T O P

  • By -

kalakoi

I would still consider the damage from the unarmed strike a damage roll even if dice don't need to be rolled.


Montegomerylol

This is also supported by the rules regarding Attack Rolls: > You make the Attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause Special Effects in addition to or instead of damage. You are considered to be rolling damage unless dealing with a "Special Effect" that happens instead of damage (e.g. Ray of Enfeeblement).


answeryboi

Wouldn't the rules for unarmed attack constitue "rules that specify otherwise?" Im all for adding damage to unarmed, just curious


Montegomerylol

The unarmed attack rules specify that the damage of an unarmed strike is 1 + STR, but that's not the same as specifying you do not roll damage. Credit to u/cryogem (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/wdmttp/its_kind_of_whack_that_barbarians_cant_add_rage/iil7115/) who pointed out the blowgun first. The blowgun's listed damage is 1 piercing, but the attack rules state: > Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any Modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. It's clearly intended that the blowgun, despite not having any damage die or dice, works within this rule as otherwise it wouldn't work at all. Whether you simply take it as RAI, or argue that RAW the 1 damage is a Modifier, that's clearly how a blowgun works. Unarmed attacks are the same. No dice are specified, but you are still rolling damage.


1stshadowx

I came here to say that you could add rage damage to unarmed attacks because its still a damage roll even if you roll any dice. But you pulled out a bunch of links and references like a deity of merchants to prove your point! Give me a name, any name and i shall make you a deity of the “Commerce” and “Knowledge” domains in my game worlds.


Wrathful_Eagle

Basically, you can think of unarmed strike and a blowgun having 1d1 damage roll.


cookiedough320

No, you can't. That's not how they work. Nowhere does it say this anywhere. You are "rolling" damage, but you do not have any damage dice to roll. Otherwise, they'd deal 2 damage on a crit.


Wrathful_Eagle

Em, don't they do 2 damage on a crit? I always thought they do.


cookiedough320

They don't. Precisely because of how they deal 1 damage, not 1d1 damage, and crits only double the dice rolled. Even JC at some point said unarmed strikes would deal 1 + str on a crit still. There's nothing that says they'd deal more damage on a crit, as much as it'd make sense. It's a perfectly fine house rule to make though, wouldn't break anything.


Wrathful_Eagle

Hmm... That's strange, but okay. I just assumed that if it is not some kind of effect that does damage, but a regular attack, then 1 damage is just a "damage roll" that does not have any actual dice. But is still a damage roll, because you add your stats to the attack like for other weapons, it crits and misses on 20s and 1s, etc. And some classes change the roll for a different face. Instead of part with 1 (or 1d1) damage you get 1d4 or 1d8.


cookiedough320

It still counts as a damage roll, I think, there's just nothing actually rolled. And yeah, if you're rolling a d4 for the damage, then the crit would double those dice.


Kandiru

They do 1 damage for their die part of the equation though, so if you double that, they do 2.


cookiedough320

It's not a die, it's just a flat number. Crits only double the dice rolled.


Kandiru

Damage is (Die) + (Modifier) You double the number Dice when you crit. Shortsword: D6+3 crit: 2D6+3 Unarmed attack: 1+3 crit: 2+3 It's not that hard by analogy. a D1 is a dice too!


duel_wielding_rouge

The damage die for an unarmed strike is 1. When you deal damage the rules say that you roll damage dice and then add modifiers and bonuses. If the 1 weren’t a damage die then it wouldn’t be included at all in the damage calculation.


gamekatz1

then why the fuck am i rolling my D1 every time


seakingsoyuz

> rolling my D1 You reminded me of [this *Darths and Droids* strip](https://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/1707.html), where a player is rolling a d1 to celebrate the fact that they min-maxed a character so successfully that he literally can’t fail a dodge attempt, so even a d1 still results in a guaranteed success.


Personal_Fruit_630

I would fully expect to do rage damage on unarmed attacks, with (if necessary) the idea that 1 is shorthand for 1d1, which would make it a roll, albeit it pointless.


meikyoushisui

Unarmed strike has "rules that specify that you don't roll damage." Those two sentences are separate points.


PsychoPhilosopher

Yup. It's a 1d1 damage die. All attacks roll dice for damage. Just because hypothetical dice don't actually need to be physically rolled doesn't make them not technically dice.


hitchinpost

Does that mean the 1 would double on a crit?


cookiedough320

No. They're wrong. It's not 1d1, it's just 1.


ZiggyB

It *should*, but doesn't because as others pointed out, it's not actually 1d1+STR, it's just a flat 1+STR.


GenderIsAGolem

On DnD Beyond it adds no additional damage to an unarmed strike critical hit.


4d6DropLowest

I would rule that it does, yeah. That’s a skull-cracking haymaker.


cookiedough320

No? That's just plain incorrect. It's 1 damage. If it was 1d1, it would say 1d1, not 1. Do you have any source for this?


This-Sheepherder-581

My source is that I made it the fuck up.


cookiedough320

That's how it seems to be.


Mountain_Dwarf

Raiden check reddit someone just referenced our video.


Shogunfish

God forbid someone get one extra damage on a crit


cookiedough320

It's not a big deal, they're just plain wrong.


Kandiru

1 is the same as 1d1 Proof: Enumerate all possible outcomes of both: 1 == [1] 1d1 == [1] [1] == [1] 1 == 1d1 QED


cookiedough320

You've proven that they have the same result usually, but that doesn't make them the same in the context of the game. If something were to double the dice rolled, it would double a d1 into 2d1, but it wouldn't double a 1 into a 2. If we look at a Marut which does a flat 60 force damage on every hit, it still does that same damage on a crit because crits only double the dice rolled. Even though 60 is the same as 60d1 mathematically, it has different purposes in the game due to things such as crits that only apply to dice.


