Talk:Brass Knuckle (5e Equipment)

Relevance

Brass Knuckles already exists under the name Knuckle Dusters —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChldOfTheNxtGen (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 May 2015 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

This one's better, so I've proposed knuckledusters for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

What? Knuckledusters ALWAYS increases damage output done by fists. BrassKnuckles has the potential of either a) NOT increasing damage output (for 1-4 Monks or Tavern Brawlers) or b) severely reducing damage output done by fists (Monks 5+). That's kinda the opposite of what the weapon is designed to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChldOfTheNxtGen (talk • contribs) 02:58, 5 May 2015 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

He means "better" in the sense of better design and balance. Also, this weapon wouldn't decrease monk damage because it counts as a monk weapon (simple weapon without heavy or two-handed property), which means it takes on the monk's unarmed damage if used (due to Martial Artist class feature). —Proton^[talk] 10:44, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

I disagree with everything above. The knuckleduster entry makes more sense mechanically, is not broken in the slightest, and is more open ended. Not only can the weapon be made from anything, not just brass, but can look like anything. It could be a steel knuckle bar, a bulky gold ring, chains wrapped around your knuckles, or any number of other equivalent imaginings. It is more flexible for play and does what the weapon is supposed to do- make your fists hurt more. See Knuckleduster (5e Equipment) Kydo (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Here comes my usual sarcasm :) - A dagger is like a punch with a blade. We should make that "unarmed damage + 1" Marasmusine (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

Actually, I almost agree with that. Knife fights are very closely related to fist fights, But they are used differently and damage differently, so I can see validity in having them work like most other weapons. Really though, it's not much of a distinction, an unarmed strike is just "Deal STR+1 bludgeoning damage" unless you're a monk. Other weapons add a random damage die and maybe some technical gimmicks, but the idea is the same in the end. But for weapons that really are fists plus metal, (spiked gauntlets, iron knuckles, even some small horizontal grip blades) are so similar in use that they should probably be variations upon unarmed strike in some way. Kydo (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

Damage die

I think 1d3 would be more appropriate for these. A dagger doesn't seem like an even comparison, and a normal unarmed strike is just 1 damage, not even a d2 or d3. Specialized training should be more potent than some metal around your fist. —Proton^[talk] 10:44, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

That makes sense, yeah. But who has a D3? And isn't a D2 just flipping a coin? Lemiel14n3 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Except it doesn't make sense. Specialized training lets you hit more effectively without getting hit yourself. A piece of metal wrapped around your fist makes it hurt more no matter what. Kydo (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Except you're wrong. You could miss, you could hit a less vulnerable area, you could punch someone on their armor. Smacking someone with a sword should also "make it hurt more no matter what," but you're still capable of doing 1 damage. The point of dice rolls are to approximate chances of success and still leave a potential for mistake. That's why weapons that have two dice rolls are considered over powered, and the most typical representation of magical enhancement is a simple +1. Lemiel14n3 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Except that D&D handles successfulness and effectiveness separately in regards to combat. Success is determined by a check. You can only deal 1 damage if you land an attack you are not proficient with and have 0 or less in the related damage attribute modifier (STR or DEX). In other words, you'd have to be doing something you are totally inept at. And changing the die size doesn't change that. And even then, yes, hitting someone with a chunk of metal, regardless of its shape or orientation, should hurt more no matter what. Should a dagger be more lethal? Realistically yes, but only because the real weapon causes something 5e doesn't handle: bleeding and internal injuries. In the absence of those two elements, there's really little difference here. And 2dx damage weapons are not considered to be overpowered, nor do I believe they ever have been. The core books have many. 3dx and higher are the ones we pretty much never see. And all of that is moot as well because this isn't even one of those weapons anyways! And the thing that makes a magic weapon is its magical effect! In the previous edition, +1 on its own was just "mastercraft", a quality necessary for the weapon to be enchanted, not magical in and of itself. Thus far, 5e has no clear defining rules on what the prerequisites are for enchantment, if there even are any, and exactly what counts as magical enhancement in the first place. Potentially, one weapon could deal +1 because it's an amazing piece of work, while a second, seemingly identical weapon could deal +1 because a wizard made it magically more effective in some way. There are no rules regulating such a thing. (and keep in mind, I say all of this having never read a single entry in the DMG item lists, nor shall I ever. Content and the precedents set by it are not rules, they are just the decisions someone else made to represent their ideas in the game.) Kydo (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

I've always done a d3 by rolling a d4 and rerolling fours. —Proton^[talk] 07:39, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

