I repeat my question: what rules text is this based on?
D&D 5E VGTM races with a Natural Unarmed attack
- Thread starter gyor
- Start date
I repeat my question: what rules text is this based on?
I think its fluff not rules.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
Well, I am completely correct by the rules. Of course, you can play how you like at your table. But nothing in the book says you need a free hand to use your unarmed strike, whereas the book does explicitly say you can use kicks and headbutts. If you want to interpret that as a six-second sequence of kicks and headbutts, that's cool by me. But saying you need to throw punches too would be a houserule.
Ten damage for a raging level 16 barbarian with 20 Str
Last edited:
GreenTengu
Adventurer
To be entirely honest, I have no idea if it exists explicably stated in the rules within the current edition. However, it was explicably written as being the case in 2nd edition and, if I am not mistaken, 3rd edition. Look, you can argue for the silliness of things in the world being interpreted through the D&D system actually entirely adhering to those rules. That everyone within the world is compelled to patiently await their turn while others move and take a single swing to deal damage to them and during the period of time they do nothing but block or attempt to dodge that attack. And then after a single individual moves and makes their singular attack, that they then stand perfectly still though defensive as each other person within a 120' area each takes their turn.
But in previous editions it was explained that while this is a very goofy scenario if you spend too much time to picture it, it is just a matter of the system doing the best it can at trying to simulate a more realistic scenario. That within the game's reality everyone is moving at the same time and lighter objects can generally be moved faster and with more ease than heavier objects. Specifically that each round was either a 6 second or 10 second (I believe the exact time might have changed) slice of time in which everyone is acting all at once. Within this concept, it isn't that you can only swing a dagger and a 2-handed sword the same speed, but rather that the damage die was a reflector of how much damage you are likely to do within that 6 second window-- whether that be six wild swings or one giant slash.
And, yes, the turn-based system allows for some odd situations and permutations that simply wouldn't happen in a situation where all things are happening at once. But we are simply accept these oddities because any system that would better simulate real time action would be far more frustrating and wonky than the turn system. They have been tried and some have been more successful to certain degrees, but generally they haven't made for particularly enjoyable games.
I'm not going to go searching through the rulebook to see if it explicitly explains this within the current edition. Since it generally doesn't pertain to any exact rule, save-- granted-- in this case what is at stake is whether a Monk can deal their unarmed attack damage while carrying something in their arms-- it is generally not an issue either way. it isn't an exact "rule" and if you really do prefer to imagine that everyone in any world while using the D&D system is compelled to stand perfectly still while awaiting each other person to take their turn and may only make one physical swing of any object of any type of any size during their allowed "turn"... well... fine... I guess. There need be little reason I disrupt your wonky view of how people in a combat situation function.
For those who put a bit more thought into it, this deeper explanation of how the system is only a weak attempt to try to capture a more realistic scenario has been present in older editions regardless of whether it is explicitly written out in the current edition or whether the designers figured "everyone already knows this stuff, so why waste an entire page trying to justify turn-based combat?".
Ten damage for a raging level 16 barbarian with 20 Str
Actually, my concern lay more in balance. If you are going to deliver a kick with all your might to an individual attempting to actually do damage, there is no conceivable way you can be blocking with a shield at the same time and if you had 30 pounds of equipment in your hands when you through all your body weight into a thrusting kick... well, its going to throw you way off balance and cost you some recovery time.
And if you think you are going to get away with a head butt in a real situation while also using a shield to block the sensitive areas of your body? I'm sorry, but you are a grade A idiot and I truly hope for the sake of your health you never find yourself in an actual fight, yes even a bar room fist fight, because you really fail to even comprehend the most basic concept of what part of your body is more vital to protect.
Last edited:
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
I know, it's like when you're playing chess and a pawn takes a knight... no possible way that could happen on a real battlefield!
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Archon rocks.
GreenTengu
Adventurer
No. In chess terms it is more like "I am going to use my king as my primary offensive piece and in that way protect my king"
I get that maybe you don't use your brain much and consider it and the rest of your head, as inconsequentially as expendible as a pawn.
But for those of us that can be considered intelligent? Well realizing that vision, hearing, smeling and speaking are located in the same body part and throwing it against the enemy armament before any other bodypart is refined idiocy.
Though the very fact that you considered your own head the equivavent of a pawn suggests you lack the intellectual capacity to comprend what I have written so far.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
Ouch, what a sick burn! Certainly you are far too intelligent for me to argue with!
Note: "it worked like this in 3rd edition" is not a valid justification for anything in 5th edition. Editions do not rely on each other and often evolve concepts and conflict with each other.
Also, if you watch a lot of action movies it's a pretty common tactic for characters to use kicks, punches and headbutts along with their weapon attacks — for some reason the ninja turtle with the big swords always seems to be kickpunching things — I don't think it's problematic for D&D action to imitate that regardless how realistic it is.
Also, if you watch a lot of action movies it's a pretty common tactic for characters to use kicks, punches and headbutts along with their weapon attacks — for some reason the ninja turtle with the big swords always seems to be kickpunching things — I don't think it's problematic for D&D action to imitate that regardless how realistic it is.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
Just for historical reference, I checked it in the editions I have:
AD&D: I couldn't find anything in the PHB to indicate that a non-monk could make an unarmed attack. For a monk, the attacks were specifically called out as fists or "open hands." I recall an appendix with complicated grappling/pummeling rules, but it's not in the printing that I've held onto. (Maybe it is in the DMG?)
3.5e PHB pg 121: "an unarmed strike... may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack" (1d3 damage). I think that 3e was the same.
4e PHB pg 216: "When you punch, kick, elbow, knee, or even head butt an opponent, you're making an unarmed strike." (1d4 damage)
I don't have the 2e books, so I can't check there. But at least since third edition the rules have stayed basically consistent.
(None of which carries any weight in comparison to TH's intellect, but I thought it was historically interesting
)
Last edited:
