 1 point without feats/styles/class features to boost it.

Or, to mix things up... damage equals prof. bonus?

Making it PB for damage makes this version of unarmed some either keep pace with, or even surpass the monk's. Allowing the wizard to do this without even a little bit of investment seems over tuned.

As far as being considered light, I don't know. I figured gating bonus action unarmed strikes behind a feat would be decently balanced.

What do y'all think?

[JLandan]

Making it PB for damage makes this version of unarmed some either keep pace with, or even surpass the monk's. Allowing the wizard to do this without even a little bit of investment seems over tuned.

As far as being considered light, I don't know. I figured gating bonus action unarmed strikes behind a feat would be decently balanced.

What do y'all think?

I don't think it comes close to Monk's Martial Arts. Martial Arts at 1-4 is 1d4 with free bonus attacks for 2d4 vs 2 or 4 with off-hand, 5-8 is 1d6 with extra attack and free bonus attack for 3d6 vs 3 or 6, 9-10 is 3d6 vs 4 or 8, 11-12 is 3d8 vs 4 or 8, 13-16 is 3d8 vs 5 or 10, 17-20 is 3d10 vs 6 or 12. None of these take any ki points into account. Nor lack of Str or Dex bonus to off-hand without Two-Weapon Fighting Style.

If you like, Sorc and Wiz don't have proficiency, only classes with all simple weapons do (which is all the other classes, incl. Warlock). If PB damage seems too much, keep it at 1.

And unarmed strike is not light but club, dagger, handaxe, light hammer, sickle, scimitar, and shortsword are?

[Jak]

I don't think it comes close to Monk's Martial Arts. Martial Arts at 1-4 is 1d4 with free bonus attacks for 2d4 vs 2 or 4 with off-hand, 5-8 is 1d6 with extra attack and free bonus attack for 3d6 vs 3 or 6, 9-10 is 3d6 vs 4 or 8, 11-12 is 3d8 vs 4 or 8, 13-16 is 3d8 vs 5 or 10, 17-20 is 3d10 vs 6 or 12. None of these take any ki points into account. Nor lack of Str or Dex bonus to off-hand without Two-Weapon Fighting Style.

If you like, Sorc and Wiz don't have proficiency, only classes with all simple weapons do (which is all the other classes, incl. Warlock). If PB damage seems too much, keep it at 1.

And unarmed strike is not light but club, dagger, handaxe, light hammer, sickle, scimitar, and shortsword are?

I didn't think so either until I checked the math. A 1d4 on average is 2.5. 1d6 is 3.5, 1d8 = 4.5, and 1d10 would be 5.5. And, at some levels, that's outpaced by PB.
Any class with extra attack (if fists were light) would be right around the monk in unarmed damage right out of the gate with no extra fighting styles, feats, or anything.
Now, it seems okay for some classes being able to do that, provided they pay something for it. I feel like a fighting style seems appropriate for that cost.
This way, a fighter, paladin, or ranger can have a viable unarmed option. So yeah, I would keep the standard damage at 1, whereas taking a fighting style or feat can boost the damage to something viable.

As far as proficiency, I'm not sure. Maybe make it a martial weapon, since it seems like something would need training in to do well. All of the martial classes would get it stock, that way.
Maybe give it to rogues, and let it be a finesse weapon.

To the last point, yeah, I'd like to see some logic behind what is considered light, and why. It's really wired that an unarmed strike in dual-wieldable

If I had all my druthers, The monk's martial arts die would be bumped up one step across the board, but that is several other threads already.

Edit: tone and clarity, I hope

[JLandan]

I didn't think so either until I checked the math. A 1d4 on average is 2.5. 1d6 is 3.5, 1d8 = 4.5, and 1d10 would be 5.5. And, at some levels, that's outpaced by PB.
Any class with extra attack (if fists were light) would be right around the monk in unarmed damage right out of the gate with no extra fighting styles, feats, or anything.
Now, it seems okay for some classes being able to do that, provided they pay something for it. I feel like a fighting style seems appropriate for that cost.
This way, a fighter, paladin, or ranger can have a viable unarmed option. So yeah, I would keep the standard damage at 1, whereas taking a fighting style or feat can boost the damage to something viable.

As far as proficiency, I'm not sure. Maybe make it a martial weapon, since it seems like something would need training in to do well. All of the martial classes would get it stock, that way.
Maybe give it to rogues, and let it be a finesse weapon.

To the last point, yeah, I'd like to see some logic behind what is considered light, and why. It's really wired that an unarmed strike in dual-wieldable

If I had all my druthers, The monk's martial arts die would be bumped up one step across the board, but that is several other threads already.

Edit: tone and clarity, I hope

I'm leaning toward changing my mind on the PB damage.
I still think it should definitely be simple weapon, because everybody has it.
If you make it finesse, it can run off Dex, which I don't mind. But it will also be sneak attack, which I also don't mind.
I totally agree that Martial Arts needs a bump. I would say keep it at 1d4 to start, but progress it faster. Maybe increase on ASI levels, max at d12.

[Unoriginal]

The question isn't just "Can unarmed strikes be considered simple weapons?". It is also "Should unarmed strike be considered a light weapon?".

If it is not light, all the dual wielding issues go away. Beast Barbarian is acutely aware of this issue.

I think unarmed strike should be a light simple weapon. I also think everyone should have proficiency, including Sorcerers and Wizards. A hero that can't duke it out is no hero at all. Damage should remain at 1 point without feats/styles/class features to boost it.

Or, to mix things up... damage equals prof. bonus?

Everyone is already proficient with unarmed strikes, though.

[Jak]

Everyone is already proficient with unarmed strikes, though.
Dang, good point.

In that case, I suppose I would make them light if martial arts was brought one step up across the board, but I think that would go beyond the purview of what I was trying to do here...

Is there a widely accepted 5e homebrew patch? Kind of like the Unofficial Skyrim Patch was for the original Skyrim?

[Segev]

What if it were Martial Arts that made your unarmed strikes count as simple finesse weapons?

[JLandan]

Everyone is already proficient with unarmed strikes, though.

If Unarmed Strike were switched to simple melee weapon, would it still be proficient for everyone, or would proficiency depend on the simple weapon property?

[JLandan]

What if it were Martial Arts that made your unarmed strikes count as simple finesse weapons?

Martial Arts is already simulated finesse, so making it actually finesse is not a stretch. Simple weapon property would only matter in effects that "simple weapon", "melee weapon" or just "weapon" in their descriptions; i.e. Magic Weapon or Elemental Weapon now works on Unarmed Strike.

[Jak]

What if it were Martial Arts that made your unarmed strikes count as simple finesse weapons?

The issue here is that it wouldn't do anything for unarmed builds that didn't do at least one level of monk.

I'd be okay with that as an addition, though.

[Chronos]

I see no problem with making an unarmed strike count as simple, light, and finesse. Certainly not a problem if some or all of that is a monk feature, rather than across the board.

[Kane0]

I've run with this houserule for about 8 months now and havent noticed any significant problems.

Two-Weapon Fighting works with light melee weapons, natural weapons and unarmed strikes

Multiclassed Pally/Monks can smite unarmed, Beast Barbarians and any race with natural weapons can TWF with them (well anyone with a free hand can but youre only dealing 1 +str damage by default).