Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7823631" data-attributes="member: 6987520">I know it has been this way for a while. I was a bit shocked to realize by chance I got a 1st printing along with a later one within the last year.But I never even starting looking into this until one of the other players is going to run an adventure. From some other threads I thought it would be fun to play a brawler/grappler-type. Sure, a monk is an obvious choice, but the class does not fit the concept as many of the features aren't geared appropriately.So, yeah, I would still be like "Where is the brawler? A "thug" rogue? A "bruiser" fighter? etc. I can homebrew archetypes to fit the bill (as others have) so that isn't the issue.If unarmed strikes are not weapons, then the character can't benefit from many of the class features I listed in the OP. Unarmed strikes are already weaker with low damage, so now they are even less appealing. As I have said in other posts, I don't expect them to rival weapons in many ways, and as we know a grappler-type has options, but to really work there is a lot of investment, moreso than is necessary in other build-types.I am working on my character, following a valor bard, for two reasons:1. the bard class follows my character concept/backstory nicely2. valor bards are "fightery" enough to allow me some combat ability, and the spells will help him be viable in other ways.My biggest gripes are for things like TWF. If I had a dagger in both hands, I could use my bonus action to make a second attack. SO WHY CAN'T I PUNCH TWICE??? It makes NO sense. Unarmed attacks would definitely be "light" if you consider them weapons still. Again, it wouldn't make any sense NOT to have them be light. Of course, Monks get this ability and theirs is even better because they get to add their ability score modifier to the damage, a non-monk would need Two Weapon Fighting style to do that.FYI I believe completely you are sincere in our discussion. As I said in the OP, I know our table can house-rule things however we want--so that was never the problem. My question was why make the change, because nothing I see makes it really necessary. I would guess something came up at some point, but I really don't see the need. IMO the change only makes the game more restrictive and complex--two things definitely contrary to 5E design philosophy!</blockquote>

Verification