D&D (2024) The Damage of Unarmed Strikes

[Minigiant]

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.

Not at level 1.

Old kung fu movies even have to the trope of new monks being really bad at kung fu and still requiring all the stairs climbing and air punching to not be absolute trash.

The evil monk coming back to the monstatery and kicking all the young monks' butts before dueling his master is a trope too. Monk is the original "garbage at level 1" hero.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

I've done it both ways. Some of us find it more counterintuitive to translate the results that actually read "2" or "3" into other numbers through division than to have to do some subtraction. Neither approach is difficult and neither is particularly superior to the other. Which one becomes reflexive for someone most readily is probably a function of their own particular mind.

 

[Maxperson]

Not at level 1.

Old kung fu movies even have to the trope of new monks being really bad at kung fu and still requiring all the stairs climbing and air punching to not be absolute trash.

Those were not monks. They were 0 level hopefuls. When they finish training and are tearing trees apart by punching them, they are ready to go out into the world(level 1 monk).

The evil monk coming back to the monstatery and kicking all the young monks' butts before dueling his master is a trope too.

Sure, but he's a 15th level monk and they are 0 or 1st level.

 

[Minigiant]

Those were not monks. They were 0 level hopefuls. When they finish training and are tearing trees apart by punching them, they are ready to go out into the world(level 1 monk).

level 1 PCs are novices. The level 1 monk doesn't even have ki.

Heck they can't tear trees apart because their attacks only deal 1d4+Dex damage and their is no support for a STRmonk to make Athletics checks yet.

A barbarian's, fighter's, and monk's fist being equally hard at level one doesn't break the fiction to me. And them fighting differently because they wear different armor makes sense as well.

The fighter is likely punching and kicking with their heavy armor covering their padded hands and feat.

 

[Maxperson]

level 1 PCs are novices. The level 1 monk doesn't even have ki.

And those level 1 monks in the movies are doing at least a d8. Punching through trees is higher level.

Heck they can't tear trees apart because their attacks only deal 1d4+Dex damage and their is no support for a STRmonk to make Athletics checks yet.

And yet in the movies they do as they train to go get revenge for their families and such.

A barbarian's, fighter's, and monk's fist being equally hard at level one doesn't break the fiction to me. And them fighting differently because they wear different armor makes sense as well.

I don't think they should be equal, but the biggest part of my objection is that fighters start with a d6 or d8, which is superior to the monk. If 1st level is novice, then a novice non-martial artist should not be hitting as hard as, or especially harder than the black belt(1st level monk).

The fighter is likely punching and kicking with their heavy armor covering their padded hands and feat.

If you read the armor descriptions, most of the armor doesn't include gauntlets, yet those armor wearers and completely unarmored fighters can still do d8.

 

[Argyle King]

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

Maybe for some people it is slower. Personally, I don't find it to be.

I don't even think of it as subtracting. 1, 2, and 3 are as-is. After that, the numbering pattern starts over. (I could be wrong, but I believe this way also spaces out the results more, so that the two sides which equal a particular result aren't clumped together.)

In either case, a d6 is part of a normal set. Your post helps illustrate that there are multiple ways to use one to simulate a d3.

If a d4 is desired, you could also have the default be "1d4-1; minimum 1."

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I've seen both of these methods used commonly. Two at my table roll it as 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1,etc. And three of us roll like your above example.

 

[Maxperson]

If a d4 is desired, you could also have the default be "1d4-1; minimum 1."

That skews the results, though. You have a 50% chance of rolling a 1, 25% chance of rolling a 2, and 25% chance of rolling a 3. You can actually buy d3's which are six sided dice with 1-3 printed twice.

 

[Argyle King]

That skews the results, though. You have a 50% chance of rolling a 1, 25% chance of rolling a 2, and 25% chance of rolling a 3. You can actually buy d3's which are six sided dice with 1-3 printed twice.

Very true. I was responding to someone not wanting to use d3s at all.

In a previous post, I linked to a place which sells dual purpose d12/d3s. They're numbered to be a d12 but also feature pips which can be read as a d3.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've seen both of these methods used commonly. Two at my table roll it as 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1,etc. And three of us roll like your above example.

Wow, I've never seen that used by anyone IRL. I read an RPG once which suggested it, but it just seemed like, unnecessarily complicating matters.

In either case, a d6 is part of a normal set.

But so is a d4, so why is that relevant?