Talk:Knuckleduster (5e Equipment)

This weapon was designed specifically to work WITH monks. Ensuring that whatever their level their fists always do an extra +1, and also giving the potential of having their unarmed strikes become boosted by magical dusters and getting up to a potential +4, as well as other magical effects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChldOfTheNxtGen (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 May 2015 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

But it means that quite quickly there's no point in a monk using any weapon other than knuckledusters. A 5th level monk can attack with a nunchaku or kama for 1d6 damage, or a knuckleduster for 1d6+1 damage. It's nearly as good as a magic weapon. Marasmusine (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

As long as the monk does 1d4 unarmed damage, this is on par with most of the monk weapons. Once the monk gets 1d6 unarmed damage, it's on par with using a quarterstaff with two hands. After that, it becomes strictly superior to all other mundane options. —Proton^[talk] 08:01, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Also, the increased damage is dependent on the idea that an unarmed strike is always a punch. A monk especially is likely to use all manner of body parts to attack with, depending on the situation, and this is reflected in their increased damage. To limit them to a punch would be crippling, as far as I'm concerned. —Proton^[talk] 10:37, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

You know guys I assume everything I do that isn't corrected is loved and celebrated until I'm told otherwise :P ChldOfTheNxtGen (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Are you guys effing CRAZY?! DELETION?! That is an OUTRAGIOUS over reaction! Knuckle dusters are a classic, legitimate weapon, and deserve to have a 5e incarnation! Revision for balance may be necessary, but outright deletion? That's insane! We have other tags which can be used! First off, a character's "attacks" in 5e essentially equate to a weapon list. There is no mechanism behind weapons being "equipped" or "unequipped" and no consideration for penalties of drawing or switching weapons. When you attack, you state what weapon you use. If a character chose to kick someone instead of punch them, even with knuckle dusters at the ready, they would do normal unarmed attack damage, because they aren't attacking with the knuckle duster weapon, they're attacking with the unarmed attack weapon! This weapon doesn't restrict them in any way that any other weapon wouldn't. Second, dang straight it'd kick ass for a monk. The mechanics are actually quite realistic and make sense. Is it the best monk weapon on the list? HAIL NO. Handaxes still kick its arse because they allow the monk to deal ranged slashing monk damage. The knuckleduster cannot cut, nor can it really be thrown effectively, though in raw damage it would still reign supreme in melee. Don't delete this page. In fact, I wouldn't even change it. Kydo (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

I feel that Kydo's enthusiasm maybe under playing the need to keep this page open and simply edit it. ChldOfTheNxtGen (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

I just don't understand why someone would choose to destroy a good idea, rather than revise it to make it work. Absolutely bizarre. Everyone punches harder with brass knuckles- that's why they exist. Kydo (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

"Everyone punches harder with brass knuckles- that's why they exist" EXACTLY! ChldOfTheNxtGen (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Maybe, as an alternative effect, we could introduce a saving throw on successful hits and add a possibility of "Stunning" or "KOing" the target. ChldOfTheNxtGen (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

I disagree. That really only makes sense if you only ever punch someone in the head, assuming the target even has a head to hit. It really is not a game-breaking weapon. It's 1 damage. At the higher levels where a monk's unarmed attack deals higher die sizes, that 1 extra damage doesn't matter, even when you absolutely max out your attack count- (And I think the highest possible by vanilla rules is 6? (Fighter 20 with 4 extra attacks, action surge for +1 to that, and a bonus attack if he's two weapon fighting) and you can't even do that with a monk anyways.) the monsters have so much higher HP it's not relevant compared to the damage dealt by the dice alone, let alone the multiplied proficiency bonus damage. It may shave off a round at most. If the party's life or the stability of the campaign hinges on a single round, the DM is doing something wrong, either intentionally trying to kill the PCs or building a terribly unbalanced campaign. Not only that, but you are required you be literally adjacent to the enemy in order to attack them- a bad idea with many enemies, and is entirely noneffective on some enemies. Any decent DM can easily bypass use of it where it would be problematic to the game if they really dislike the weapon so much- and if they do, why'd they even include it at all?! I would NEVER allow use of many weapons on this wiki, but I don't think they should be deleted! Kydo (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Oh, and on the note to people who complain that it somehow restricts monks by giving them options that are superior to anything other than punches: THE WHOLE MONKS WEAPON LIST DOES THAT. There is NO reason to use unarmed attacks until they can do d8 damage, and even then your weapons deal that much anyways. The only reason to use real unarmed are the few powers which force the use of or depend upon them. AND EVEN THEN I'D RATHER USE A WEAPON LIKE THE HANDAXE, BECAUSE IT'S MORE EFFECTIVE! The simple presence of the handaxe on the monks weapon list renders the vast majority of the list irrelevant. Adding items which can compete with it for "best weapon on the list" is a good thing, especially considering it gives reason to switch between weapons depending on circumstances. It genuinely adds more depth to the game. Kydo (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Brass Knuckle (5e Equipment) already exists. Marasmusine wanted to merge them. He decided that page was more balanced than this one. Chill the fuck out. 50.201.78.154 13:41, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

And I disagree with him vehemently. Go look at the talk page there, I did comment. A recurring pattern, to my dismay, I really like the guy. Kydo (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Also, that was intended to be a new stream, but really, the whole comment nesting thing is just a technical courtesy, it isn't really necessary at all, and if someone doesn't want to do it, I stopped going through a page and rearranging everything to make it look like a forum. If people can understand the conversation, that should be enough. Going through and rearranging stuff other people said just seems rude and OCD to me. Kydo (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2015 (MDT)

Kydo, "There is no mechanism behind weapons being "equipped" or "unequipped" and no consideration for penalties of drawing or switching weapons." - I've corrected you once before on this, see PHB p. 190. You can interact with one object for free during your move or action, and a specific example of this is drawing or sheathing a weapon. You have to use your action to draw/sheathe another weapon.

