D&D (2024) The Damage of Unarmed Strikes

[Ruin Explorer]

Something got me wondering real quick.

In most movies, comics, and cartoons (western and anime), warriors tend to have a decent punch and kick.

I was thinking, should every warriror class be given a dice for their unarmed strike? Nothing crazy. a 1d4.

It's not a major combat boost. Not even a minor one. But it's simple and allows martial classes to punch and slam dudes. Since Feats are currently mandatory, feats can be used to upgrade this. Tavern Brawler would still be worth getting. Same with Unarmed Fighting Fighting Style.

Monks would still be unique as the only ones that can US with DEX, bonus action US, and have an automatically upgrading US.

This would be absolutely fine and make total sense, especially would fit a hell of a lot better with a lot of the media D&D draws from - I'd make it broader than just Fighters though.

And as you say, it's not a boost at all. Using a weapon is pretty much always better.

But WotC's designers have some some SUPER WACKY ideas about unarmed damage and its value. I have literally never been able to come up with a plausible theory as to why they think this way, and no-one has even attempted to defend/explain it (unlike, I dunno, virtually every other thing I've ever said lol), which I take to be similar levels of mystification.

We see this a ton in race design, where it's clear WotC thinks being able to do 1d4 or even 1d6 < loud gasp > damage without a weapon, even if you're forced to use STR, even where you cannot actually use any abilities/most spells etc. because it's not a weapon, is totally awesome and a major racial ability.

It's like, what is going on at WotC HQ? What is happening in Chris Perkin's personal game that means unarmed damage is valued so highly? My best working theory is that Chris et al have their PCs tied up and disarmed completely and have to fight their way out unarmed like every third session, but no WotC adventure is designed remotely like that. And all the casters have cantrips which do on average similar or better damage to 1d4 + STR or DEX.

So it'll never happen. Totally bizarre though.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They are in fact hitting for more. d8 > d4. Hitting multiple times does not change that fact. The fighter's single punch should never exceed the monk's single punch.

Stat bonuses exist. 1d4 + Stat mod x 2 is a lot higher than 1d8 + Stat mod x 1. Further this reflects how "brawlers" and "martial artists" tend to be portrayed in the media - the brawler/boxer/heavy hitter takes big swings which hit hard, but the martial artist makes several more precise and faster attacks in the same time period, even if none hit as big.

So in terms of "fitting the fiction" it's absolutely fine if a single hit from the Fighter is bigger, not a problem at all. So long as the Monk gets to hit significantly more often.

 

[Maxperson]

Stat bonuses exist. 1d4 + Stat mod x 2 is a lot higher than 1d8 + Stat mod x 1. Further this reflects how "brawlers" and "martial artists" tend to be portrayed in the media - the brawler/boxer/heavy hitter takes big swings which hit hard, but the martial artist makes several more precise and faster attacks in the same time period, even if none hit as big.

Martial artists in the media are very often portrayed as breaking small trees with their fists, breaking hard objects with punches and blows from fist and foot that send people flying 5-10 feet. Those would be the kung fu monks/masters.

So in terms of "fitting the fiction" it's absolutely fine if a single hit from the Fighter is bigger, not a problem at all. So long as the Monk gets to hit significantly more often.

Does he? To reliably attack more often than a fighting class at low levels you have to use pretty much all of your ki points on flurry. God forbid that you want to do something like throw a missile back at something, attempt a stun, use the dodge action or use Step of the Wind. You're burning through your attacks like no tomorrow.

 

[Minigiant]

Martial artists in the media are very often portrayed as breaking small trees with their fists, breaking hard objects with punches and blows from fist and foot that send people flying 5-10 feet. Those would be the kung fu monks/masters.

Not at level 1.
A lvl 1 monk doesn't even have ki. They left the monastery before mastering basic body and spirit control.

 

[Maxperson]

Not at level 1.
A lvl 1 monk doesn't even have ki. They left the monastery before mastering basic body and spirit control.

Correct, which makes the fighter doing d6 or d8 even more egregious at level 1.

 

[Minigiant]

Correct, which makes the fighter doing d6 or d8 even more egregious at level 1.

Actually it makes more sense.

