D&D 5E Quick Unarmed Strike question

[DND_Reborn]

Since TWF requires you to use a Light Weapon in both hands, such as two daggers, in order to use your bonus action for the second attack, why aren't Unarmed Strikes considered Light Weapons?

I mean, how does it make any logical sense that a person could swing a couple daggers, one in each hand, but can't punch twice???

I'm just wondering if there is an errata or something I am not aware of? They removed Unarmed Strikes from the weapons table, claiming everyone is proficient (totally untrue, lots of people can't throw a punch to save their life!), when IMO it should have been left in and given the Light property. We see it all the time when someone makes a weapon attack in a movie, following it with a punch or headbutt. No one is going to use a weapon attack granted via Extra Attack or something for an unarmed strike when they could make another weapon attack, but as a bonus action for TWF they might.

Anything I am missing??

EDIT: The title might make one think this is about some new feature for "quick" unarmed strikes... nope.

 

[RSIxidor]

I don't think there'd be much terribly wrong in balance terms about considering it a light weapon for TWF but I think from a design perspective that this is the Monk's "thing" and they probably didn't want to step on that.

 

[Fenris-77]

It makes no sense that you can't throw two punches. That second punch for most characters does what, a single point of damage with no mods? Not exactly earth shattering. That doesn't feel like stepping on the monk's toes too much. It would be a huge boost to grapple builds though, which might be a more likely reason it isn't there in the RAW.

 

[DEFCON 1]

They are not Light weapons so that any features or future features that require the use of Light weapons cannot or will not work with unarmed strikes. Same way unarmed strikes are not Finesse weapons either. They want to save those keywords for actual objects you wield and can drop and have enchanted etc. etc.

If you make a Spiked Gauntlet or a set of Brass Knuckles, then sure those could possibly be classified as Light or Finesse weapons because those would be okay for any feature that is expecting an actual object to be used. But since unarmed attacks do not involve an object, it saves them from having to do a whole bunch of " Well, except in the case of..." statements in features that are expected to be used with weapon objects and not just generalized attacks.

At least that's my belief. Easier to let a specific DM make their own decision to allow it than to deal with the headache of weapon attacks that don't involve weapons.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's complicated. They wrote themselves into a circle, and now they're trying their best to justify it.

This is why the game emphasizes rulings over rules. If you think it makes sense to dual-wield unarmed strikes, and it doesn't actually break anything at your table, then go ahead.

 

[GlassJaw]

For everything that 5E did right, one of my biggest pet peeves is that the designers didn't learn from the mistakes of 3ed and clean up the "unarmed strike" once and for all.

There has been numerous discussions, questions, errata, Sage Advice, tweets, etc on the differences between a weapon attack, an unarmed strike, a natural attack, a natural weapon, etc. Ugh it drives me nuts.

The RAW has required many clarifications, and that hasn't fully dispelled the confusion. I've done a lot of reading and my understanding is that an unarmed strike isn't actually a melee weapon at all, but you can make an unarmed strike with an melee attack. It isn't Light or Finesse. It also isn't a natural weapon. It's literally its own category. It's maddening.

There is no doubt that unarmed fighting could greatly benefit from some expanded rules but my gut says that the designers didn't have the stomach for it, nor did they think it was important.

I'm firmly in the camp that believes you should be able to make an offhand attack with an unarmed strike. I'm also ok with making it Light and Finesse. I don't think anyone would argue that Dex would help you land unarmed strikes. Whether you should be able to add it to damage could be debated but again, it only does a base 1 point of damage so I don't think it's going to compete with normal weapons.

If that's a concern, it's easy enough to create a "Martial Artist" feat that grants the Light and Finesse properties to unarmed strikes, or even a Fighting Style that does the same.

I love the big, burly, unarmed Pit Fighter/Wrestler archetype but D&D in pretty every incarnation of its rules hasn't supported it, or at least not without much difficulty. What if I want to punch people but not be a monk?

 

[Fenris-77]

Build a grappler? At least those rules work (maybe better than they should). Seriously though, I share your pain. There's no reason the unarmed rules shouldn't at least be functional, but they just aren't. You should be able to synergize unarmed strikes in pretty much any way you can another weapon IMO. It's silly, just like not being able to sneak attack with them is ludicrous.

That said, have you taken a hard look at what happens to a grappler build when you give them that offhand attack? Just curious. It's pretty savage, I'll reiterate my opinion that the grappling rules is a main reason the offhand unarmed strike isn't a thing.

 

[Esker]

I can see a couple of game balance issues at play. One is that requiring TWF to use something you're holding, it makes dueling style and TWF mutually exclusive. Another is object interactions and there being an opportunity cost to having a weapon in your off-hand in order to use TWF. Note also that the TWF rule requires you to be holding the off-hand weapon when you make the main-hand attack in order to qualify, which means you can't wait and see if you hit with the main attack and then draw your off-hand weapon only if you miss: you have to have it ready, which means a gish type gives up somatic/material component access with that hand unless they have another feature (like the swords bard weapon-as-focus). A third is that the TWF style would suddenly make fists a lot more powerful.

 

[GlassJaw]

I can see a couple of game balance issues at play. One is that requiring TWF to use something you're holding, it makes dueling style and TWF mutually exclusive. Another is object interactions and there being an opportunity cost to having a weapon in your off-hand in order to use TWF. Note also that the TWF rule requires you to be holding the off-hand weapon when you make the main-hand attack in order to qualify, which means you can't wait and see if you hit with the main attack and then draw your off-hand weapon only if you miss: you have to have it ready, which means a gish type gives up somatic/material component access with that hand unless they have another feature (like the swords bard weapon-as-focus). A third is that the TWF style would suddenly make fists a lot more powerful.

Yeah but you are still just doing 1 point of damage.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Build a grappler? At least those rules work (maybe better than they should). Seriously though, I share your pain. There's no reason the unarmed rules shouldn't at least be functional, but they just aren't. You should be able to synergize unarmed strikes in pretty much any way you can another weapon IMO. It's silly, just like not being able to sneak attack with them is ludicrous.

That said, have you taken a hard look at what happens to a grappler build when you give them that offhand attack? Just curious. It's pretty savage, I'll reiterate my opinion that the grappling rules is a main reason the offhand unarmed strike isn't a thing.

It doesn't? The entry to the bonus action is an attack with a light weapon. Using your attack for a grapple makes it a special attack, not an attack with a light weapon. Same problem exists for the bonus action: you get an attack with a light weapon, not a special attack grapple.

Of course, you're welcome to rule differentky.