Also, d2 and d3 are in the PHB p. 7 Marasmusine (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

There are a lot of ways. A d6 with the faces renumbered to show 1,2,3 twice is the most common "real" 1d3. There are also 3-sided barrel dice with the numbers written on either side of the top-facing edge, though some have rounded ends with the numbers painted there. I've found these are easier to roll by spinning them on end like a top. I've also heard of people using a blank spinner and just drawing on it with dry-erase markers to represent unusual dice. And, based on loaded dice and the gag 1d1 and spherical d100, one could make a spherical die with an internal weight. The chamber containing the weight would simply have a corner facing away from each number. Then you don't need to worry about an external shape lying flat in a clear manner, the internal weight will bounce around the irregular internal space, land in a corner, and pull that point on the sphere down, getting a clear result, but I don't think anyone has actually made this version of the idea. Kydo (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

+1 or +2 damage

This item has the express purpose of making unarmed strikes deal a larger amount of damage, and in its current form does so by adding a flat +X to the damage dealt by it - thus making it usable by, say, a Monk, or a Fighter with the Unarmed Fighting fighting style without overall reducing their damage output. There has, however, been a bit of a conflict about just how much it should increase the damage - whether it should increase the base unarmed strike damage by one point or two.

Given that the base unarmed die is not in fact a die at all, but a flat 1 damage, even a +1 flat-out doubles the expected damage. Note that it is not a d2, or a coin - it is guaranteed to deal 2 damage if you hit with it, or more if you have an actual unarmed damage die. Increasing the bonus to a +2 would triple the damage, dealing a guaranteed 3 damage per hit - more than the average of a dagger, and just shy of the average damage of a shortsword or scimitar. This being the case, I would have to recommend against increasing the bonus to a +2. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2020 (MST)

well if one were to get hit by a pair of knuckle dusters it would most likely break bone which would cause further damage in the person making it mroe realistic for it to add two damage rather than one, the main reason for this is that a normal punch would certainly hurt but a punch with knuckle dusters does significantly more damage, even a single punch with knuckle dusters could send someone to the hospital

Firstly, fix your formatting, dude. You need a space between different speakers or it gets kludged into one single paragraph. Second, while brass knuckles can indeed deal grievous injuries, so too can a normal punch, even from an untrained individual. Also, note that the flat damage increase is a variant rule, for use when you don't want to use the normal 1d4 - the damage of a dagger (which I note can also severely injure if not immediately kill people). If the weapon were to add on a full d4 to attacks made by a monk, they'd be dealing a minimum of 2d4 damage at first level per unarmed strike, and a maximum of 1d10+1d4, or 1d14, or 2d7, or 2d6+2, at level 17+ - more than even a Maul, Greatsword, or Battleaxe, the three deadliest base weapons in the game.
The variant rule exists to allow the Monk (or anyone with Unarmed Fighting) a reason to still bother to use this item, in which case the flat damage increase of +1 still stacks up an appreciable amount. Remember that it's essentially the equivalent of another point or two in DEX for the Monk, and remember that with the sheer number of unarmed strikes a Monk puts out in a turn, it stacks up fast. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2020 (MST)

alright then I'll change it back

I already have. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2020 (MST)

Bonus Damage

how is +2 too powerful? if your unarmed strike is a 6 that +1 is 7 but if you used a d4 like for brass knuckles you could do as much as 9 so +2 isn't thatn overpowered

10 (1d6 + 5 + 2) > 7 (1d4 + 5). It may not be that much stronger for your average character, but even a simple +1 puts a monk using flurry of blows on par with a frenzying, greatsword-wielding barbarian at 29 damage/round (FoB monk starts at 25/round). +2 shoots them up to 33, which is about on par with a warlock using the hex/eldritch blast combo. Let me know if I have to expunge further why this is a balance issue. --Ref3rence (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2020 (MST)

well that's why it says to be careful if you allow monks to use it or it will deal more damage than other weapons

That is not an excuse to make that problem worse. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2020 (MST)

The whole "unarmed +X" thing is problematic. An unarmed strike deals 1 damage. We are saying brass knuckles is "1 + 1 which is 2 but look out there's unpredictable balance effects if you have some class/race feature that messes with unarmed strikes". We could fix that by saying brass knuckles deals 2 damage (you know, 1 plus 1), but then you may as well be using 1d4. What is the point of this variant?

(oh boy, I just read the 2nd variant.) Marasmusine (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2023 (MST)