# The Damage of Unarmed Strikes



## Minigiant (Aug 25, 2022)

Something got me wondering real quick.

In most movies, comics, and cartoons (western and anime), warriors tend to have a decent punch and kick.

I was thinking, should every warriror class be given a dice for their unarmed strike? Nothing crazy. a 1d4.

It's not a major combat boost. Not even a minor one. But it's simple and allows martial classes to punch and slam dudes. Since Feats are currently mandatory, feats can be used to upgrade this. Tavern Brawler would still be worth getting. Same with Unarmed Fighting Fighting Style.

Monks would still be unique as the only ones that can US with DEX, bonus action US, and have an automatically upgrading US.


----------



## Branduil (Aug 25, 2022)

1+Str mod. damage has always felt weird in 5e. It should be 1d4, but I guess they didn't want it to step on the toes of the club? Just make it 1d4 since club still has the advantage of being light, and give clubs the Thrown (10) property


----------



## DeviousQuail (Aug 25, 2022)

1d4+Str for anyone with martial weapon prof and 1+Str for those without could work. It may be just as damaging as some weapons but you'd still want a weapon because most fighting styles, feats, and some class abilities only work with weapons.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 25, 2022)

Maybe group unarmed 1 damage with simple weapons, and 1d4 with martial weapons. So anyone that has "all martial weapons" gains the unarmed 1d4 as well.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 25, 2022)

I’m ambivalent about this. One one hand, I think 1+Str damage is too weak to be worthwhile in most situations. On the other  feel like 1d4 unarmed strikes really devalues simple weapons like clubs and daggers. I kinda think maybe it’s fine that an unarmed strike really isn’t a viable offensive tactic for those who aren’t specialized in it in some way (such as the feat, fighting style, or monk class). And especially with shoves and grapples getting rolled into unarmed striking, I think it might be fine for unarmed combat to be more about controlling opponents than damaging them unless you spend character building resources to make your unarmed strikes more lethal. But in that case, 1d4 seems pretty weak for a whole feat investment, even with the small boost of rerolling 1s. So, after talking (err… typing) through it, I think where I’m at is, leave the basic unarmed strike at 1+Str, but make the feat (and possibly the fighting style - we’ll have to see if that gets an update) a bit stronger.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 25, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Maybe group unarmed 1 damage with simple weapons, and 1d4 with martial weapons. So anyone that has "all martial weapons" gains the unarmed 1d4 as well.



I don’t think they want to put unarmed strike in the weapon list, because it’s not a weapon. But I do like the idea of martial weapon proficiency upgrading your unarmed strikes to d4s. Maybe also have it upgrade the die size of “natural weapons” from race.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 25, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m ambivalent about this. One one hand, I think 1+Str damage is too weak to be worthwhile in most situations. On the other  feel like 1d4 unarmed strikes really devalues simple weapons like clubs and daggers. I kinda think maybe it’s fine that an unarmed strike really isn’t a viable offensive tactic for those who aren’t specialized in it in some way (such as the feat, fighting style, or monk class). And especially with shoves and grapples getting rolled into unarmed striking, I think it might be fine for unarmed combat to be more about controlling opponents than damaging them unless you spend character building resources to make your unarmed strikes more lethal. But in that case, 1d4 seems pretty weak for a whole feat investment (even with the small boost of rerolling 1s. So, after talking (err… typing) through it, I think where I’m at is, leave the basic unarmed strike at 1+Str, but make the feat (and possibly the fighting style - we’ll have to see if that gets an update) a bit stronger.



The issue to me is you don't get enough fighting styles and feats to logically pick up a Unarmed fighting boost.

 A level 10 Fighter with a 1+STR punch just feels wrong. Every fighter, ranger, paladin, and barbarian should be punching for more that 6 damage and able to crit punch.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 25, 2022)

I voted "no" but I should clarify.  It's not because I think your 1d4 suggestion is good or bad, it's just because I don't think it will ever matter to me and my gaming group.  I can't even remember the last time someone in our group even used an unarmed strike...I'm sure our monk must have, several times, but that's not what we're talking about here.  Same goes for the Tavern Brawler adjustments, I've never seen a player choose that feat...not even for a one-shot game.

So in my opinion, I'd file this under "not broken/don't fix."


