• 𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    So there’s a few issues here:

    • Unarmed Strikes do not require an open hand. Punches, kicks, and slams all count as the same Unarmed Strike
    • If you were to allow this, there would be no reason to allow someone with two Shortswords or a Greataxe to do a BA strike
    • …which would then render the BA attack from Polearm Master moot since they no longer need a feat to do that
    • I’ll also note that the fighter with a sword in one hand and nothing in the other is likely using the Duelist fighting style, so that sword attack is effectively two die sizes larger. A Duelist Longsword is roughly equivalent to a Greatsword to put it in perspective

    At the end of the day, allowing martials to perform a BA Unarmed Strike wouldn’t be game breaking, but it needs to be applied universally which has secondary implications

    • Fushuan [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You need to be trained in some sort of unarmed fighting style to be able to throw a kick in between slashes. If you did it untrained, it would leave you unbalanced and prone to get hit.

      Makes sense to let a monk with a quarterstaff do it and not a barb with a great axe.

      • Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike

        D&D isn’t a real world simulator. It values them all equally.

        • Fushuan [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          You technically can’t do an unarmed strike if you have a 2hander. Quarterstaves are versatile weapons, which allow for monks to do kicks while using them.

          I know what you said, but the mechanics still don’t allow for kicks with a regular 2hander. I was trying to rationalise the actual mechanics with some real world logic.

          • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Do you know where it says you can’t unarmed strike while holding a two handed weapon? I’m not seeing a requirement for a free hand in the rules.

    • owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      As far as I remember the rules, unarmed strike damage is 1 + Str modifier (i.e., a 1d1 damage die). And anyone untrained in unarmed strikes (not monk, not having the Tavern Brawler feat or similar) couldn’t add their prof bonus to the attack roll. This makes it significantly weaker than a proper dual wielding build or something like PAM, where the attacker typically gets a proper damage die and prof bonus. Which is why it doesn’t seem like a big deal to allow it.

      Unarmed strikes can be done for flavor with kicks, elbows, etc. But mechanically I’d allow it as a proper bonus action if the character were wielding a single weapon without a shield. Anyone can describe anything however they want for flavor, I’m just talking about balancing the action economy.

      • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Unarmed strikes with kicks and elbows and such aren’t just flavor, it’s written in the rules that you can use any part of your body.

        Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.

        The mechanics don’t state you need a free hand anywhere.