Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
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.
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
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.
Ugh, this is reminding me that my DM swears that my dual wielding, grappling rune knight/barbarian’s fists are not “melee weapons” and thus cannot use any of the runes that are activated by a melee weapon.
If Bruce Lee’s were licensed as lethal weapons, then why the hell can’t mine, Dan!?
The ones that say "when you hit a creature with an attack using a weapon"? Your DM is following the intended rules. In 5e, your empty hand can make "melee weapon attacks," but that attack is not an "attack with a melee weapon" or an "attack using a weapon." Unless that changed in the recent update, I haven't read the 5.5 books.
Melee weapon attacks not being attacks with a weapon sounds like a prime example of badly written rules.
It’s because “attack” isn’t specific enough. Everything in DnD is either a weapon attack (typically a physical attack using whatever weapon you have equipped) or a spell attack. In general parlance, “I punch the kobold” translates to “I use Unarmed Strike to make a weapon attack on the kobold.” But that doesn’t mean the Unarmed Strike is a weapon. Since generic attacks aren’t allowed in the rules, you have to designate it as a weapon attack, instead of a spell attack. Oftentimes, the distinction is because there are certain spells or effects that use your weapon as a spell focus, or trigger when making/taking weapon/spell attacks.
For instance, Booming Blade requires brandishing a weapon to channel the spell before you make a weapon attack. The spell component literally lists “a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp, which the spell does not consume.” Then if you hit with the weapon attack, the spell triggers. So your fists could make a weapon attack (using Unarmed Strike) but would not count as a valid weapon for the spell. Even if you could convince the DM that your hand is worth at least 1 silver piece, it still wouldn’t be a melee weapon. So you wouldn’t be able to cast the spell if you were unarmed.
Still sounds like a badly chosen name to me. Calling a category "weapon attack" when not all attacks within it are attacks with weapons makes it wide open to misinterpretation, especially when in some cases it's relevant whether a weapon is used or not. The fact that it took you two long paragraphs to explain the difference between a weapon attack and a weapon attack with a weapon illustrates this rather nicely.
Distinguishing "spell/nonspell" or "spell/weapon/unarmed" would've solved the issue without this whole "weapon but not really" song and dance routine.
Maybe. It's because "weapon attack" is the verbiage they settled on for hitting somebody with something that isn't a spell (spells make "spell attacks"). They could call them "weapon or unarmed attacks" but that seems unnecessarily verbose when 95% of them are going to be made with a weapon. You might think that for hand-to-hand combat you could simply refer to "melee attacks," but "melee" is a specifier that can be applied to spell attacks too, so it's out.
So the current situation is this: a rule can simply refer to all "attacks," or it can refer to "melee" or "ranged" attacks, or it can refer to "weapon" or "spell" attacks, or it can use both specifiers (as in "ranged weapon attack").
So if you want to fix it, you need a word to replace "weapon" that could include unarmed combat but excludes all spells. "Physical" might be good, but has some edge case problems: if I have a psychic "blade" that attacks your mind, it makes "physical attacks" despite being a non-physical object. If I have a spell that physically throws a boulder at you, it's pretty easy for me to remember that I should make a spell attack roll, but if you have a feature that defends against "physical attacks" you might think it should apply against the boulder when it doesn't. "Martial attack" might be getting at the right thing, but it sounds strange, and for new players who might be new to RPGs "martial" and "melee" are both uncommon words that kind of sound similar, and that might cause confusion. (Also "martial melee attack" sounds more natural than "melee martial attack," but then it has the opposite word order from "melee spell attack" and that's weird.)
There may be a perfect word out there, but in the end they decided "weapon" was the least confusing, despite requiring the caveat that attacking unarmed is a "weapon attack." And so everywhere that the rules say "attack with a weapon" instead, it is to specifically exclude unarmed attacks, although I admit that it's not always obvious why they want to do that.
The term "nonspell" would be available if the only relevant distinction is whether it's a spell or not.
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.
When I DM I have a consistent house rule that if you have the ability to do a bonus action, you can do a strike with an unarmed off hand if you are adjacent to an enemy regardless of class. If it connects it does 1d4 bludgeoning and has a chance to knock a medium or smaller enemy prone if the player wins a strength contest. Nat 20 achieves both the connecting of the hit and the prone.
I’d allow this but, I’d let it just be the flat Str score of an attack.
Monks get to have their unarmed strike to be special.
The prone stuff seems a bit OP. I’d make it a part of Crusher instead.
It usually works out fine. Plus sometimes the potential of just getting a 1d4 out of it doesn’t seem worth it to waste a bonus action, especially at higher level encounters. I have other house rules that also incentivize other options too. But I’ve been blessed with players that like to keep things interesting and inventive for the fun of it rather than just cheese everything they can.
"Also, f*ck monks."
I like when my monk players take 15 minutes to decide what to do only to end up punching a bunch of times and end their turn.
I think that has less to do with monks and more to do with your players.
...most folks don't like that...
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....
DW in real life means that you have two weapons, of any kind. It literally means that you are wielding two. Not a pair.
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
Martial arts? Like monks are trained in?
I didn't write things in a good way.
Yes, like monks are trained in, but more like real world monks that are martial artists.