----------



## Branduil (Aug 25, 2022)

Thinking about it some more, and my solution is just to make Unarmed Strike a _Martial_ weapon that does 1d4 damage. This makes sense because anyone can throw a punch, but you need real training to effectively fight unarmed (proficiency bonus to attack).


----------



## NaturalZero (Aug 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> A level 10 Figghter with a 1+STR punch just feels wrong. Every fighter, ranger, paladin, and barbarian should be punching for more that 6 damage and able to crit punch.



This reminds me of how dumb I felt the BAB system was in 3e. The monk's whole deal was hitting with fists, but any guy with full BAB was more likely to land a punch.


----------



## Branduil (Aug 25, 2022)

NaturalZero said:


> This reminds me of how dumb I felt the BAB system was in 3e. The monk's whole deal was hitting with fists, but any guy with full BAB was more likely to land a punch.



The 3e Monk:


----------



## Horwath (Aug 25, 2022)

1d3 unarmed. 1d4 if both hands are free

as current fighting style:
1d6(1d8 if both hands free)

make unarmed count as light weapon for TWF


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 25, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I voted "no" but I should clarify.  It's not because I think your 1d4 suggestion is good or bad, it's just because I don't think it will ever matter to me and my gaming group.  I can't even remember the last time someone in our group even used an unarmed strike...I'm sure our monk must have, several times, but that's not what we're talking about here.  Same goes for the Tavern Brawler adjustments, I've never seen a player choose that feat...not even for a one-shot game.
> 
> So in my opinion, I'd file this under "not broken/don't fix."



Well that's the point.

Warriors don't use unarmed strikes due to the low damage. And bumping it up is not worth using the few resources they have. 

So something that makes sense of warriors had would have but is too costly to choosr over other options.

It's like Blindfighting. It makes sense that a huge percentage of fighters have Blindfighting. But no fighter would actually take it.

I have been seriously thinking of giving a free choice of Blindfighting, Unarmed Fighting, or Improvised Fighting to all Fighters at level 1.


----------



## John R Davis (Aug 25, 2022)

I'm happy how it is. It's still 4-5 damage for a strong fighter.
Plus if unarmed was so good we would never have invented weapons!


----------



## Horwath (Aug 25, 2022)

NaturalZero said:


> This reminds me of how dumb I felt the BAB system was in 3e. The monk's whole deal was hitting with fists, but any guy with full BAB was more likely to land a punch.



luckily, this was fixed in PF1


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 25, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think they want to put unarmed strike in the weapon list, because it’s not a weapon. But I do like the idea of martial weapon proficiency upgrading your unarmed strikes to d4s. Maybe also have it upgrade the die size of “natural weapons” from race.



I did mean, martial weapon proficiency would be a prereq that separately improves unarmed to 1d4.

That said, I dont understand the unnecessary mechanical complication of refusing to treat an unarmed strike as a normal "natural weapon". Why create a bizarre separate category for unarmed strike?

The complication does cause confusion when trying to clarify melee attack rules.

Whatever the rationale for the complication, there is surely a better way to resolve it.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 25, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I did mean, martial weapon proficiency would be a prereq that separately improves unarmed to 1d4.
> 
> That said, I dont understand the unnecessary mechanical complication of refusing to treat an unarmed strike as a normal "natural weapon". Why create a bizarre separate category for unarmed strike?
> 
> ...



Natural weapons aren’t a thing in 5e, which is why I put it in quotation marks. The standard wording for a racial feature that gives you a “natural weapon” (quoted from the Monsters of the Multiverse version of Tabaxi) is: “You can use your claws to make unarmed strikes. When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.”

My point was, if martial proficiency allowed you to upgrade unarmed strikes from 1 damage to 1d4 damage, it should also allow you to upgrade them from 1d6 to 1d8 (or whatever) if you have a feature like the above.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 25, 2022)

I don't think so. 1d2 or maybe even 1d3, but a club or dagger should be objectively better than a punch.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 25, 2022)

the Jester said:


> I don't think so. 1d2 or maybe even 1d3, but a club or dagger should be objectively better than a punch.



It depends who is punching.


