D&D 5E Unarmed Strike. One damage plus strength?

[Riley37]

Telemachos was strong enough to draw the bow, though he refrained. I imagine the suitors who tried and failed including one at STR 14, maybe 16. How about Telemachos at 18, and Odysseus at 20?

Anyways, if a guy with STR 10 is punching Target A, and a guy with STR 20 is punching Target B, they should not do damage at the same rate; assuming both targets have the same HP total, the guy with STR 20 should knock down his target down faster. If unarmed strike is a flat 1 regardless of STR, then that doesn't happen. If unarmed strike gets the STR bonus to melee damage, then the guy with STR 20 does damage six times as fast. Oh, and also in that case, a person with STR 8 or less can't do any unarmed HP damage at all, except on a critical.

 

[TerraDave]

Its a d1.

You can roll it. You just know what you will get.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

FWIW, I believe the intent is that even a very strong person should not be able to kill the average NPC with a single punch unless the attacker has martial arts (or tavern brawling) training.

I believe the intent would be that the AVERAGE person should not be able to kill the AVERAGE NPC with a single punch without martial arts.

 

[Stalker0]

When he gets to Strength 18, he can kill a kobold with one punch.

Ok...that's the best visual I have now for an 18 strength.

New Player: So an 18 strength...is that really good?

DM: (points at kobold in MM). With an 18 strength you can kill this thing with a single punch!

New Player: Nice!

 

[Riley37]

I believe the intent would be that the AVERAGE person should not be able to kill the AVERAGE NPC with a single punch without martial arts.

That makes sense. I knew a taekwondo black belt, whose answer to "Could you kill someone with your bare hands?" was "Yes, slowly".

Dropping someone to 0 HP isn't necessarily killing them, and doing "overkill" damage - that is, all their HP *AND* as much additional damage as their HP max, for an instant kill - should be very unusual for one unarmed 0-level NPC attacking another 0-level NPC.

 

[Joe Liker]

Why didn't anyone mention that Crawford has already ruled on this? Obviously, I disagree with him, but there it is.

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/unarmed-damage/

 

[BigVanVader]

Wow. It's possible to do zero damage? That's incredible.

 

[Eric V]

Why didn't anyone mention that Crawford has already ruled on this? Obviously, I disagree with him, but there it is.

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/unarmed-damage/

Ok, so, this is an example of rules being poorly written, not "It's a feature!" vague.

Joe is right, going by what is written. If they had intended it to be otherwise, they should have used the term "D1," to make it consistent with their previous writings on how STR modifiers are added to damage rolls.

It can be frustrating.

 

[Blue]

Joe is right, going by what is written. If they had intended it to be otherwise, they should have used the term "D1," to make it consistent with their previous writings on how STR modifiers are added to damage rolls.

It can be frustrating.

Have to disagree. Never has any version of D&D used a "d1". It's confusing, makes people look for an actual die. The whole "oh, it's damage but because you don't roll it you don't get to add all of the normal stuff you add to damage" is only an artifact of 4e. Every other version of D&D if you had bonuses to damage, they applied regardless if it was a static amount or rolled on a die.

I can understand confusion, but expecting a D1 for "consistency with earlier editions" isn't really a reasonable position.

 

[Eric V]

I can understand confusion, but expecting a D1 for "consistency with earlier editions" isn't really a reasonable position.

Reasonable? Yes it is.

Because otherwise, as it is written, Joe is absolutely right and it should only ever be 1 damage. It has nothing to do with "consistency with earlier editions" but rather the written rules of this edition.