D&D (2024) The Damage of Unarmed Strikes

[Yaarel]

I can’t think of many fighters that if having the choice of being armed…would choose not to be armed.

I don’t mind the unarmed strike doing more damage but it shouldn’t be equal to a weapon. So a d3 seems good, dagger is still better but not crazy so, and the unarmed strike carries a bit of weight to it

But why bother with a new mechanic at all, if it wont be useful?

 

[GMMichael]

Because Commoners have 4 hit points, and untrained brawlers of average strength rarely kill each other.

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

 

[Stalker0]

But why bother with a new mechanic at all, if it wont be useful?

It is if your trapped in a dungeon with no weapon, which is realistically the only time people should not be using weapons. That is just like real life, people don’t choose to fight unarmed…they are forced to.

 

[Yaarel]

It is if your trapped in a dungeon with no weapon

That has happened to one of my characters maybe three times in my lifetime.

That is too infrequent to be "useful".

 

[Stalker0]

That has happened to one of my characters maybe three times in my lifetime.

That is too infrequent to be "useful".

Could always just remove it then. If unarmed strikes are as good as weapons, then I won’t use weapons. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Yaarel]

Could always just remove it then. If unarmed strikes are as good as weapons, then I won’t use weapons. You can’t have it both ways.

Unarmed can be one option among several good choices for a weapon.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

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

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't remember the name of the game, but I once played an RPG where all weapons and attacks dealt the same damage according to your level. If you were1st level, all of your attacks did 1d6 damage. When you got to 5th level or something, all of your attacks did 2d6 damage. Then 3d6 at 10th level, 4d6 at 15th level, etc. It didn't matter if you were using a sword, a spell, an arrow, a brick, or your bare hands: the rules assumed you knew how to fight with it well enough to dispatch your foe as efficiently as possible.

It's a bit too "same-y" for my tastes, personally, but I can see its merits. At the very least, it would solve some of the issues that some people have described in this thread.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Exactly.

This is a rule for barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. Daggers and clubs are for the nonwarriors.

A level 4 fighter should be able to KO a NPC guard with a kick. In 5e and currently in 1DND, you can't deal more that 6 damage even if you crit.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Better question: why shouldn't everyone do d4 damage?

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.