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 25, 2022)

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


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 25, 2022)

GMMichael said:


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



From what I can tell, the argument is: should the damage of a punch equal the damage of a club?  Or to look at it from a different angle, if a character who deals 1d4 damage with a punch decides to pick up a club, does he still do 1d4 damage with it?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Something got me wondering real quick.
> 
> In most movies, comics, and cartoons (western and anime), warriors tend to have a decent punch and kick.
> 
> ...



in current games I give everyone unarmed strike finesse so you can use str or dex but still keep it as 1+stat mod


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 25, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> From what I can tell, the argument is: should the damage of a punch equal the damage of a club?  Or to look at it from a different angle, if a character who deals 1d4 damage with a punch decides to pick up a club, does he still do 1d4 damage with it?



I'd be interested to see the argument that empirically shows a faster life-to-death rate of a club fight versus a brawl.  

Also, this conversation shouldn't be limited to punches.  Only boxers limit themselves to punching.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 25, 2022)

GMMichael said:


> I'd be interested to see the argument that empirically shows a faster life-to-death rate of a club fight versus a brawl.
> 
> Also, this conversation shouldn't be limited to punches.  Only boxers limit themselves to punching.



Oh I'm just a casual observer in this argument...I'm not really participating.  I've never seen the issues that others have been describing, on either side of this debate, so I'm just hanging out in the balcony with the rest of the hecklers.






_"He says he can punch harder than a club!"_
_"Harder?  I barely know her!"_
_HUAH HAUH HAUH!!!_


----------



## Kobold Stew (Aug 25, 2022)

Yes; I'd also like to see it count as a finesse weapon for the purposes of Sneak Attack: allow the Brute Rogue to punch his way to glory.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 26, 2022)

GMMichael said:


> I'd be interested to see the argument that empirically shows a faster life-to-death rate of a club fight versus a brawl.
> 
> Also, this conversation shouldn't be limited to punches.  Only boxers limit themselves to punching.



A "club" might include a baseball bat, albeit a bat is probably a greatclub or mace. Maybe a versatile club, 1d6.

A "club" definitely includes a police baton.

Unarmed strikes include kicking and choking. The proficiency of the striker, including where to aim and so on, all matters, when deciding the 1d4 damage, or anywhere from 1 to 1d8.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 26, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> It depends who is punching.



Sure. If you're a monk, I'm fine with it.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 26, 2022)

I think martials should all learn more fighting styles as they progress, and if they want to choose one to augment their unarmed fighting then more power to them.


----------



## pnewman (Aug 26, 2022)

GMMichael said:


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



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


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 26, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> It depends who is punching.



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


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 26, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2022)

pnewman said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2022)

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


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 26, 2022)

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 (Aug 26, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> 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.


----------



## Galandris (Aug 26, 2022)

GMMichael said:


> 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.


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 26, 2022)

Galandris said:


> 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....



...which is why I said  (asked) everyone should do d4 unarmed, not just warriors.  

By the way, 5e casters are apparently needing some help if another character causing 2d4 damage makes them look bad.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 26, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


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



this is a fair point, daggers in some ways are in the same boat as unarmed strikes, they are a "weapon of last resort". Daggers are small enough to be concealed on the body, and extremely "light" compared to other weapons. But that is the only reason to use them, as an adventurer fighting real threats all the time, you would never "want" to use them.

One option could be: allow unarmed strikes to be 1d4, and daggers are simply a tool for dex fighters to use their dex bonus (aka finesse). At the end of the day, both are still only going to be used as a last resort...but they would still at least have some niche protection.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 27, 2022)

With the current scale of weapon damage, 1d4 is too much for an unarmed strike IMO.

But I also feel unarmed strikes should be simple weapons, with the light property, so what do I know...


----------



## Branduil (Aug 27, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> With the current scale of weapon damage, 1d4 is too much for an unarmed strike IMO.
> 
> But I also feel unarmed strikes should be simple weapons, with the light property, so what do I know...



If you want to hurt someone with your body, it's not going to be a light weapon tbh. The advantage of carried weapons is that you can use a comparatively smaller amount of effort to seriously hurt someone using the principles of angular momentum and surface area (and avoid hurting yourself in the process).