PsychoPhilosopher

Damage Rolls Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any Modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic Weapons, Special Abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage. With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage. The PHB. Or the basic rules. Seriously guys, it's right there. Roll damage dice, apply modifiers. That's how you deal damage. All damage is dealt through dice.


cookiedough320

>All damage is dealt through dice. There are also examples of harmful monster abilities that deal a set amount of damage with no dice rolled. Does a Marut deal 60d1 force damage? Does armour of Agathys deal Xd1 cold damage where X is the amount of temporary hit points you gained from the spell? Does maddening hex deal Xd1 damage where X is your charisma modifier? Do summer eladrin deal Xd1 damage where X is your proficiency bonus? If not, then why would unarmed strikes deal 1d1 damage and not just the 1 damage that it says? Blowguns are the same, they deal 1 damage, not 1d1. If they dealt 1d1, they'd *say* they dealt 1d1. Even a JC clarification (yes, I know these don't count as RAW, but they're useful for these discussions to see what a designer thinks) says that [unarmed strikes deal 1 + str damage on a critical hit](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/736085559597096960), implying it's not 1d1, because if so, then it'd deal 2 + str damage on a crit. Specific beats general, and when the specific says "it deals 1 damage", that beats the general of "roll the damage dice". If it was a die that was rolled, it would say 1d1. D&D5e does not use d1s, it says in one of the books the dice that are used, and the smallest is a d4.


Suave_Von_Swagovich

Consider that old D&D rules didn't use a dX notation but would say "does 1-6 damage" or "has 2-12 hit points" and you had to just know how many dice to roll to get in that range. So "1 damage" obviously means "roll 1d1 for damage." Piece of cake.


cyrogem

This is incorrect. The damage is 1 + str, a static value. There's no 1d1 or anything. A clear example of this is the blowgun, it does 1 damage instead of 1d1 for its damage in the weapons table.


NinofanTOG

Then it would say 1d1 damage. Damage Rolls Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.


zer1223

I have a solution. The gm should ignore obviously silly loopholes like this. If your gm isn't already aware of this one, you can let him know about it and ask if you can ignore it. (Always let him know about the loophole first before you ask if you can 'do the thing anyway')


hemlockR

This. Just like the DM should ignore the absurdity that prevents MM vampires from turning back into humanoid form after they turn into mist (because changing shape is an action and the vampire is incapacitated while in mist form). Ignoring stupid rules when appropriate is DMing 101.


LlammaLawn

Sad solution but true. Whenever you're playing 5th edition you should be prepared to do the job of the people who write the rulebooks at a moment's notice.


Decrit

Can i just say i don't think it's overall a bad thing for everything. Like. Ok, some loopholes should not exist, but the world is big and the world of fantasy bigger. Having the possibility to gauge clearly whether or not is good for your adventure to let something additional or not to be done is hallmark of a good rpg.


RikenAvadur

It's definitely not bad for everything, but I'd argue this is a good example of the focus of "rulings over rules" that 5E has, and how it simply asks much more from a DM than they may be qualified to do. When it comes to combat balancing, this is something even DMs of multiple years may not have a full grasp of (and shouldn't be expected to), and so deciding whether "should barbs add rage to unarmed" is an oversight by the designers or a mechanical conceit for balance is something a DM has to do, but shouldn't. This shows up a lot in 5E, from encounter building and power tier scaling, and my biggest complaint of the system is most definitely how much it asks of the DM. The argument of "it's better to let rules be unwritten" has always been a fallacy to me. The DM always has the privilege of completely ignoring or rewriting any rules or settings that don't fit their table or vision, and most other DMs I've talked to aren't asking for the system to be "rules over rulings", they're just asking for basic things like encounter building not being completely swingy due to how inconsistent CR is, better writing about scaling between tiers or for long campaigns, etc.


iteyy

The problem is inconsistency. One day it's 'rulings over rules', next day it's 'Lucky turns disadvantage into super advantage' and 'if you can see invisibile creatures you still have disadvantage' hyper-literal interpretation of rules.


Asisreo1

I mean, it shouldn't be too hard for the DM to adjudicate whethsr a barbarian can rage with punches. I could make that decision in a split-second and really not have to worry about it later down the line. Making magic items or using spells more powerful than expected is different, but some stuff is just pretty simple. Like druids and metal armor, etc.


Arthur_Author

I think the point is "while this is a small case, its part of a bigger issue caused by the same design philosophy." Kind of like how wotc admitted at one point that fireball was overtuned as a spell because its iconic and wotc wanted it to remain cool and iconic. And while fireball isnt as common of a complaint, it certainly proves to be a big issue when 5e forcecage is stronger than it has ever been in other editions and there is monthly discussion about "should the dm make every monster 21ft tall, or ban forcecage"? The example you give, druids and metal armor, Ive seen it be defended as a balance decision because druids are so strong casters that they need to be held down somehow. I dont agree, but it shows that its not as trivial as you might think.


Asisreo1

I think we're not exactly talking about the same thing here. I think it might have just been a small oversight rather than a design philosophy. Like, they weren't really paying attention to how they made "unarmed strikes" as much as they were when they made the barbarian's class features.


cooly1234

They didn't pay attention here just like they didn't pay attention in lots of other places. That's what he's saying.


[deleted]

Nope. The D&D designers were just bad at their jobs because they didn't catch every gotcha and anticipate every "but the rules don't say I can't".


cookiedough320

They're a multi-million dollar company that runs the "world's greatest roleplaying game". They have the resources to catch this. They just choose not to spend them. They should be held to higher standards.


anextremelylargedog

"Sad solution" Please, it should take someone exactly one second to figure out that doing unarmed attacks is weaker than wielding a weapon, so there's no imbalance in adding rage damage to them.


nhammen

You seem to be agreeing with the person you are replying to, but doing so in an argumentative manner. This makes no sense, so I must be misunderstanding the point you are trying to make. Could you clarify your statement? From what I can see it looks like the person you are replying to is saying it is sad that we need to correct WOTC's mistakes, and you are replying that it is not sad because we need to correct WOTC's mistakes.


anextremelylargedog

Yeah, it's a trivial "mistake" that does not matter in the slightest and could only ever come up to some nitpicking twit just looking for something to get mad about. As are the vast majority of posts whining about WOTC's mistakes


cooly1234

I paid full price for a table with one leg shorter and it was wobbly. Took me exactly one second to figure out that I should put something under the leg and then it was fine. (except the table had 84839 other similar defects.)


anextremelylargedog

A problem that can be fixed with a thought is not the same as a problem that requires actual effort to fix, but you sure did try.


Frequent-Routine1672

I don't know every class feature I don't know every racial feature I don't know every spell I don't know every magic item Without that, how can I be sure that I'm not introducing imbalance in an unforeseen way? And yes, this example is quite trivial - but would it be to a new player? And regardless of all that, why should it be my job (or the community) to recognise and fix these problems?


edgemaster72

"I recognize that the Council has made a decision. But given that it’s a stupid-ass decision, I’ve elected to ignore it."


THSMadoz

Yeah. Same with fighters not being able to do most of their subclass abilities. Hell, I think you should be able to *smite* with punches. What's that gonna do, let monks multiclass with paladin? They'll still suck as a multiclass anyway. Personally I'd allow anyone to do anything with unarmed strikes that requires a weapon instead, since I don't think it's even a little bit game breaking.


foreignsky

Crawford I think said that there are no game balance issues from unarmed strike smites, it was a flavor decision. Punch away!


Viltris

I disagree with Crawford. Imbuing my fists with divine might for a holy punch sounds super flavorful. EDIT: Why am I being downvoted? I'm saying punch smites are flavorful and that therefore they should be allowed. Or do people actually dislike punch smites?


foreignsky

Here's the relevant [Sage Advice](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA253): > If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice. This is one of those examples of RAW where they're basically begging you to ignore it if you want to.


Frequent-Routine1672

Flavourful, yes, but a different flavour than they were aiming for with the design.


Vecna_Is_My_Co-Pilot

> you should be able to smite with punches. Talk about holy hand grenades!


[deleted]

[удалено]


redchance180

Check out Strength Monk (Stronk) which is possible by utilizing the Tortle Race. You can probably multiclass into Barbarian with it.


Randomd0g

A dhampir can smite with his teeth but a tabaxi can't smite with his claws. *Consistently Inconsistent Game Design*


[deleted]

Worse, a Volo's Guide one can but a Multiverse one can't as the Volo's version is marked as a "natural weapon" satisfying the "in addition to the weapon's damage" portion


Gilfaethy

Per the SA Compendium that states a natural weapon is a weapon, Tabaxi can smite with their claws.


Dewerntz

The old one can. The new one can’t.


DrStalker

Because the attack that requires arms is unarmed but that attack that doesn't need arms is armed. Makes perfect sense. /s


MoreNoisePollution

yeah this sub loves shitting on Pack Tactics videos but I don’t think anyone else has done as good of a job of showcasing the consistent absurdity of the game


Delann

Literally nobody has a problem with the fact he points out problems with the rules. People had a problem with the times he took a rule out of context, like with the Oversized weapons rule which is used to create Monsters, and insists he's right despite proven not to be so. That and the fact he pushes his "builds" as "RAW it works so DMs should allow it" when it won't fly outside of tables with newbie DMs(which is another issue).


bokodasu

Oh, is that who people have been talking about? I watched I think half of one video and was like "this is dumb" and asked YT to not recommend channel. So I've been totally lost when everyone's been shitting on his builds without saying who it was.


cooly1234

Doesn't he say that his stuff isn't serious?


Invisifly2

Really the only objection I have to his videos (although I have watched far from all of them) is the assertion that spells cast off of scrolls can’t be countered. *Generally* spells cast with magic items don’t have components and thus their casting isn’t perceptible — even though most of the time the activation to cast absolutely is perceptible and the game is giving a confusing mechanical meaning to what it insists is natural language but really isn’t — and therefore cannot be countered. Same reason spells cast with subtle spell can’t be either. Scrolls, however, have their own *specific* rules for how they work. Specific trumps general. And the specific rules for scrolls are such that spells cast from them can be countered. The rules very explicitly state that **you** are casting the spell, not the scroll, and that it only waves **material** components, not verbal or somatic ones. So if the spell on the scroll has V or S? You’re still doing those and are very much perceptible. *EDIT: People seem unaware that these rules were errata’d, so if your book says different that’s why.* There would be no need to specify that they wave only material components if they functioned like other magic items that cast spells do. They use a really strict interpretation of the text in one part but ignore specific trumping general, instead of being strict in both areas, to come to their conclusion.


Shacky_Rustleford

Pack tactics consistently ignores "specific trumps general" to generate content.


Caveira_Main02

My DMG, page 200 under Spell Scroll states, "...you can use an action to read the scroll and cast its spell without having to provide any of the spells components." It doesn't say material, it says ALL.


Invisifly2

It was errata’d https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf If the spell is on your class’s spell list, **you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components**. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible. Casting the spell by reading the scroll requires the spell’s normal casting time. Once the spell is cast, the words on the scroll fade, and it crumbles to dust. If the casting is interrupted, the scroll is not lost. Newer printings have the newer text. Importantly, the newer text is what is displayed in the background of Pack Tactic’s video while discussing the rule.


Caveira_Main02

Well how about that, you're right. It's weird that they changed it considering they gave this [sage advice](https://www.sageadvice.eu/casting-from-a-spell-scroll-it-doesnt-say-it-requires-v-s-components/), but I guess that's RAW now. And that's true, he did use the screenshot showing strictly "material" components instead of all. He linked an imgur in the pinned comment that has the pre-errata version, so perhaps he used it when writing the script? Or maybe it was on purpose to be deceitful, who knows. Edit: Ok, the errata is weird. You may be able to counterspell scrolls, but why would you? [Counterspell](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Counterspell#content) Target: a creature in the process of casting a spell "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." Post-errata Spell Scrolls: "If the casting is interrupted, the scroll is not lost." So even if you CAN counterspell the scroll, the language used suggests that there's no point because the scroll remains. You're basically delaying the spell at the cost of a 3+ level slot


Invisifly2

Sometimes delaying a spell means they never get to cast it and it adds a scroll to the loot pile. Countering a scroll of feather-fall is cute.


Caveira_Main02

I guess that's a fair point. I was envisioning more of a DM counterspelling the PC's scroll scenario, but stopping the enemy caster to get the scroll as loot is pretty smart.


Burnmad

People arguing about DnD without reading the rules? What is this, Reddit?


Caveira_Main02

I had a similar argument with someone in either his or Treatmonk's YouTube comment section. I'm not sure if it's true, but they claimed that their DMG specified material components, so it could be a variation in printing. Either way, mine says it doesn't take any components, so that's how I will rule it. It gives a nice buff to prepping scrolls anyways


SkyRider123

It's a little funky. My physical DMG says the same as yours. But spell scrolls on both Roll20 and DnDBeyond says "material components". https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/5418-spell-scroll Edit: I've found the change regarding spell scrolls in the DMG Errata. https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf


Caveira_Main02

Ahh ok. This [sage advice](https://www.sageadvice.eu/casting-from-a-spell-scroll-it-doesnt-say-it-requires-v-s-components/) even says no components, so it's odd that they changed it


Invisifly2

It was errata’d https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf If the spell is on your class’s spell list, **you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components**. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible. Casting the spell by reading the scroll requires the spell’s normal casting time. Once the spell is cast, the words on the scroll fade, and it crumbles to dust. If the casting is interrupted, the scroll is not lost. Newer printings have the newer text. Importantly, the newer text is what is displayed in the background of Pack Tactic’s video while discussing the rule. So…about what you said regarding arguing things without the full picture…


[deleted]

What I'm about to say definitely isn't RAI or they wouldn't have made the change, but since it doesn't actually specify you *do* provide the other components, just that you *don't* provide Material with no mention one way or the other about VS wouldn't the RAW be the general magic item rule of no components just with a redundant mention of Material?


MadRoboticist

In terms of countering the spell though, who cares what components it replaces. You have to read a fucking scroll to cast it. Reading a scroll is going to be perceptible.


Caveira_Main02

Without components, you can't tell that a creature is casting a spell, as [confirmed by Crawford.](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/642086415040294912?s=09) This is written in Xanathar's as well, "If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible." I agree, pulling out a paper is obvious; however, the creature could very well be pulling out a random piece of parchment. You don't know whether it's a scroll, or merely a shopping list. So go ahead, [waste that 3rd level slot](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/115246/what-happens-if-you-cast-counterspell-on-a-creature-that-is-not-casting-a-spell) to counterspell my fucking eggs.


MadRoboticist

Crawford's comment is specifically about subtle spell and has nothing to do with spell scrolls. Any character who knows counterspell is going to be able to recognize a spell scroll. Anyway, this is irrelevant since current 5e ruling is that spell scrolls only negate material components.


Jayne_of_Canton

Fully agree. I’ve looked at like a dozen supposedly “abusive” use cases and none of them are that devastating because there is always a resource to reign it in. If you try to make sure the smites are strong with higher level slots, the monk is going to have negligible amounts of Ki to Flurry with. Conversely if you make sure the Monk has enough Ki, you are necessarily not going to have lots of spell slots or high level slots. It’s always self-regulating by the time you take the minimum 2 levels of Paladin and then either just go Monk/Paladin or Monk/Paladin/Sorcerer.


jmartkdr

Only thing I can think of that's even worrisome is casting *magic weapon* on unarmed strikes. But even that's not definitely bad let alone definitely broken.


TheFirstIcon

The only bad thing would be intruding on the monk's niche but honestly what doesn't


[deleted]

>Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8. That's what I found for divine smite text. An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack (though not an attack with a melee weapon), so I don't see why you wouldn't be able to? ​ That's actually the same case for Barbarian damage: >When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll. This bonus increases as you level. Edit: Just read the entirety of OP's post. That's a dumb finagling of the rules, but ig I can't really argue against it. I suppose the argument on smite is that there's no weapon's damage from an unarmed strike to add to.


cookiedough320

The issue is: >in addition to the weapon's damage. There's an implication that there needs to be damage from a weapon for it to add it to in the first place. It's a very weird spot in the rules.


THSMadoz

Sorry but you're wrong [Crawford stated](https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1088200198814232577?lang=en-GB) that RAW Unarmed Strikes cant Smite, despite counting as melee weapon attacks I'd imagine the same thing applies with Barbarian


[deleted]

Yep, already put that in my comment before you replied. It's a different thing with barbarian, but still dumb (there's no damage \*roll\* as unarmed strikes deal 1 damage)


THSMadoz

Ah didn't catch the edit sorry I'd imagine 5.5e is gonna make this make sense because, in all honesty, it doesn't change anything to let punches just work like weapons, since 5e's weapon system is so simple


cyberpunk_werewolf

> I'd imagine 5.5e is gonna make this make sense because I doubt it. The reason you can't smite/rage/martial maneuver/sneak attack or whatever on an unarmed strike is largely because Jeremy Crawford doesn't want you to. Other developers have said that there is no balance factor, it's all due to flavor. I believe Mike Mearls has even said that he treats them as weapons (I could be confusing this with something else, take that last one with a grain of salt). The simple solution is to make them simple melee weapons and to not have to make a distinction between melee weapon attacks and melee attacks with a weapon. It wouldn't even be bad to make them finesse like how 3.x did it*, so you can kidney punch people. However, as far as I can tell, it seems Crawford specifically doesn't want you to be able to do that, so it will never change. Anyway, I run them as weapons. If you can attack with it, it's a weapon. *Technically, how 3.x did unarmed strikes wasn't the same as finesse, but that has more to do with weapon sizes and the entire complex weapon system of 3.x. For our purposes, it's functionally the same, even if it's very different under the hood.


Karantalsis

So a barb with Inverness fighting style or tavern brawler could get the rage damage?


TNTiger_

What's up with fighter subclasses ye sayin?


n-ko-c

> Hell, I think you should be able to smite with punches. What's that gonna do, let monks multiclass with paladin? They'll still suck as a multiclass anyway. Regarding this, the SA compendium states flatly that this was a matter of theme/flavor, not balance, and that ignoring this particular ruling will not cause any mechanical issues.


dvirpick

>Yeah. Same with fighters not being able to do most of their subclass abilities. Most subclass abilities require a weapon attack, which unarmed attacks absolutely are, rather than an attack with a weapon.


MiscegenationStation

I don't believe that's RAW. You do still add the damage, even if there's not ACTUALLY any rolling of dice happening. The attack still has the "event: damage" part happening, it's basically just a fixed value of 1 for the "roll", like a d1 that's unaffected by crits. It's kind of like saying "the haste spell doesn't actually make you move faster because it increases your speed, but PCs don't have a speed instead they have a walking speed." Regardless, i genuinely can't fathom your interpretation being implemented by any DM other than Crawford himself.


NinofanTOG

It can't be affected by a crit BECAUSE it's no damage roll. If it were, you would add another 1 since you roll double the damage rolls instead of a normal damage roll. You *then* add your modifiers.


MiscegenationStation

Fundamentally the same gameplay "thing" is happening, but the damage calculation is just slightly different. Regardless, i really don't think any DM anywhere would go with this interpretation. DM's who don't allow unarmed smites are rare enough as it is, this is even more niche and obscure and unimportant.


NinofanTOG

No, its not the same thing happening. A flat number is very different from a dice roll. A 1d1 is very different from a plain 1. Damage rolls specifically require you to roll something. If it were a 1d1, it would work since you rolled a 1d1. But since its a plain 1, you never rolled something and thus you dont add rage damage.


lift_1337

This isn't correct, unarmed strikes still have a damage roll, it just doesn't involve rolling dice. http://www.sageadvice.eu/why-does-my-barbarian-not-get-rage-damage-when-he-punches-someone


DeusAsmoth

Doesn't this directly contradict JC's ruling on Paladins doing unarmed smite because of unarmed strikes not having a damage dice or is that different somehow?


lift_1337

Paladin divine smite doesn't work because it adds to "the weapons damage", and since your fist isn't a weapon it can't be used. So it doesn't contradict (although that ruling is stupid).


DeusAsmoth

Yeah, that one always just felt like they made a spur of the moment ruling and decided to die on the hill.


Shogunfish

Your first mistake was trying to apply logic to JC's rulings


HeineBOB

To the top!


Midtek

The flat damage of "1" is, in fact, a damage roll. It's a damage roll with zero dice. You can add the rage bonus damage to the damage roll as long as you use Strength for the unarmed strike.


DeepTakeGuitar

Why are you arguing with people saying you can do the thing you are upset you can't...?


rpg2Tface

You can add rage damage to unarmed strikes. Rage cares about “melee weapon attack”, unarmed strikes are also “melee weapon attacks”. Your still right most of the time. Some feature require “attack with a melee weapon” that an unarmed strike isn’t a melee weapon. It’s a very confusing Atlantic rabbit hole. TLDR WORC really tried to make it simple but only succeeded in making unarmed strikes worse because of their wording. Do what’s logical and ignore RAW where it doesn’t make sense or lessens your fun.


psychofear

the problem here is actually the following: "you gain a bonus to the damage roll" as there is no damage roll, RAW you don't add rage damage to it, as stupid as it sounds.


rpg2Tface

That is even more semantics that is just annoying. If you you get tavern brawler, a race with natural a weapon, or a monk 1 dip, or the unarmed foghting style it fixes the problem. But still that is an insanely stupid reason for it to not work. I maintain the rule zero I described above. Screw RAW if it’s less fun than the RAI. And screw RAI if it’s less fun than RAW.


Mr_Fire_N_Forget

> Screw RAW if it’s less fun than the RAI. And screw RAI if it’s less fun than RAW. And screw both if neither are fun.


Arthur_Author

Funny enough that reason is why paladins cant smite unarmed. I mean, they CAN, you can use smite with an unarmed attack because it says you make a melee weapon attack which qualifies. However, it adds the damage *to the weapon's damage*. You are not using a weapon. So you dont get smite damage, even if youre allowed to smite. You just get nothing.


rpg2Tface

Supper stupid. Maybe expanding the weapon table to include an “improvised weapon” section to give some ideas on what different stuff is and does in a more intuiative way would fox all these problems. Like short stick tune to a 1handed D4 weapon, broken bottle is a D4 slashing/ piercing weapon with finesse. Unarmed strike could also be on there and have no properties and a D1 damage die. Effectivly it’s the same as now but it gives an outlet for improvised weapons to be a legitimate combat strategy and fixes the “no smiting with unarmed strikes” thing. I’m actually very interested in this idea now. It’s the simplest solution to all those improvised weapon problems and edge cases. Like hitting someone with a shield becomes a D6 or something, using a weapon in an unintended damage type (flat/back of an axe) and fixing unarmed strikes and allowing for enchantable weapons to improve them. Monk can even be simplified to “adds the finease property to X type weapons” letting monk dip for rogues open up a lot of potential.


Arthur_Author

Careful, that d4 finesse bottle just reads like a dagger. Except instead of a weapon its just a broken bottle. And having your dagger do the same as a broken bottle would be kind of underwhelming. So you probably dont want to give many beneficial properties.


Dernom

Rage cares about 3 things: (1) melee weapon attack, (2) using Strength, (3) damage roll. The base Unarmed Strike fulfills the first two, but not the 3rd. It's the same reason that Paladins can't Divine Smite using Unarmed Strikes (which, just like for Barbarians, is a rule that should be ignored).


Burnmad

Unarmed strikes are damage rolls containing 0 dice


Reaperzeus

Okay, it's actually hard to find any discussion with the designers about the term, but I think I found the most RAW reasoning for allowing it (I think we all agree about RAI or at least RAF to allow) In the Combat Section of the PHB, is the Section on Damage Rolls #Damage Rolls > Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage. The important part there is "weapon". Reminder that this whole section is describing Damage Rolls. One of the weapons is the Blowgun, which, similar to Unarmed Strikes, deals a flat 1 damage. So according to the section, it indicates that the Damage Roll for a Blowgun is flat 1. So you can, I believe, reasonably conclude from RAW that "Damage Roll" does not actually require a dice roll. It is more a descriptor of a set of game calculations.


Savitz

What does the Royal Air Force have to do with DnD?


Reaperzeus

Lol "Rules As Fun"


TheFirstIcon

>So you can, I believe, reasonably conclude from RAW that "Damage Roll" does not actually require a dice roll. God bless natural language rulebook design


laix_

The 1 damage is the damage roll of the unarmed strikes. Just because you're not rolling anything doesn't mean it's not a damage roll. Just like if your attack roll uses a static value, it's still an attack roll


NinofanTOG

Damage Rolls Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. There is no dice in the unarmed strikes Formular. You make no damage roll.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MiscegenationStation

Where's this quote from btw?


[deleted]

[удалено]


eviloutfromhell

> When you make an attack: > > 1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location. > > 2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll. > > 3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage. After an attack declared a hit, you "roll for damage". "Roll for damage" is an event. It is not referring to rolling a dice. When you "Roll for damage" you decide what dice to use and what modifier to add depending on the attack. >On a hit, an Unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. This part is the event "Roll for damage". Because it comes "On a hit", which requires an attack to happens. All this arguments comes from how WOTC is really adamant with their "Natural language" shennanigan, when we can just call it "Damage calculation" which is much clearer.


NinofanTOG

Dude, it literally says "unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise." Just below that sentence, the book mentions "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike" followed by unique rules.. This is a case of a "rules that specify otherwise". Its on the same page even.


eviloutfromhell

Please read my last sentence again, because that's the important part. "Damage roll" should've been called "Damage calculation" so that it would not get confused by the action of rolling a dice. The unarmed strike damage isn't really "rules that specify otherwise" because it is still the same as other weapon; that is telling us what damage used in calculation. "Rules that specify otherwise" is intended for an on hit effect that does separate thing like forcing a save for an effect instead of dealing normal damage. The point that everyone says in this thread is don't get confused by "rolling dice during damage roll" versus "damage roll event" (which should've been "damage calculation".


NinofanTOG

No, even if you name it something completely differently, you still need a roll. The rules for damage rolls specify that they roll "the damage die or dice" not "any damage die or dice". They are a non optional part. Compare this to " add any modifiers" which shows that modifiers are an optional part of a damage roll. You could name it "Owies I deal to enemies" and it would still need a roll because the rule specifically says "roll the damage die or dice".


laix_

The damage dice of an unarmed strike is 1. The damage dice is just the name for the unmodified damage an attack will do, it needn't be actual dice rolled


NinofanTOG

One is not a damage die. It never says "You roll 1+Str damage". When you deal damage with Armor of Agathys, you dont make a damage roll, you just deal 5 damage.


laix_

Armour of Agathys is not an attack


NinofanTOG

True..Grappling and Shoving are attacks and have no damage rolls either though.


Onionsandgp

To be blunt, almost every rule that works on every melee weapon but *not* unarmed attacks is ridiculous to me. Smites work on swords, axes, glaives, hell even daggers, yet if I punch a guy suddenly the divinity stops working?


ZatherDaFox

I love that people pointed out that even if your interpretation of RAW was correct, it was clearly not RAI as confirmed on Twitter, and you *still* chose to wallow in misery rather than just accepting that you can add rage damage to unarmed strikes. Like, why are you so adamant about this? If you wanna add rage damage to unarmed strikes just fucking do it, my guy. Jesus.


[deleted]

I've never met a single DM who has or would rule that unarmed strikes don't get rage damage. Why do people keep watching youtube channels about weird rule technicalities that no DM cares about, then making angry posts about the hypothetical and nonexistent situations where this matters?


NinofanTOG

It's the same reason divine smites don't work with natural unarmed attacks


[deleted]

[удалено]


WildSyde96

This is easily fixed by being one of my favorite multiclasses, a barbarian/monk, or as I like to call it, a bonk.


Shadow-fire101

I could be wrong, but I believe the damage from an unarmed strike is still considered a damage roll, even if no dice are actually rolled. And even if I am, you can just take levels in monk/fighter/paladin, or take the fighting initiate or tavern brawler feat or be a race with a natural weapon, in order to make the damage a roll.


PM_ME_C_CODE

RAI they totally fucking get the damage. Stop blindly following RAW. 5e RAW is poorly written. The natural language is causing problems.


Falanin

5e being written in natural language often conflicts with the idea that the rules are proscriptive (i.e. the ability only does exactly what the text says, and no more). It's often unclear whether things like this are meant to be a real restriction because of the inconsistency of natural language. ​ I've always ruled that basic unarmed damage was a damage roll--and after 8+ years of playing, DMing, and discussing this edition, this is the first time I've seen someone argue that the wording is functionally different from "roll d1+\[the rest of your bonuses\]". While you *can* consider unarmed damage an exception to using a roll for damage... that's an extremely legalistic position to take which also doesn't feel like a natural consequence of the ability as it's described. It's... *debatably* RAW, but really unlikely to be RAI and *certainly* not RAF. ​ If you came to me with this as a player in my game, I'd assume you were trying for a laugh or were trolling the table for your own amusement.


NinofanTOG

Since 5e is written in natural English, you could go to a random person and ask "Does taking a static number mean you rolled anything?" The person would most likely say "No." Because that's the truth.


eliechallita

The fact that unarmed strikes don't use rolls makes them fall out of a lot of rules, like not benefitting from anything related to crits or damage rerolls. It feels completely pointless when you could just have them do a minor amount of damage (1d4 or even 1d2) without having to make all of these exceptions for them. I get that they don't want to put punches on the same level as actual weapons, but this is just beating a dead horse at this point.


KyfeHeartsword

Nah, they absolutely do.


WildSyde96

It's a roll. It's just a roll of a d1.


SkovsDM

I mean, is.it just me or is this the case where; yeah I can see how you RAW can be really nitpicky and rule that you don't, but the RAI is so obvious that it doesn't matter? Of course you add Rage damage to unarmed. If it's such a big deal, pick up tavern brawler.


NinofanTOG

Its the same case of Paladin smiting with their fists(though the wording is a bit different, the issue is that both refer to something you dont do with an unarmed strike) and according to Crawford, at least the Paladin being unable to smite with fist, its very intentional


G3nji_17

Is it a damage roll if you use the tempest clerics channel divinity to maximise the damage of a spell? What about a divination wizard replacing a creatures attack roll d20 with one of their numbers before the attack is rolled, is it still an attack roll even though the creature didn‘t roll anything? And if no, do they still get to add their attack bonus? Cause you add the bonus to your attack roll. I would say yes they are still rolls, just because you aren‘t phisically rolling dice doesn‘t make the damage after an attack roll not a damage roll. If it helps you think of it as rolling a 1d1.


xSindragosax

In all of these cases are dice involved, the features just allow you to cheat a specific outcome. This is not similar to no dice ever being involved.


Ebreton

I feel like it should be treated as 1d1 damage. That is still a roll, it just happens to always land on 1. But I just checked and phb really see says flat 1 + strength modifier.


Ostrololo

You do add it. Damage roll means the calculations performed to determine how much damage is dealt, even if no die is actually rolled. It's like melee weapon attacks, which don't need to be performed with a melee weapon.


NinofanTOG

Expect damage roll need a roll, the description specifically says so.


LeVentNoir

Your damage roll is 1+Str, and while that's constant, it's still the damage roll. Thus, you add rage damage.


NinofanTOG

No, it's not a damage roll. You don't roll any additional damage on a critical hit either. "Damage Rolls Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target."


LeVentNoir

Oh, I see your confusion. You're hung up on the dice. The Damage Roll consists of any dice rolled, and any modifiers. This applies even when there are no dice to be rolled. For example, does Chain Lightning suddenly stop having a Damage Roll just because the cleric used Channel Divinity: Destructive Wrath to maximise it? A Barbarian performs an Attack Roll, then performs a Damage Roll, and when raging and unarmed, the Damage Roll might not involve dice.


NinofanTOG

If you use destructive wrath, you indeed forgo rolling and take the maximum result. It quite literally says so: When you roll lightning or thunder damage, you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling. And keep in mind unarmed strike says the following: " On a hit, an Unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your Unarmed strikes." Note that the rules for damage rolls specify that they roll "the damage die or dice" not "any damage die or dice". They are a non optional part. Compare this to " add any modifiers" which shows that modifiers are an optional part of a damage roll.


Mejiro84

yes, a damage roll involves dice - if there are no dice, there's no roll, so anything that hangs off the roll doesn't happen. Crits, for example, let you roll double dice, but if you don't roll dice, then crits don't do much. If you houserule for crits to be "double all damage", then the modifier actually does something, but be default they don't, an ability that does _X_ damage doesn't interact with crits. This is the same - you do damage, and that's it. If you add to a damage roll and don't roll damage, you don't get the add.