If the fiction, it's is usually easier to learn to brute force unarmed strikes than to do so dexterously.

The new monks tend to have much lighter strikes than the big bandit brute.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Martial artists in the media are very often portrayed as breaking small trees with their fists, breaking hard objects with punches and blows from fist and foot that send people flying 5-10 feet. Those would be the kung fu monks/masters.

In media which portrays them doing that, it will inevitably portray the "big bruiser"-types causing even more destruction, so that doesn't support your point at all.

Does he? To reliably attack more often than a fighting class at low levels you have to use pretty much all of your ki points on flurry. God forbid that you want to do something like throw a missile back at something, attempt a stun, use the dodge action or use Step of the Wind. You're burning through your attacks like no tomorrow.

That's not how the maths work - you've forgotten the basic bonus action unarmed strike.

Just your basic attack + 0-ki bonus action unarmed strike is going to average more damage doing 1d4+stat mod than someone doing 1d8+stat mod on a single attack. It's not at all complicated maths. If your stat mod is say, +3, 1d4 averages 2.5, so it's 5.5 x2 = 11 DPR vs. the Fighter, 1d8 averages to 4.5, +3 = 7.5.

It's not even close. I strongly suggest doing the maths before making claims like that.

If you add in Flurry of Blows you pull much further ahead, moving up to 16.5 vs 7.5. So absolutely this isn't going to cause a problem at lower levels or ever result in the Fighter doing, on average, more damage. Especially as most Fighter stuff requires a Weapon Attack, which this explicitly isn't. This is assuming you use purely unarmed strikes, too. If you wield a staff for your main attack, you're doing 1d8+3 and 1d4+3, and the Fighter is just doing 1d8+3. How are you seeing the Fighter as ahead lol?

 

[Argyle King]

I think 1d3+STR would be fine.

It's better than the current 1+STR version but not quite as good as a club or low-level monk.

It also has the benefit of being something possible to roll with a normal set of dice. You call roll 1d3 by using 1d6.

1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 3
4 - 1
5 - 2
6 - 3

You can also buy d3s.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think 1d3+STR would be fine.

It's better than the current 1+STR version but not quite as good as a club or low-level monk.

It also has the benefit of being something possible to roll with a normal set of dice. You call roll 1d3 by using 1d6.

1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 3
4 - 1
5 - 2
6 - 3

You can also buy d3s.

This is an extremely strange post. I am agog. Possibly with awe. I have questions:

1) More of a comment than a question - that is totally not how you normally 1d3 with a d6, rather you go 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5-6 = 3 is like, how it's been done for like, the whole time D&D has existed. Do people disagree? Fascinated to know.

But that approach is wild. It's mentally harder though, because the method I mention is technically division but it's basically reflexive. Whereas the "subtract 3 if it's it's 4 or over" has got to be marginally slower. Also as a non-standard method, great for starting arguments lol.

2) What do you mean by "a normal set of dice".

A d4 is in a "normal set of dice". Or are you contrasting with a d2 (a coin)?

Personally I loathe rolling d3s for anything in D&D so would rather the lowest die we used was a d4

 

[Maxperson]

In media which portrays them doing that, it will inevitably portray the "big bruiser"-types causing even more destruction, so that doesn't support your point at all.

Have ever watched the old Kung Fu movies that seem to be a large inspiration for the monk class? Little, thin guys putting their fists through trees with one punch.

Just your basic attack + 0-ki bonus action unarmed strike is going to average more damage doing 1d4+stat mod than someone doing 1d8+stat mod on a single attack. It's not at all complicated maths. If your stat mod is say, +3, 1d4 averages 2.5, so it's 5.5 x2 = 11 DPR vs. the Fighter, 1d8 averages to 4.5, +3 = 7.5.

It's not even close. I strongly suggest doing the maths before making claims like that.

I didn't make any DPR claims. I said 1d8 > 1d4, which is a fact. The base damage for a monk shouldn't be lower than the base damage for any other class. If the fighter can at 1st level hit for 1d8+modifier, then the monk should be able to at LEAST match that for his two attacks. If that's too much damage for the monk, then the fighter base unarmed damage should be lowered.