Now that I think of it, maybe there should be two kinds of unarmed strikes. Simple Unarmed Strikes do 1d4 damage, but you deal half the damage dealt to yourself (punching someone with a bare fist _really hurts_). Martial Unarmed Strikes do 1d4 damage without hurting yourself; you've learned how to throw kicks/punches with injuring yourself.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 27, 2022)

Branduil said:


> If you want to hurt someone with your body, it's not going to be a light weapon tbh



The "light" property was so you can make an unarmed strike via your bonus action using TWF...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 27, 2022)

2d4+3 at level 1 is a bit too much. If you do d4 damage and have 3 strength. I could live with rhat if startong hp get an overhaul too and every other weapon besides the dagger (who is finesse) does d6 damage at least.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 27, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> The "light" property was so you can make an unarmed strike via your bonus action using TWF...



Nah. 
Unarmed as a bonus action should require a Fighting style or fighting style Equal (Reckless Attack, Martial Arts).



DND_Reborn said:


> With the current scale of weapon damage, 1d4 is too much for an unarmed strike IMO.



1d4 is weak. Warriors would still use martial weapons.

The point of this rule would be that warriors can kick mooks or use fisticuffs if in an area when they can't have weapons.


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S (Aug 27, 2022)

GMMichael said:


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



In the real world hitting people who are down so that they have to make deaths saves is why the district attorney charges you with Murder 1, not Murder 2 or Manslaughter if they fail those saves; or attempted murder, not Assault if they make those saves.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 27, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m ambivalent about this. One one hand, I think 1+Str damage is too weak to be worthwhile in most situations. On the other  feel like 1d4 unarmed strikes really devalues simple weapons like clubs and daggers. I kinda think maybe it’s fine that an unarmed strike really isn’t a viable offensive tactic for those who aren’t specialized in it in some way (such as the feat, fighting style, or monk class). And especially with shoves and grapples getting rolled into unarmed striking, I think it might be fine for unarmed combat to be more about controlling opponents than damaging them unless you spend character building resources to make your unarmed strikes more lethal. But in that case, 1d4 seems pretty weak for a whole feat investment, even with the small boost of rerolling 1s. So, after talking (err… typing) through it, I think where I’m at is, leave the basic unarmed strike at 1+Str, but make the feat (and possibly the fighting style - we’ll have to see if that gets an update) a bit stronger.



I'd be okay with d3 damage, but d4 puts it on par with daggers and such. That's too much for a fist outside of a monk.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 27, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Nah.
> Unarmed as a bonus action should require a Fighting style or fighting style Equal (Reckless Attack, Martial Arts).
> 
> 
> ...



Well, since you're the OP, I would expect you to jump on my response... 

You're already using a bonus action, don't penalize it more by making it a feature cost as well, especially since it is a suboptimal attack form 9 times out of 10. Allowing it without extra cost (beyond the bonus action) mirrors what we see when someone attacks with a weapon, having it blocked or parried, and then headbutts or elbows or kicks the target as a follow-up attack.

1d4 is NOT weak. It has a 25% to leading to the death of a normal person in 5E, i.e. the commoner. An unarmed strike is weak by comparison, as insanely few unarmed attacks lead to death as a single attack. Picking up an improvised weapon should be an improvement.

If you want martials to do more damage, have at it, but I've said my piece. Cheers.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Aug 27, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> 1d4 is NOT weak. It has a 25% to leading to the death of a normal person in 5E, i.e. the commoner.



So does insulting them really hard. Or hopping down from a barn loft. Or looking straight at the sun. We don't tend to measure things in commoners, though.



> If you want martials to do more damage, have at it, but I've said my piece. Cheers.



But they won't do more damage. This will literally never come up. It is a pointless ribbon, like giving a 20th level Wizard with access to 9th level spells an extra flavor cantrip that lets him change the color of his beard ('omg now he has so much more magical power than intended').


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 27, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> So does insulting them really hard. Or hopping down from a barn loft. Or looking straight at the sun. We don't tend to measure things in commoners, though.
> 
> 
> But they won't do more damage. This will literally never come up. It is a pointless ribbon, like giving a 20th level Wizard with access to 9th level spells an extra flavor cantrip that lets him change the color of his beard ('omg now he has so much more magical power than intended').





