Timeline for Interactions between unarmed strikes, negative strength and an unconscious target
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2018 at 4:09 | comment | added | Peter Cordes | It would have made sense (and be a good house rule) for unarmed damage to be 1d1, but RAW that's not the case. If you want to rephrase your answer to acknowledge that RAW is clear but silly, and suggest your method as a house rule, then I'd upvote it. (And wearing metal gauntlets should be at least 1d2, IMO. Bare fists can hurt your hand, especially against a hard target, and maybe that's how they justify such crap damage.) | |
| Jan 25, 2018 at 18:42 | comment | added | Phil Boncer | I have no problem with the "die" being always a 1. But that does not have to mean you can't double that 1 on a critical. That's just silly, and nonsensical. | |
| Jan 25, 2018 at 13:04 | comment | added | Freefly | Well it wouldn't make sense for a punch to do as much maximum damage as, say, a pool cue (improvised weapon), so a d4 is out of the question. You can go with a d1 or a d2, but 5e philosophy is to prevent this kind of complexity, so I can see why they would choose to use a flat 1. And from there, the problem seen here is only a result of playing purely by the RAW. | |
| Jan 25, 2018 at 4:07 | comment | added | Phil Boncer | Thanks, Nat. Like, as in, if your unarmed strike has die roll for any reason (Tabaxi, Tavern Brawler, Tortle, Monk, Aarakocra, etc.) you can get a critical on an unarmed strike, and double the base damage, but why not then on a regular unarmed strike? It seems that the design team really wants to discourage letting PCs punch their opponents, for some reason. | |
| Jan 25, 2018 at 4:04 | comment | added | Nat | Weirdly, this answer makes a lot of sense. The \$1\$-damage specification seems to serve in the stead of a hypothetical d1 die. Since a d1 would always return the same result, there's no sense in actually having such a die, however that seems to be more of a simplification than something that should modify the behavior of a critical hit. So, it makes sense to regard that \$1\$ damage as resulting from a hypothetical die. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 18:49 | comment | added | Phil Boncer | Seriously, the whole topic of unarmed strikes has gotten really weird. The rules have been changed a number of times, and how unarmed strikes now differ by the rules, between PCs, NPCs, and monsters and beasts, are often contradictory and nonsensical. I don't know what effects they are trying to achieve, or what problems they're trying to fix, but this is just one of many examples of weird ramifications of the current rules about unarmed strikes. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 18:39 | comment | added | Phil Boncer | well, he's wrong. ;) | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 18:25 | comment | added | T.J.L. | The quotes from the game designer provided in other answers directly contradict your assertion that the base 1 is doubled. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 18:08 | history | answered | Phil Boncer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |