DND is a weird mix of too many rules and not enough rules.
I can’t imagine too many scenarios where allowing someone who is wielding a one-handed (or versatile) weapon and nothing in the off hand to have a bonus action unarmed strike to be game-breaking. Seems like an easy call to me.
So we’re just giving out bonus actions now? /s
Free actions? In this economy?
Yeah, especially when one is likely much more powerful than the other. If you are a monk with a sword you are wasting your time. If you are a Warrior* with a free hand you are wasting your time.
*Sorry, that should have been Fighter, I’m sick, and I’ve been reading too many variant rulesets while I’m sitting at home.
If you have nothing else to do with your bonus action that round then it isn’t really a waste of time, no matter how bad it is. 1 damage is sometimes all you need.
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
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.
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.
Yes, I’m aware what the rules say. And those rules specify that an unarmed attack is one option when doing a melee attack. And there are other rules that specify when you can make a melee attack. OPs post was noting the weirdness of D&D, in that there are some things that aren’t explicitly specified in the rules. Specifically, whether using two fists counts as dual-wielding (RAW, it doesn’t).
According to the rules, characters can make a melee attack when performing the Attack action (plus in a number of other cases). Most of the time, the Attack action involves one or more attacks with a weapon (martial classes get more than one starting at level 5).
So any weapon attack can be substituted as an unarmed attack. A character wielding a greataxe who can normally make two attacks with the Attack action could substitute one or both of those attacks with kicks, elbows, or for flavor, releasing the weapon with one hand and bitchslapping their opponent.
The question isn’t whether someone wielding other weapons can make an unarmed attack, it’s a question of when. More specifically, when can a character use a bonus action to make an unarmed attack.
The rules also contain information about dual-wielding weapons:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
OP’s post calls out that fighting bare-fisted would not qualify as two-weapon fighting, and thus RAW a character fighting unarmed could not use a Bonus Action to make an additional attack (despite “wielding” two fists).
My point was that, as a GM, I would rule that fighting unarmed, or fighting with a single one-handed weapon and not having a shield, would qualify as being able to make an additional attack with a bonus action per the two weapon fighting rules.
But per the rules, landing an unarmed attack in this scenario would result in a maximum of one (1) point of damage, as the Str modifier would not be added to the damage (unless the character had some other benefit that improved it, such as a class feature or feat). So there’s no reason to not allow it, as it’s a pretty weak option.
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.
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.
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.
I got lost in the reeds, I though we were talking about bonus action unarmed attacks, which, for doing a bonus action attack you need a light weapon and only monks consider unarmed attacks “light” for the purposes of bonus action attacks. So yeah, fighters RAW can’t bonus action unarmed strike with their “offhand” because they don’t consider their first/feet light weapons.
In any case, you are right, anyone should be able to use their whole action to kick someone even if they are wielding a 2hander, but only monks can do it as a bonus action effectively, if they are using versatile monk weapons like quarterstaves.
I know you wanted for references, but since I changed my argument you might not need them anymore. If you want I can search proper references.
They specifically don’t require a free hand
Pretty sure this is rules as written or at least as interpreted by Baldur’s Gate 3. It’s been a while since my playthrough but I’m pretty sure I was doing this with Astarion the whole time. Knife in one hand unarmed strike with the other. Warrior monk rogue kicked ass.
In BG3, you have to multiclass into rogue for the off-hand attack. But yeah, I think it would let you “dual wield” with a single light weapon.
That’s incorrect, if you are able to dual wield you can bonus action attack, the issue is that you get only 1 offhand attack and it doesn’t get your str/dex to damage without the feat. Also, after lvl 5 other classes get to multi attack with the mainhand, but the offhand gets only 1 attack. 2 if you get the extra bonus action from thief.
You need to use light weapons though.
There’s a phenomenon in TTRPGs called a Mermaids Amulet. There was an item in a game that let a mermaid breathe in air, which was the ONLY thing that indicated they normally couldn’t. In short, a rule was only shown to exist by an ability to overcome it.
Monks have the ability to make a bonus action unarmed strike after making an attack, which would be redundant if the dual wielding rules let you do that.
thought that just let them add their modifier to the second attack
If that was the case, it’d be phrased more like Two Weapon Fighting from the fighter’s fighting styles. But instead of saying you can add your modifier, it says you can make an unarmed strike. Which means you couldn’t before.
An Unarmed Strike without modifier would also be literally 1 point of damage, barring Monk or Unarmed Fighting Style
I am directly talking about the Monk, though
Removed by mod
If you are with a mermaid with this, can you summon the amulate from around their neck?
Anytime a show or movie shows a sword fight where someone also gets punched in the face is just good choriography.
Also somewhat historically accurate. Ye olde sword fighting was basically just brawling with blades.
Depends on what era. In Europe, coats of plates didn’t really appear before the 13th century and full plate armor wasn’t developed until the late 14th century. Before that you mainly had people wearing chainmail and a helmet if they could get it, or gambesons (cloth armor).
At that time, weapons were still somewhat effective against armor. Spears, axes, and arrows could punch through chainmail.
When full plate armor was developed, only the very wealthy had access to it, and everyone else continued to just wear chainmail and gambesons. Fully armored knights effectively became tanks that could slash their way through all the peons.