DND_Reborn said:


> *but I've said my piece. Cheers.*


----------



## caddo2000 (Aug 29, 2022)

I think 1+str is perfect, in real life a fist, if you do not know how to use it, hurts more the guy that throws it. Trained unarmed fighter with 1d4+str is perfect too.
The only thing I would change is an option for nimble punchers, punching fast, with no weight behind. Basically, you choose 1+str or 0+dex


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 29, 2022)

caddo2000 said:


> I think 1+str is perfect, in real life a fist, if you do not know how to use it, hurts more the guy that throws it. Trained unarmed fighter with 1d4+str is perfect too.
> The only thing I would change is an option for nimble punchers, punching fast, with no weight behind. Basically, you choose 1+str or 0+dex




That's basically what I'm saying.

*Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers*: 1d4+STR with Unarmed Fighting style bumping to 1d6 or 1d8.

*Monks*: 1d4+ STR or DEX and increases with level.

*Everyone else:* 1+STR

I mean a STR fighter already deals 4 damages a punch to commoners and auto kills them. So what's the problem with 1.5 bonus damage  to let them 1 or  2 shot a Mook guard as well


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> A level 10 Fighter with a 1+STR punch just feels wrong. Every fighter, ranger, paladin, and barbarian should be punching for more that 6 damage and able to crit punch.



I mean that is enough to kill a baboon in one strike and a Bandit it two. That seems pretty good to me!


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> That's basically what I'm saying.
> 
> *Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers*: 1d4+STR with Unarmed Fighting style bumping to 1d6 or 1d8.
> 
> ...



Why would a barbarian, fighter, paladin or ranger deal the same starting damage as the guy who spends all his time training in martial arts and how to strike with his fists?  And then to offer the other classes MORE damage that the monk if they take unarmed fighting style is just bad.  It's one of the worst things Tasha's added.  If you make this change, the monk needs to start with d6 at level 1 and then bump up to d8 or d10 with unarmed fighting style which should be added to the class.  Then that would go up as the monk levels.  Otherwise you are seriously treading on the monk hard.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Why would a barbarian, fighter, paladin or ranger deal the same starting damage as the guy who spends all his time training in martial arts and how to strike with his fists?  And then to offer the other classes MORE damage that the monk if they take unarmed fighting style is just bad.  It's one of the worst things Tasha's added.  If you make this change, the monk needs to start with d6 at level 1 and then bump up to d8 or d10 with unarmed fighting style which should be added to the class.  Then that would go up as the monk levels.  Otherwise you are seriously treading on the monk hard.



Well the Monk gets to use Dex and gets to US as a bonus action.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Well the Monk gets to use Dex and gets to US as a bonus action.



The other classes still shouldn't be hitting for more damage.  It's a slap in the face for d8 damage to the monk.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The other classes still shouldn't be hitting for more damage.  It's a slap in the face for d8 damage to the monk.



They aren't hitting for more since the monk attacks 2 times.

I haymaker vs 2 straights


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> They aren't hitting for more since the monk attacks 2 times.
> 
> I haymaker vs 2 straights



They are in fact hitting for more.  d8 > d4.  Hitting multiple times does not change that fact.  The fighter's single punch should never exceed the monk's single punch.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Something got me wondering real quick.
> 
> In most movies, comics, and cartoons (western and anime), warriors tend to have a decent punch and kick.
> 
> ...



This would be absolutely fine and make total sense, especially would fit a hell of a lot better with a lot of the media D&D draws from - I'd make it broader than just Fighters though.

And as you say, it's not a boost at all. Using a weapon is pretty much always better.

But WotC's designers have some some SUPER WACKY ideas about unarmed damage and its value. I have literally never been able to come up with a plausible theory as to why they think this way, and no-one has even attempted to defend/explain it (unlike, I dunno, virtually every other thing I've ever said lol), which I take to be similar levels of mystification.

We see this a ton in race design, where it's clear WotC thinks being able to do 1d4 or even 1d6 < loud gasp > damage _without a weapon_, even if you're forced to use STR, even where you cannot actually use any abilities/most spells etc. because it's not a weapon, is _totally awesome_ and a major racial ability.

It's like, what is going on at WotC HQ? What is happening in Chris Perkin's personal game that means unarmed damage is valued so highly? My best working theory is that Chris et al have their PCs tied up and disarmed completely and have to fight their way out unarmed like every third session, but no WotC adventure is designed remotely like that. And all the casters have cantrips which do on average similar or better damage to 1d4 + STR or DEX.

