D&D (2024) The Damage of Unarmed Strikes

[Branduil]

This reminds me of how dumb I felt the BAB system was in 3e. The monk's whole deal was hitting with fists, but any guy with full BAB was more likely to land a punch.

The 3e Monk:

 

[Horwath]

1d3 unarmed. 1d4 if both hands are free

as current fighting style:
1d6(1d8 if both hands free)

make unarmed count as light weapon for TWF

 

[Minigiant]

I voted "no" but I should clarify. It's not because I think your 1d4 suggestion is good or bad, it's just because I don't think it will ever matter to me and my gaming group. I can't even remember the last time someone in our group even used an unarmed strike...I'm sure our monk must have, several times, but that's not what we're talking about here. Same goes for the Tavern Brawler adjustments, I've never seen a player choose that feat...not even for a one-shot game.

So in my opinion, I'd file this under "not broken/don't fix."

Well that's the point.

Warriors don't use unarmed strikes due to the low damage. And bumping it up is not worth using the few resources they have.

So something that makes sense of warriors had would have but is too costly to choosr over other options.

It's like Blindfighting. It makes sense that a huge percentage of fighters have Blindfighting. But no fighter would actually take it.

I have been seriously thinking of giving a free choice of Blindfighting, Unarmed Fighting, or Improvised Fighting to all Fighters at level 1.

 

[John R Davis]

I'm happy how it is. It's still 4-5 damage for a strong fighter.
Plus if unarmed was so good we would never have invented weapons!

 

[Horwath]

This reminds me of how dumb I felt the BAB system was in 3e. The monk's whole deal was hitting with fists, but any guy with full BAB was more likely to land a punch.

luckily, this was fixed in PF1

 

[Yaarel]

I don’t think they want to put unarmed strike in the weapon list, because it’s not a weapon. But I do like the idea of martial weapon proficiency upgrading your unarmed strikes to d4s. Maybe also have it upgrade the die size of “natural weapons” from race.

I did mean, martial weapon proficiency would be a prereq that separately improves unarmed to 1d4.

That said, I dont understand the unnecessary mechanical complication of refusing to treat an unarmed strike as a normal "natural weapon". Why create a bizarre separate category for unarmed strike?

The complication does cause confusion when trying to clarify melee attack rules.

Whatever the rationale for the complication, there is surely a better way to resolve it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I did mean, martial weapon proficiency would be a prereq that separately improves unarmed to 1d4.

That said, I dont understand the unnecessary mechanical complication of refusing to treat an unarmed strike as a normal "natural weapon". Why create a bizarre separate category for unarmed strike?

The complication does cause confusion when trying to clarify melee attack rules.

Whatever the rationale for the complication, there is surely a better way to resolve it.

Natural weapons aren’t a thing in 5e, which is why I put it in quotation marks. The standard wording for a racial feature that gives you a “natural weapon” (quoted from the Monsters of the Multiverse version of Tabaxi) is: “You can use your claws to make unarmed strikes. When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.”

My point was, if martial proficiency allowed you to upgrade unarmed strikes from 1 damage to 1d4 damage, it should also allow you to upgrade them from 1d6 to 1d8 (or whatever) if you have a feature like the above.

 

[the Jester]

I don't think so. 1d2 or maybe even 1d3, but a club or dagger should be objectively better than a punch.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think so. 1d2 or maybe even 1d3, but a club or dagger should be objectively better than a punch.

It depends who is punching.

 

[GMMichael]

Better question: why shouldn't everyone do d4 damage?