D&D (2024) The Damage of Unarmed Strikes

[GMMichael]

I am strongly against giving 1d4 damage unarmed. It would allow them to deal 2d4 on a critical hit and risk outshining casters. 1 damage point is vast enough....

...which is why I said (asked) everyone should do d4 unarmed, not just warriors.

By the way, 5e casters are apparently needing some help if another character causing 2d4 damage makes them look bad.

 

[Stalker0]

Let's not pretend like warriors are choosing to use daggers, either.

this is a fair point, daggers in some ways are in the same boat as unarmed strikes, they are a "weapon of last resort". Daggers are small enough to be concealed on the body, and extremely "light" compared to other weapons. But that is the only reason to use them, as an adventurer fighting real threats all the time, you would never "want" to use them.

One option could be: allow unarmed strikes to be 1d4, and daggers are simply a tool for dex fighters to use their dex bonus (aka finesse). At the end of the day, both are still only going to be used as a last resort...but they would still at least have some niche protection.

 

[DND_Reborn]

With the current scale of weapon damage, 1d4 is too much for an unarmed strike IMO.

But I also feel unarmed strikes should be simple weapons, with the light property, so what do I know...

 

[Branduil]

With the current scale of weapon damage, 1d4 is too much for an unarmed strike IMO.

But I also feel unarmed strikes should be simple weapons, with the light property, so what do I know...

If you want to hurt someone with your body, it's not going to be a light weapon tbh. The advantage of carried weapons is that you can use a comparatively smaller amount of effort to seriously hurt someone using the principles of angular momentum and surface area (and avoid hurting yourself in the process).

Now that I think of it, maybe there should be two kinds of unarmed strikes. Simple Unarmed Strikes do 1d4 damage, but you deal half the damage dealt to yourself (punching someone with a bare fist really hurts). Martial Unarmed Strikes do 1d4 damage without hurting yourself; you've learned how to throw kicks/punches with injuring yourself.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you want to hurt someone with your body, it's not going to be a light weapon tbh

The "light" property was so you can make an unarmed strike via your bonus action using TWF...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

2d4+3 at level 1 is a bit too much. If you do d4 damage and have 3 strength. I could live with rhat if startong hp get an overhaul too and every other weapon besides the dagger (who is finesse) does d6 damage at least.

 

[Minigiant]

The "light" property was so you can make an unarmed strike via your bonus action using TWF...

Nah.
Unarmed as a bonus action should require a Fighting style or fighting style Equal (Reckless Attack, Martial Arts).

With the current scale of weapon damage, 1d4 is too much for an unarmed strike IMO.

1d4 is weak. Warriors would still use martial weapons.

The point of this rule would be that warriors can kick mooks or use fisticuffs if in an area when they can't have weapons.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

Not bad. But untrained brawlers quit before they get to 0 HP. Also: death saves.

In the real world hitting people who are down so that they have to make deaths saves is why the district attorney charges you with Murder 1, not Murder 2 or Manslaughter if they fail those saves; or attempted murder, not Assault if they make those saves.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m ambivalent about this. One one hand, I think 1+Str damage is too weak to be worthwhile in most situations. On the other feel like 1d4 unarmed strikes really devalues simple weapons like clubs and daggers. I kinda think maybe it’s fine that an unarmed strike really isn’t a viable offensive tactic for those who aren’t specialized in it in some way (such as the feat, fighting style, or monk class). And especially with shoves and grapples getting rolled into unarmed striking, I think it might be fine for unarmed combat to be more about controlling opponents than damaging them unless you spend character building resources to make your unarmed strikes more lethal. But in that case, 1d4 seems pretty weak for a whole feat investment, even with the small boost of rerolling 1s. So, after talking (err… typing) through it, I think where I’m at is, leave the basic unarmed strike at 1+Str, but make the feat (and possibly the fighting style - we’ll have to see if that gets an update) a bit stronger.

I'd be okay with d3 damage, but d4 puts it on par with daggers and such. That's too much for a fist outside of a monk.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Nah.
Unarmed as a bonus action should require a Fighting style or fighting style Equal (Reckless Attack, Martial Arts).


1d4 is weak. Warriors would still use martial weapons.

The point of this rule would be that warriors can kick mooks or use fisticuffs if in an area when they can't have weapons.

Well, since you're the OP, I would expect you to jump on my response...

You're already using a bonus action, don't penalize it more by making it a feature cost as well, especially since it is a suboptimal attack form 9 times out of 10. Allowing it without extra cost (beyond the bonus action) mirrors what we see when someone attacks with a weapon, having it blocked or parried, and then headbutts or elbows or kicks the target as a follow-up attack.

1d4 is NOT weak. It has a 25% to leading to the death of a normal person in 5E, i.e. the commoner. An unarmed strike is weak by comparison, as insanely few unarmed attacks lead to death as a single attack. Picking up an improvised weapon should be an improvement.

If you want martials to do more damage, have at it, but I've said my piece. Cheers.