So it'll never happen. Totally bizarre though.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> They are in fact hitting for more.  d8 > d4.  Hitting multiple times does not change that fact.  The fighter's single punch should never exceed the monk's single punch.



Stat bonuses exist. 1d4 + Stat mod x 2 is a lot higher than 1d8 + Stat mod x 1. Further this reflects how "brawlers" and "martial artists" tend to be portrayed in the media - the brawler/boxer/heavy hitter takes big swings which hit hard, but the martial artist makes several more precise and faster attacks in the same time period, even if none hit as big.

So in terms of "fitting the fiction" it's absolutely fine if a single hit from the Fighter is bigger, not a problem at all. So long as the Monk gets to hit significantly more often.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Stat bonuses exist. 1d4 + Stat mod x 2 is a lot higher than 1d8 + Stat mod x 1. Further this reflects how "brawlers" and "martial artists" tend to be portrayed in the media - the brawler/boxer/heavy hitter takes big swings which hit hard, but the martial artist makes several more precise and faster attacks in the same time period, even if none hit as big.



Martial artists in the media are very often portrayed as breaking small trees with their fists, breaking hard objects with punches and blows from fist and foot that send people flying 5-10 feet.  Those would be the kung fu monks/masters.


Ruin Explorer said:


> So in terms of "fitting the fiction" it's absolutely fine if a single hit from the Fighter is bigger, not a problem at all. So long as the Monk gets to hit significantly more often.



Does he?  To reliably attack more often than a fighting class at low levels you have to use pretty much all of your ki points on flurry.  God forbid that you want to do something like throw a missile back at something, attempt a stun, use the dodge action or use Step of the Wind. You're burning through your attacks like no tomorrow.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Martial artists in the media are very often portrayed as breaking small trees with their fists, breaking hard objects with punches and blows from fist and foot that send people flying 5-10 feet. Those would be the kung fu monks/masters.




Not at level 1.
A lvl 1 monk doesn't even have ki. They left the monastery before mastering basic body and spirit control.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Not at level 1.
> A lvl 1 monk doesn't even have ki. They left the monastery before mastering basic body and spirit control.



Correct, which makes the fighter doing d6 or d8 even more egregious at level 1.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Correct, which makes the fighter doing d6 or d8 even more egregious at level 1.



Actually it makes more sense.

If the fiction, it's is usually easier to learn to brute force unarmed strikes than to do so dexterously.

The new monks tend to have much lighter strikes than the big bandit brute.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Martial artists in the media are very often portrayed as breaking small trees with their fists, breaking hard objects with punches and blows from fist and foot that send people flying 5-10 feet. Those would be the kung fu monks/masters.



In media which portrays them doing that, it will inevitably portray the "big bruiser"-types causing even more destruction, so that doesn't support your point at all.


Maxperson said:


> Does he? To reliably attack more often than a fighting class at low levels you have to use pretty much all of your ki points on flurry. God forbid that you want to do something like throw a missile back at something, attempt a stun, use the dodge action or use Step of the Wind. You're burning through your attacks like no tomorrow.



That's not how the maths work - you've forgotten the basic bonus action unarmed strike.

Just your basic attack + 0-ki bonus action unarmed strike is going to average more damage doing 1d4+stat mod than someone doing 1d8+stat mod on a single attack. It's not at all complicated maths. If your stat mod is say, +3, 1d4 averages 2.5, so it's 5.5 x2 = 11 DPR vs. the Fighter, 1d8 averages to 4.5, +3 = 7.5.

It's not even close. I strongly suggest doing the maths before making claims like that.

If you add in Flurry of Blows you pull much further ahead, moving up to 16.5 vs 7.5. So absolutely this isn't going to cause a problem at lower levels or ever result in the Fighter doing, on average, more damage. Especially as most Fighter stuff requires a Weapon Attack, which this explicitly isn't. This is assuming you use purely unarmed strikes, too. If you wield a staff for your main attack, you're doing 1d8+3 and 1d4+3, and the Fighter is just doing 1d8+3. How are you seeing the Fighter as ahead lol?


