D&D 5E Unarmed Strike. One damage plus strength?

BigVanVader

First Post
Very straight forward, I can't find much about unarmed fighting in the book, it seems that I can do it the same as anything else, but that the disadvantage is it just does one damage.

But, is that the case, though? Do we add strength to it? So, if I'm playing a Half-Orc with 16 strength, do I add that +3 to the one damage? Basically, do I do an automatic 4 damage if I hit with my unarmed fists? Because...that's pretty nifty if so.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BASHMAN

Basic Action Games
Yes, it is STR based. Monks have a special ability that allows it to be Dex+1d4 instead of STR+1 that everyone gets. Monks can also be STR+1d4 if they want to, and that is also what the Tavern Brawler gets.

Downside is you are NOT PROFICIENT with unarmed strikes. So you don't add anything but STR to hit.
 


Dausuul

Legend
Very straight forward, I can't find much about unarmed fighting in the book, it seems that I can do it the same as anything else, but that the disadvantage is it just does one damage.

But, is that the case, though? Do we add strength to it? So, if I'm playing a Half-Orc with 16 strength, do I add that +3 to the one damage? Basically, do I do an automatic 4 damage if I hit with my unarmed fists? Because...that's pretty nifty if so.
Unless it says otherwise, you add your Strength bonus. Your half-orc can indeed deal 4 damage unarmed. When he gets to Strength 18, he can kill a kobold with one punch.

Downside is you are NOT PROFICIENT with unarmed strikes. So you don't add anything but STR to hit.
That's not entirely clear. Fighters are proficient with "all simple weapons," and unarmed is listed in the simple weapons table. Some argue this means fighters are proficient with unarmed strikes. I could see it going either way, myself. I'd be inclined to give fighters unarmed proficiency just because otherwise they're really screwed if they ever lose their gear.
 
Last edited:

BigVanVader

First Post
Well that's a bit of a moot point, as we're all Rogues, ha ha.

But I'd be inclined not to give unarmed fighting to Fighters, just because then what's the point of Tavern Brawler, yanno?
 

Jaelommiss

First Post
But I'd be inclined not to give unarmed fighting to Fighters, just because then what's the point of Tavern Brawler, yanno?

There are a few classes (druid, sorcerer, wizard) that are only proficient in select weapons, so they would gain proficiency. I'll also mention that monks are proficient in simple weapons, without specifically stating unarmed attacks. I'd group it in with simple weapons for simplicity's sake.
 


Dausuul

Legend
Well that's a bit of a moot point, as we're all Rogues, ha ha.

But I'd be inclined not to give unarmed fighting to Fighters, just because then what's the point of Tavern Brawler, yanno?
1d4 unarmed damage and bonus-action grapple attempt on unarmed attacks, along with +1 Strength or Constitution?
 


Zaruthustran

The tingling means it’s working!
Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon (PHB 149), so anyone with proficiency in "Simple Weapons" is proficient with Unarmed Strike. Rogues are proficient in simple weapons. So, enjoy that 4-damage punch at full proficiency.

Note that Unarmed Strike is not a light weapon. So, if you want to be a two-fisted pulp hero you've got to take the Dual Wielder feat.
 

Remove ads

Top