D&D 5E VGTM races with a Natural Unarmed attack

[Phazonfish]

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.

I love how you just dove head first into a rant containing nothing resembling a contribution to the topic at hand. Protip: Before telling us about how smart you are in comparison to others, learn how to operate spell check, so we can "comprend" what you're saying.

In any case, since the meaning of jaelis' post clearly went over your head, allow me an alternative explanation. I believe the point is that this is a game and therefore if the rules don't state the need for a free hand to make an unarmed attack, then the fact that this would be inefficient if modeled realistically has no bearing on the game. Don't get mad at us for not adopting your house rules.

 

[GreenTengu]

Just for historical reference, I checked it in the editions I have: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 )

When I refered to what earlier editions said, it was limited to the concept of "a single round attack does not equate to a single swing of an object, but is the amount of damage you would be able to do over a 6-second window of time" and had nothing to do with the unarmed attack.

Why I object to the unarmed attack is very simple. I can already see what you damn munchkin twinks are trying to pull.

"It says that an unarmed attack CAN be a headbutt, therefore it can be a headbutt on every single round! That means my Monk can hold two shields in his hands to get double shield bonus on his AC and use his unarmed attack and all abilities that trigger off unarmed attack!"

Like I said, you little twinks think you are clever-- but anyone who describes their head as the "pawn" of their body is just not nearly on par with the rest of humanity.

Unarmed means UNARMED, not wielding two shields and fighting using head-butts and kicks.

 

[Redthistle]

@TheHobgoblin:

Now that you have clearly explained why headbutts are stupid to use in a game because they would be foolish to use in the real world, will you please address why magic is stupid to use in the same game because it doesn't really exist in the real world?

This game is all about fantasy, Dude.

@all-of-us:

1. Don't use a headbutt in real life. TheHobgoblin's got common sense and concerns about concussions on his side.

2. Want to use a headbutt in the game? Knock your PC-self out!

 

[jaelis]

"It says that an unarmed attack CAN be a headbutt, therefore it can be a headbutt on every single round! That means my Monk can hold two shields in his hands to get double shield bonus on his AC and use his unarmed attack and all abilities that trigger off unarmed attack!"

BRILLIANT AGAIN! Now me, I would have looked at the rules to see that (1) you can only benefit from one shield at a time and (2) monks are not proficient with shields and lose their martial arts abilities while wielding one. But your penetrating intellect shows much more directly that the real reason it doesn't work is that you say it doesn't make sense!

Actually I'm starting to see the bigger picture now, my eyes are opening. The real point is that YOU don't need to buy the books at all. If I can just learn to think like you, I can sell my books and just DM the game the way I think it ought to work based on real life experience!

--

Edit: For instance, I see know that the original premise of this whole thread is misguided, since obviously if a tabaxi's claws were big enough to seriously hurt an armed warrior, then there's no way they would have dextrrous enough hands to hold a weapon. And if a lizardman tried to bite an armored opponent in a real fight, it would just break his teeth. So there's really no point in discussing the value of these "attacks."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Why I object to the unarmed attack is very simple. I can already see what you damn munchkin twinks are trying to pull.

"It says that an unarmed attack CAN be a headbutt, therefore it can be a headbutt on every single round! That means my Monk can hold two shields in his hands to get double shield bonus on his AC and use his unarmed attack and all abilities that trigger off unarmed attack!"

You cannot benefit from more than one shield at a time, and Monks lose their unarmoured AC benefit if they use a shield.

And I personally would certainly prefer when fighting an armed opponent with no weapon in my hands to have a shield than not have a shield, at least initially. I'd still be trying to punch, grab and kick with my free limbs.

 

[jaelis]

Cảm ơn thớt nhé hôm nay mình mới biết đến nó , cảm ơn nhiều nhé , đúng cái tìm bữa giờ

That's easy for you to say

 

[Redthistle]

More about headbutts (RW):

1. They are generally ineffective from a purely mechanical aspect (talking RW here). The length of the human neck limits the possible angular momentum; even taking into consideration how much other body parts can be put in play to increase the applied force, will still be less than what can be delivered by other bodily extremities. Choreographed fighting in movies and on television often ignore the realities for dramatic effect.

1a. Giraffes, you can ignore this consideration.

2. The most common effective use of a headbutt is when and where it's possible to break an opponent's nose. This does occasionally happen, and is probably the safest use of a headbutt, as the opponent's nose absorbs much of the energy of the attack.

3. These considerations need not apply in a fantasy game. see Magic.

 

[Phazonfish]

Like I said, you little twinks think you are clever-- but anyone who describes their head as the "pawn" of their body is just not nearly on par with the rest of humanity.

Unarmed means UNARMED, not wielding two shields and fighting using head-butts and kicks.

Well no one described their head as a "pawn", so I don't know where you're going with this.

(inb4 he claims jaelis' metaphor was about headbutting rather than about how simple games cannot accurately model reality and that this is not a bad thing)

Also, I fail to see how a kick can be considered "armed" whether you're holding something or not; I also hesitate to call someone "armed" because they have a shield considering a shield is not a weapon.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I know of builds that want a weapon that doesn't fill a hand. Most obvious is a caster with shield who wants to make attacks of opportunity but doesn't want to have to take the warcaster feat to cast.

Any caster can do this already, by making an unarmed attack (punch or kick or head butt or shield bash or whatever). The attack is made at proficiency and does 1+STR Mod damage. It's not much, but its better than nothing.

As for a tabaxi monk, I'd use the Monk class damage but give the player the option of doing bludgeoning or slashing damage on each hit. It's a small benefit at lower levels (there aren't a lot of creatures and items resistant to bludgeoning damage) but still makes the racial ability feel a bit cool.

 

[flametitan]

As for a tabaxi monk, I'd use the Monk class damage but give the player the option of doing bludgeoning or slashing damage on each hit. It's a small benefit at lower levels (there aren't a lot of creatures and items resistant to bludgeoning damage) but still makes the racial ability feel a bit cool.

I seem to recall this being an official ruling handed out by JC on Twitter for the Aarakocra monk as well. It's a simple ruling that doesn't add much but makes sense.