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 29, 2022)

I think 1d3+STR would be fine.

It's better than the current 1+STR version but not quite as good as a club or low-level monk.

It also has the benefit of being something possible to roll with a normal set of dice. You call roll 1d3 by using 1d6. 

1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 3
4 - 1
5 - 2
6 - 3

You can also buy d3s.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 29, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> I think 1d3+STR would be fine.
> 
> It's better than the current 1+STR version but not quite as good as a club or low-level monk.
> 
> ...



This is an extremely strange post. I am agog. Possibly with awe. I have questions:

1) More of a comment than a question - that is totally not how you normally 1d3 with a d6, rather you go 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5-6 = 3 is like, how it's been done for like, the whole time D&D has existed. Do people disagree? Fascinated to know.

But that approach is wild. It's mentally harder though, because the method I mention is technically division but it's basically reflexive. Whereas the "subtract 3 if it's it's 4 or over" has got to be marginally slower. Also as a non-standard method, great for starting arguments lol.

2) What do you mean by "a normal set of dice".

A d4 is in a "normal set of dice". Or are you contrasting with a d2 (a coin)?

Personally I loathe rolling d3s for anything in D&D so would rather the lowest die we used was a d4


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> In media which portrays them doing that, it will inevitably portray the "big bruiser"-types causing even more destruction, so that doesn't support your point at all.



Have ever watched the old Kung Fu movies that seem to be a large inspiration for the monk class?  Little, thin guys putting their fists through trees with one punch.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Just your basic attack + 0-ki bonus action unarmed strike is going to average more damage doing 1d4+stat mod than someone doing 1d8+stat mod on a single attack. It's not at all complicated maths. If your stat mod is say, +3, 1d4 averages 2.5, so it's 5.5 x2 = 11 DPR vs. the Fighter, 1d8 averages to 4.5, +3 = 7.5.
> 
> It's not even close. I strongly suggest doing the maths before making claims like that.



I didn't make any DPR claims.  I said 1d8 > 1d4, which is a fact.  The base damage for a monk shouldn't be lower than the base damage for any other class.  If the fighter can at 1st level hit for 1d8+modifier, then the monk should be able to at LEAST match that for his two attacks.  If that's too much damage for the monk, then the fighter base unarmed damage should be lowered.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Have ever watched the old Kung Fu movies that seem to be a large inspiration for the monk class? Little, thin guys putting their fists through trees with one punch.



Not at level 1.

Old kung fu movies even have to the trope of new monks being really *bad* at kung fu and still requiring all the stairs climbing and air punching to not be absolute trash.

The evil monk coming back to the monstatery and kicking all the young monks' butts before dueling his master is a trope too. Monk is the *original* "garbage at level 1" hero.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 29, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> More of a comment than a question - that is totally not how you normally 1d3 with a d6, rather you go 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5-6 = 3 is like, how it's been done for like, the whole time D&D has existed. Do people disagree? Fascinated to know.
> 
> But that approach is wild. It's mentally harder though, because the method I mention is technically division but it's basically reflexive. Whereas the "subtract 3 if it's it's 4 or over" has got to be marginally slower. Also as a non-standard method, great for starting arguments lol.



I've done it both ways. Some of us find it more counterintuitive to translate the results that actually read "2" or "3" into other numbers through division than to have to do some subtraction. Neither approach is difficult and neither is particularly superior to the other. Which one becomes reflexive for someone most readily is probably a function of their own particular mind.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Not at level 1.
> 
> Old kung fu movies even have to the trope of new monks being really *bad* at kung fu and still requiring all the stairs climbing and air punching to not be absolute trash.



Those were not monks.  They were 0 level hopefuls.  When they finish training and are tearing trees apart by punching them, they are ready to go out into the world(level 1 monk).


Minigiant said:


> The evil monk coming back to the monstatery and kicking all the young monks' butts before dueling his master is a trope too.



Sure, but he's a 15th level monk and they are 0 or 1st level.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Those were not monks. They were 0 level hopefuls. When they finish training and are tearing trees apart by punching them, they are ready to go out into the world(level 1 monk).



level 1 PCs are novices. The level 1 monk doesn't even have ki.