The only realistic way the foot soldiers could stop them was to have several guys swarm an isolated knight, each grabbing a limb, and hold him down. Then they would either stab the knight through the gaps in his armor (like the eyeslot of the visor) or more likely would drag him off for ransom.
That being said, there are plenty of instances of 2 armored knights fighting each other, with them often half-swording or grappling each other to the ground and stabbing each other with daggers.
But my earlier comparison to tanks still stands. Most of the time, tanks are actually supporting infantry units, with tank v tank encounters being relatively rare. Similarly, knights spent most of their time in relatively small units killing a lot of unarmored opponents
People desperately need to understand that mechanical rules are there for balancing and taking them so painfully literally just isn’t necessary.
You only get one unarmed attack on the dice, but if you want to say you did the damage in two or three hits instead of one then go for it, it literally does not matter. You can even say you missed one attack and them wound up for a sneaky second one!
Follow the rules for number related things and roleplay and tell a story for being cool related things.
An unarmed strike is a weapon attack. When you make a weapon attack, you can use a bonus action to make another weapon attack with your offhand. It seems pretty straightforward and intuitive that your offhand weapon attack could be using your bare hand.
Well, yeah. If the sword is so heavy that you need two hands to wield it…then, it’s a two-handed weapon. It’s only considered “dual wielding” if both your hands are holding separate weapons. So, sword in one hand and an empty handed attack with the other, counts.
Stuff like this is why I like my DM so much. He has basically a “common sense” time for stuff like this where if an action makes good common sense within the world he’s built (like a warrior type being able to punch someone after swinging a sword, or a brawler type being able to use both their fists without having to have some esoteric attribute attached to their character sheet), it’s allowed, and you can roll for it.
Unarmed Strikes are not just punches, they have nothing to do with how many hands you have. You can even Unarmed Strike with a weapon in each hand. If you want to “dual wield” Unarmed Strikes, go Monk.
As someone with a similar hobby, I personally hate this clip. It’s obviously choreographed, but I just don’t find concussions funny anymore.
Can you play as a creature with four arms?
Loxodons (Elephant species) have two arms but can use their trunk to make a grapple attack.
Thikreen have 4 arms. The secondary set can use Light weapons. Note that having 4 arms, each holding a Dagger or other light weapon doesn’t inherently grant any additional attacks.
The best combo I have come up with is using 5.5 weapon mastery ruleson a Berserker Barb, and a 2h weapon with some desirable property like Cleave in your Primary arms, and Scimitars in your secondary arms. After level 5, with attack action you can make 1 attack with your big weapon, Cleave attack if you hit, then 1 attack with the secondary arms Scimitar, then an attack from Nick as part of that same attack action, then a bonus action attack with scimitar. STR bonus on first 2 attacks, +2 Rage bonus on all 5 attacks, +2d6 damage on first hit when Reckless, which you should always use.
weird… am I the only one who grew up w/ ‘dual wielding is two weapons of the same kind’ table rule? hence, the dual label…
To be fair, the official D&D rules call it “Two-Weapon Fighting”. Not sure if it’s to avoid this confusion.
Identical weapons are what I typically picture in that scenario, but it makes sense mechanically to allow different types (especially with a rapier/dagger combo being a thing in a lot of fantasy, and probably historically? I dunno).
that is helpful.
I probably am also getting mixed memories from playing TMNT/palladium, which had some kind of specialization for two of the same weapons… unless my brain is absolute tapioca, which, considering the hellscape out there, isn’t much of a stretch…
Not completely right
(5.5e) Two-weapon fighting is a Fighting Style that only some classes can get.
Dual Wielder is a general Feat that any character of level 4 with str or dex 13 or higher can take.
Anyone can dual wield when their main weapon has the Light property.
There are three things in the rules that I’m aware of that talk about fighting with two weapons:
- There is a subsection in the basic rules called Two-Weapon Fighting. These are the base rules for anyone using two weapons (BA attack without ability modifier, must use light weapons)
- There is also a fighting style called Two-Weapon Fighting available to fighters and a couple of specific subclasses (Swashbuckler has that option, I think). This fighting style allows you to add your ability modifier to the off-hand attack.
- There is a feat called Dual Wielding (Player’s Handbook) that grants additional bonuses: the weapons don’t have to be light, a +1 AC bonus, and you’re able to draw or stow both weapons at once.
That is true, for the 2014 (5e) version
The 2024 / 5.5e version rules no longer have the “two-weapon fighting” subsection - the rule is now merged into the description of the ‘light’ weapon property
Probably, considering the meaning of dual
Is a fist considered a light weapon? Hmmm
What’s hilarious to me is that you’d have to have a mod to make this work effectively in bg3. Or at least multiclass into monk, which makes little sense when you confused consider that fighters are kinda known for tactics like that, and there’s a lomg standing tradition of punching a motherfucker when a weapon attack fails, or even using a weapon attack to set up a punch (or kick) in many martial arts that have a weapon focus
Read it as dual welding and was quite impressed by the concept.
![Dual Wielding [Dungeons & Dragons]](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/cac0f467-f0d7-4bd4-a82d-65eace9616a2.webp){kind=link}