Discussion:Why does a fighter's simple weapon proficiency not cover unarmed strike?

Back to Main Page → Meta Pages → Discussions

Lornknight (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2016 (MST)

<--can someone help me understand how a fighter who is proficient in every kind of simple weapon doesnt get at least a d4 to start in unarmed strike. What kind of fighter doesnt know how to fist fight? How is it with their simple weapon proficiency that it ignores unarmed strike? Always thought fighters went the puglist or wrestler route for unarmed combat,but were proficent with or could take and improve unarmed strike. what happened in 5e? Cannot believe that a fighter is equal to every other class (except monk) when comes to unarmed strike skill. Seems like something is wrong there. I know the fighter is not as good as a monk as fighters trained in everything but should have some skill in it without having to take tavern brawler. I'm not saying they should get a chart like monk but just the basic proficiency damage. I cant see a mage being as good as a fighter at level 1 in unarmed strike with neither taking tavern brawler, when the fighter is trained for melee combat where the others trained in magic or whatever ability. -->

Marasmusine (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2016 (MST)

If you want a fighter to deal 1d4 damage unarmed, then do that. In most cases they will be using a martial weapon anyway, so I don't believe this is a controversial house rule. See also Unarmed Strike (5e Variant Rule).

Lornknight (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2016 (MST)

Makes sense. I just dont get why fighters didnt start with it. I love being a fighter being told to leave my weapons and still having my proficiency in unarmed strike, especially when im able to be a duel wielder.

--Kydo (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2016 (MST)

This is why I think it's absolute hogwash that they "never intended" for unarmed strike to be on the simple weapons list. (And keep in mind, I'm just spouting off here, I have no evidence to back my interpretation of events) The game made so much more sense when it was on there. Removing it from the list added a whole bunch of confusing and subtle rulings which are not immediately apparent in the rules text. Crawford is just a fan of a slightly slower, more nuanced form of D&D than what the dev team originally put together, so he rules toward that bias. Because his rulings are the official rulings, they got turned into the errata, and I feel that this has actually somewhat distorted the original form of the game. Hence, I have written multiple variant rules trying to preserve what I interpreted as the original intent of the first printing. I may be wrong, but play at my table is fast, smooth, exciting, unpredictable, and loses none of the tactical feel of a true D&D game. Playing by the errata just makes people swear at me.