Heck they can't tear trees apart because their attacks only deal 1d4+Dex damage and their is no support for a STRmonk to make Athletics checks yet.

A barbarian's, fighter's, and monk's fist being equally hard at level one doesn't break the fiction to me. And them fighting differently because they wear different armor makes sense as well.

The fighter is likely punching and kicking with their heavy armor covering their padded hands and feat.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> level 1 PCs are novices. The level 1 monk doesn't even have ki.



And those level 1 monks in the movies are doing at least a d8.  Punching through trees is higher level.


Minigiant said:


> Heck they can't tear trees apart because their attacks only deal 1d4+Dex damage and their is no support for a STRmonk to make Athletics checks yet.



And yet in the movies they do as they train to go get revenge for their families and such.


Minigiant said:


> A barbarian's, fighter's, and monk's fist being equally hard at level one doesn't break the fiction to me. And them fighting differently because they wear different armor makes sense as well.



I don't think they should be equal, but the biggest part of my objection is that fighters start with a d6 or d8, which is superior to the monk.  If 1st level is novice, then a novice non-martial artist should not be hitting as hard as, or especially harder than the black belt(1st level monk).


Minigiant said:


> The fighter is likely punching and kicking with their heavy armor covering their padded hands and feat.



If you read the armor descriptions, most of the armor doesn't include gauntlets, yet those armor wearers and completely unarmored fighters can still do d8.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 31, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is an extremely strange post. I am agog. Possibly with awe. I have questions:
> 
> 1) More of a comment than a question - that is totally not how you normally 1d3 with a d6, rather you go 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5-6 = 3 is like, how it's been done for like, the whole time D&D has existed. Do people disagree? Fascinated to know.
> 
> ...




Maybe for some people it is slower. Personally, I don't find it to be. 

I don't even think of it as subtracting. 1, 2, and 3 are as-is. After that, the numbering pattern starts over. (I could be wrong, but I believe this way also spaces out the results more, so that the two sides which equal a particular result aren't clumped together.)

In either case, a d6 is part of a normal set. Your post helps illustrate that there are multiple ways to use one to simulate a d3. 

If a d4 is desired, you could also have the default be "1d4-1; minimum 1."


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 31, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is an extremely strange post. I am agog. Possibly with awe. I have questions:
> 
> 1) More of a comment than a question - that is totally not how you normally 1d3 with a d6, rather you go 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5-6 = 3 is like, how it's been done for like, the whole time D&D has existed. Do people disagree? Fascinated to know.



I've seen both of these methods used commonly.  Two at my table roll it as 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1,etc.  And three of us roll like your above example.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 31, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> If a d4 is desired, you could also have the default be "1d4-1; minimum 1."



That skews the results, though.  You have a 50% chance of rolling a 1, 25% chance of rolling a 2, and 25% chance of rolling a 3.  You can actually buy d3's which are six sided dice with 1-3 printed twice.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That skews the results, though.  You have a 50% chance of rolling a 1, 25% chance of rolling a 2, and 25% chance of rolling a 3.  You can actually buy d3's which are six sided dice with 1-3 printed twice.




Very true. I was responding to someone not wanting to use d3s at all. 

In a previous post, I linked to a place which sells dual purpose d12/d3s. They're numbered to be a d12 but also feature pips which can be read as a d3.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I've seen both of these methods used commonly.  Two at my table roll it as 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1,etc.  And three of us roll like your above example.



Wow, I've never seen that used by anyone IRL. I read an RPG once which suggested it, but it just seemed like, unnecessarily complicating matters.


Argyle King said:


> In either case, a d6 is part of a normal set.



But so is a d4, so why is that relevant?


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 31, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Wow, I've never seen that used by anyone IRL. I read an RPG once which suggested it, *but it just seemed like, unnecessarily complicating matters*.



I certainly think so and use the "normal" method.


----------



## Marandahir (Aug 31, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> But so is a d4, so why is that relevant?



I think when some people say “normal set” they mean that most non-RPGamers familiar with dice are only familiar with d6s bc of their common use in board games and gambling.

I wouldn’t agree with calling them normal (who defines normal? Tyranny of the majority?), but if you’re trying to get them to be more specific regarding d6 vs any other x-sided polyhedrons used for gaming and gambling, it might come off to some as pedantic…


----------