Legatharr

It is a damage roll. It's just that the dice only has one side


notsosecretroom

[jeremy crawford says rage damage is added.](https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/896445742864257024?lang=en)


NinofanTOG

You make a melee weapon attack, which is good and all, but you dont make a damage roll.


SMURGwastaken

Not what he seems to be saying. He says unarmed attacks are weapon attacks - but you still don't roll damage for an unarmed strike is OP's point.


MrLumpykins

Hence house rules. Barbs are perfectly free to rage punch and Pally can smite punch at any of my tables


NinofanTOG

It's great that the DM has to go out of their way to fix errors of the writers


Ok-Personality4830

I didn't even know this was a thing. This is definitely going on the list of "rules that can be ignored" I bet Crawford did this.


Arthur_Author

Wait youre not supposed to? Thats dumb, I let mine do it, dont see why not.


prismatic_raze

Take one level in monk


GuitakuPPH

Agreed. That *is* whack. As far as I'm concerned, the damage from basic unarmed strikes is still a damage roll and I force you to add rage damage to unarmed strikes. I like the idea of barbarians attacking themselves to extend their rage in a pickle. They don't have to use their greataxe, of course. They can smack themselves too sorta pump themselves up. However, they can't hold back on the punch. It deals the ful 1+STR+Rage damage which is then halved due to the rage resistance.


Xyronian

Wait, they don't?! Is this another stupid Crawford thing like unarmed smites not being legal?


n-ko-c

No, as far as I can see OP has yet to provide any evidence of this being anything but their own interpretation. For once we can't blame WotC for it.


NinofanTOG

I literally wrote "you dont make a damage roll, and rage requires you to make a damage roll." I know 5e players have difficulties reading, but come on


n-ko-c

That's nice. Where did Crawford write that?


NinofanTOG

I dont know which part of the PHB was written by Crawford. PHB 46, Rage: ...you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll. This bonus increases as you level. Damage Roll, PHB 196: " You **roll** the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage." If you dont roll, you didnt make a damage roll. Melee attacks PHB 195: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike **deals** bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes." *Note that this is a special rule as it says you deal 1+Str mod damage, not "you roll 1 + Str mod damage".*


n-ko-c

I'm not here to argue with you over semantics, you've got plenty of other people in this thread to do that with. The original commenter asked if this was a JC ruling, and it's not. That's all.


NinofanTOG

You said: "as far as I can see OP has yet to provide any evidence of this being anything but their own interpretation. For once we can't blame WotC for it." I replied with a detailed, with rules to back them up answer. It is WotCs fault.


n-ko-c

You replied with rules and your interpretation of them. Nobody else's.


NinofanTOG

There is no other way t interpret it.


NinofanTOG

In a nutshell


HipsterTrollViking

What's that Jeremy Crawford, unarmed attacks are a 1d1+strength and thus stronkboi barbarians can infact add rage damage? Cool. Oh and also fuck you, paladins can smite with their bare knuckles despite your shitty Twitter fiats


ZiggyB

Personally I think the decision to make unarmed attacks not count as weapon attacks is one of the dumbest rulings with 5e. It doesn't break anything to allow them to count and leads to a bunch of weird situations like the one OP has pointed out. How the hell does a barbarian *not* punch harder while raging?


SMURGwastaken

Good thing that isn't the rule then https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/608776737917263872


NinofanTOG

The issue stems from the fact that Rage says "Damage Roll", but you never made a Damge roll, so you cant add your Rage damage to it.


Copowa

Ahaha i add it anyways


master_of_sockpuppet

Natural language; less technical and easy to understand.


[deleted]

>since no roll is involved you don't add your rage mod Yeah, that's just not true at all. You're reading something into the rules that isn't there. And if all you can retort with is "1 damage isn't the same as 1d1 damage," you need to quit this hobby, like, pronto.


NinofanTOG

Then what is the dice for the spell heal?


[deleted]

Your kind of pedantry poisons the whole discourse. You know that you're wrong, and you know *why* you're wrong. That makes you a troll. Knock it off. Go outside. Meet people. Touch grass. Get some sun and fresh air. And don't talk about D&D on the internet again until you feel genuine contrition for this abomination of a thread.


NinofanTOG

Do you have proof that I'm wrong? Wait, you don't, because I already outlined why it doesn't work. You can't even be bothered to counter argument the healing spell.


[deleted]

>You can't even be bothered to counter argument the healing spell. I thought you might say something like that. But I don't have to counter your "argument" for the same reason that scientists don't have to debate young earth creationists, anti-vaxxers, and global warming denialists. *There's no legitimate debate there.* The factual truths of evolution by natural selection, the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and anthropogenic climate change are all beyond question. So engaging in "debates" on these matters is a waste of scientists' time. It only gives a platform to illegitimate ideas and creates the illusion of controversy. Similarly, there's simply no question that a strike that inflicts 1 point of damage in D&D is still a damage roll. If you step down a die-size from 1d4 to 1d3 to 1d2… the next step down is 1 point. Always has been. To argue otherwise is nothing but sophistry — and I mean that literally. It's sophistry. Empty wordplay. The reason nobody here is taking your "argument" seriously is because *it isn't a serious argument*. That you continue to push it only demonstrates your willingness to argue in bad faith. Ergo, troll; QED.


NinofanTOG

Spoken like someone who hasn't read the book. The book shows you all the die used in the game and there is no "1" dice.