I fail to see the relevance. That section describes mild non-mechanical aesthetic flourishes. It's admittance for fluff with a boundary to give DMs justification to control it if they have to. It could be used to stop someone from some unusual activities, but if taken as a strict mechanical rule, it essentially means you can't make a second weapon attack in the first round of combat, you'd have to wait till the second round to draw the second weapon. (Unless you walk around with your weapons drawn, at the ready, all the time- and really, who the hell goes into enough detail to mention such a thing one way or the other?) An attack is not an object interaction. Object interactions are described on page 185, and attacks on pages 192-196. Kydo (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

There is a feat that specifically deals with drawing or stowing two weapons instead of one. Marasmusine (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2015 (MDT)

Again with feats? They're in the optional chapter. They aren't part of the core game. Nothing should be designed with the assumption that an optional or variant rule is being used. --Kydo (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2015 (MDT)

I feel you overreacted to my placing a deletion proposal: it's a deletion proposal, not an edict. I did not see the need for two pages describing the same weapon, when the current format is to present variants on the same page. I also think my objection of brass knuckles mysteriously dealing more damage than other monk weapons at mid-level is valid. Marasmusine (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

I agree. I overreacted and I'm sorry for that. I also agree there is no need for two separate pages- it took me most of a day to figure out what caused this, but I'd already ranted by then. I was initially under the impresion you'd just randomly decided the whole idea was a waste of time. However, I maintain that this is, both mechanically and conceptually, the more appealing incarnation. The other page is just a clone of the club. As for why it deals more damage than other monk weapons? My answer is that the original monk weapons list and the mechanics related to it are contrived, poorly developed, and simply stupid in many regards. Like I said, handaxes invalidate the whole list. Anything that makes it better in any way is a good thing. It already doesn't make any sense, so we might as well make it more interesting and fun! Kydo (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

I think the monk mechanics are quite elegant, so the only compromise I can suggest is adding "Variant: This weapon deals unarmed damage + 1" to whichever weapon pages you think qualify. Marasmusine (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

Are you kidding? Not even a new edition could save monks from being a mess! It's like a D&D tradition now! But this is hardly the place for thst discussion. Still though, I've said my piece, do as you wish, no page is really more deserving than the other. I would point out that "knuckleduster" is more aesthetically vague, and so has more creative opportunity and potential. Kydo (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

Are there any further opinions on this? It is still a very cheap item that rather renders other monk weapons pointless. Marasmusine (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2015 (MDT)

Except that I still think you are wrong. Fact of the matter is, knuckle weapons like this are a cheap, easily concealable, and highly effective weapon, requiring little to no training or experience to use effectively in real life. Where I live, weapons like this are completely illegal for those reasons. They can turn a punch that would normally break your jaw into a punch that tears your cheek off. The game version of this weapon is nowhere near as dangerous as the real thing, but it can be in the right hands. It isn't game breaking, though it is surprisingly more effective than many other options. I think it does what it's supposed to, and I think it does it in a mechanically valuable way. It does not invalidate the monk weapons list; it is a melee weapon only. Other weapons on the list allow you to deliver your monk damage die in different modes, while this only adds 1 damage to the most dangerous way of attacking an opponent. The handaxe is still superior for sheer versatility, and most of the monk weapons still deal more damage until the monk reaches level 5. Also, it only deals unarmed damage+1, it still counts as a weapon attack, not an unarmed strike. As a result, ki powers which specifically use unarmed strikes, such as Flurry of Blows, disallow the character from using this weapon for those attacks... Which is kinda' weird, but balancing. --Kydo (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2015 (MDT)

I just can't fathom why a monk with brass knuckles deals 1 more damage than a monk with a shortsword. Butterfly knives, ninjato and so on are tropes of martial artist fiction, in the D&D world I guess they would abandon them for a bit of metal wrapped round their hand.

I can't fathom why they wrote a rule that makes them deal equal damage, unarmed or armed. If anything, the martial arts die should have been some sort of generalized monk weapon bonus, so that monk weapons were still more effective, but brought unarmed attacks up to par with the normal use of a weapon by anyone else. Also, the errata removing unarmed strikes from the weapons list makes the mechanical stuff in the monk class read more clumsily. ...But that's the way they did it. Mechanically, this weapon makes more sense than the very rules it was based on. That's probably why I like it so much. --Kydo (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2015 (MDT)

Does anyone have an objection to the merger proposal with Brass Knuckle (5e Equipment)? I would simply add the "+1 to unarmed damage" as a variant rule. Marasmusine (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2015 (MDT)