D&D (2024) The Great Nerf to High Level Martials: The New Grapple Rules

[Yaarel]

I covered this by saying feat or fighting style.

Something like the following seems more reasonable.

Anyone who is trained in the Athletics skill (or perhaps the Medicine skill) can increase the base 1 damage of an Unarmed Strike to d4. Then the Fighter class Fighting Style can increase the base damage by two steps, hence from 1d4 to 1d8. With a base damage of 1d8, the strike becomes a reasonable choice of weapons, and comes with additional benefits for those wanting to invest resources in grappling.

 

[Maxperson]

Something like the following seems more reasonable.

Anyone who is trained in the Athletics skill (or perhaps the Medicine skill) can increase the base 1 damage of an Unarmed Strike to d4. Then the Fighter class Fighting Style can increase the base damage by two steps, hence from 1d4 to 1d8. With a base damage of 1d8, the strike becomes a reasonable choice of weapons, and comes with additional benefits for those wanting to invest resources in grappling.

That's not reasonable at all. Athletics is not fighting ability and should have nothing to do with it. Athletics is basically sports like swimming, climbing and jumping. What's more, you want fighters to be significantly better at unarmed combat than monks. Monks only get to a d8 at 11th level. You want fighters to get there at 1st level when monks are still using 1d4. A monk wouldn't pass that fighter in base unarmed damage until 17th level when they reach d10, which is only slightly better than d8.

 

[Yaarel]

That's not reasonable at all. Athletics is not fighting ability and should have nothing to do with it. Athletics is basically sports like swimming, climbing and jumping. What's more, you want fighters to be significantly better at unarmed combat than monks. Monks only get to a d8 at 11th level. You want fighters to get there at 1st level when monks are still using 1d4.

The Athletics skill includes wrestling and applies to fight sports like mixed martial arts.

That said, when translating into D&D, the enhanced damage of bodyweapons has more to do with knowledge of the anatomy. To some degree, it might be fair to assume these fight sport characters gain proficiency in the Medicine skill, especially in the context of targeting weak spots, recovering from being down, and generally training for surviving ongoing wars.

 

[Yaarel]

@Maxperson

Regarding the Monk, the Monk damage relies on the "flurry" of multiple attacks without Strength. It is a more mystical approach.

The Fighter would use the normal 1d8 for the Extra Attack class feature and featuring Strength.

 

[Maxperson]

The Athletics skill includes wrestling and applies to fight sports like mixed martial arts.

Wresting in 5e is grappling, not Athletics.

That said, when translating into D&D, the enhanced damage of bodyweapons has more to do with knowledge of the anatomy. To some degree, it might be fair to assume these fight sport characters gain proficiency in the Medicine skill, especially in the context of targeting weak spots, recovering from being down, and generally training for surviving ongoing wars.

You still haven't said why fighters having 1d8 at level 1, which monks don't reach until level 11 is reasonable. You've completely gimped the unarmed class.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Wresting in 5e is grappling, not Athletics.

You still haven't said why fighters having 1d8 at level 1, which monks don't reach until level 11 is reasonable. You've completely gimped the unarmed class.

Sounds like it might be time to buff the monk then.

 

[Maxperson]

Sounds like it might be time to buff the monk then.

The new monk rules look very good in that regard. It just doesn't boost the mundane unarmed damage that high, so it wouldn't be reasonable to move the fighter so far past the monk.

Edit: The new rules move the beginning monk unarmed damage to d6, which means that the fighter probably shouldn't be able to hit d6, let alone d8 at 1st level.

 

[Yaarel]

Wresting in 5e is grappling, not Athletics.

You still haven't said why fighters having 1d8 at level 1, which monks don't reach until level 11 is reasonable. You've completely gimped the unarmed class.

The "Grappled condition" benefits from skill proficiency in Athletics.

This same trained proficiency in the context of fight sports including wrestling, can reasonably award increased damage for the base damage of Unarmed Strike.


With regard to the amount of damage, Unarmed Strike must be mechanically high enough to be an effective option for the Fighter class. In this sense, comparisons to the Monk are irrelevant. The Fighter is doing bodyweapons in a different way.


Perhaps the damage of the strike equates to the Athletics proficiency bonus. Thus in the lowest tier, the striker deals 2 hit points of damage (+ Strength), while able to fight with "two weapons" sotospeak. At the next higher tier, the strike deals 3 damage (or d4). At the next tier, 4 damage (or d6). Then the next tier 5 damage (or d8). And finally at the highest tier, 6 damage (or d10). Someone would need to run the numbers. But the combination of two-weapon fighting, extra attacks, and increasing damage, might make this a viable choice of weapons. Especially if a Fighting Style enhances it.

 

[Maxperson]

The "Grappled condition" benefits from skill proficiency in Athletics.

This same trained proficiency in the context of fight sports including wrestling, can reasonably award increased damage for the base damage of Unarmed Strike.


With regard to the amount of damage, Unarmed Strike must be mechanically high enough to be an effective option for the Fighter class. In this sense, comparisons to the Monk are irrelevant. The Fighter is doing bodyweapons in a different way.

a d4 IS an effective option. A fighter with d4+3 for strength is doing 5.5 damage on average. Using a longsword it's only 7.5. A few points difference is trivial.

The designers made 5e so that you can play with very low bonuses and/or base damage and do very well in 5e. If you(general you) feel that you need to have high base damage and maxed out stats, that's entirely in your(general you) head, not the design of the game.

Perhaps the damage of the strike equates to the Athletics proficiency bonus. Thus in the lowest tier, the striker deals 2 hit points of damage (+ Strength), while able to fight with "two weapons" sotospeak. At the next higher tier, the strike deals 3 damage (or d4). At the next tier, 4 damage (or d6). Then the next tier 5 damage (or d8). And finally at the highest tier, 6 damage (or d10). Someone would need to run the numbers. But the combination of two-weapon fighting, extra attacks, and increasing damage, might make this a viable choice of weapons. Especially if a Fighting Style enhances it.

I still wouldn't tie that to Athletics. Tie it to fighting style. At 1st level with the +2 proficiency, you'd be using a d4. At 9th level when you hit +4, you'd be using a d6. You'd cap at d8 when you hit 17th level. That still leaves monks in front while giving fighters significantly better unarmed damage.

 

[Yaarel]

a d4 IS an effective option. A fighter with d4+3 for strength is doing 5.5 damage on average. Using a longsword it's only 7.5. A few points difference is trivial.

The designers made 5e so that you can play with very low bonuses and/or base damage and do very well in 5e. If you(general you) feel that you need to have high base damage and maxed out stats, that's entirely in your(general you) head, not the design of the game.

I still wouldn't tie that to Athletics. Tie it to fighting style. At 1st level with the +2 proficiency, you'd be using a d4. At 9th level when you hit +4, you'd be using a d6. You'd cap at d8 when you hit 17th level. That still leaves monks in front while giving fighters significantly better unarmed damage.

By "effective", I mean optimal.

When the Fighter class offers a list of weapons to pick from, they need to be real choices, not "traps".

The base damage of the Fighter bodyweapon must be high enough to make it an effective choice instead of a greatsword or polearm.