Edit: Matter resolved, Unarmed Strike does not profit from the duelist fighting style. See my post on page 2 for the detailed reasons. Thanks @Plaguescarred for providing the critical rules tidbit.
Hi fellow D&D enthusiasts,
since I want to get started with D&D 5th edition (it's been some time since the good old AD&D 2nd days ^^) when the PHP releases, I considered it a good idea to skim through the basic rules with my future monk character in mind. I found the following thing:
D&D Basic Rules v1.0 | Chapter 3: Classes~D&D Basic Rules v1.0 | Chapter 3: Classes | P. 25
[Fighter Fighting Style]
Dueling
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
D&D Basic Rules v1.0 | Chapter 5: Equipment | P. 45
[Unarmed Strike is a simple melee weapon with neither the two-handed nor the versatile property]
Now, here's my train of thought. An Unarmed Strike is a melee weapon (belongs to the simple melee weapon category). An Unarmed Strike is one-handed, since it lacks the two-handed and / or versatile properties. When you have no weapons (but your mighty fists, headbutting head and kick-distributing feet) equipped, you are wielding no other weapons than your Unarmed Strike. Your Unarmed Strike profits from the Dueling Fighting Style and therefore receives a +2 bonus to damage rolls.
Although we don't know too much about the monk apart from the playtest documents, monk / fighter seems like a good multiclass choice for this alone.
What do you think? Is my assumption correct or did I miss something about this in the Basic Rules?
I'm looking forward to your replies.
Best regards,
Proletheus
I would say you must be wielding a weapon for the +2 to count. I would not allow an unarmed strike to count as "wielding" a weapon
This seems correct with respect to Unarmed Strike.
Neither the monk nor the multiclassing rules have been released yet, though, so until then there is no way to confirm that a monk can benefit (the monk may use a different weapon from Unarmed Strike).
kanageddaamen wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Seems fair. A monk spending a level in fighter (or other Duelist style-granting class) for a +2 to damage shouldn't break anything. If you do feel this is a bit much in combination with flurry of blows, you can rule that they are not compatible, or at least cannot be used with any Bonus Action sources for additional attacks.
You could interpret the basic unarmed strike (no properties, 1 damage) as qualifying as well, as it sits on the simple weapons table. Again, I don't think this is going to seriously break anything. You brawl with the same focus, concentrating on landing well-placed strikes.
Thank you guys! Now I'm eagerly awaiting the PHB 
.
When it says "wielding a melee weapon in one hand," it sounds to me like it excludes unarmed strikes. While an unarmed strike is a 1H melee weapon you can wield, I wouldn't express it as being wielded "in" your hand. So I think the intent here is for melee weapons not to count.
Related question: assuming monks can TWF with their unarmed strikes, would a monk/fighter be able to apply duelist to a weapon attack, and then make an off-hand unarmed strike? I'd say no, but it would be tricky to me if the character decided to make the 2nd attack only after the first was resolved.
jaelis wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
@MonumentGames: @mikemearls Would you say unarmed strike counts a "wielding" a weapon for purposes of a fighter's Dueling fighting style?
@mikemearls: @MonumentGames Yes.
So that is how I will run it
kanageddaamen wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
It makes no sense to count your unarmed strike as "wielding a weapon". If nothing else, that would change Dueling Style to require a shield to work:
Player: "I'm wielding a rapier in one hand and nothing in the other, which gives me +2 damage."
DM: "Whoops, sorry, you're actually wielding your unarmed strike in your off-hand, which prevents you from gaining the Dueling Style benefit."
Player: "Okay, fine, I'll equip a shield. Now I'm no longer wielding a weapon in my off hand, so Dueling Style works again."
JRutterbush wrote:
Also, rulings not rules. It's obvious how duelist is supposed to work.
Overpromises wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yes, the TWF issue is irrelevant at this point. You just can't TWF in any way using your unarmed strike.
But you can anticipate some questions with the monk and the TWF feat when they come.
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
The duelist feature requires you to not have a weapon in your off-hand... which means that if your primary duelist weapon is "wielding" an unarmed strike in your right hand, then you are also wielding another unarmed strike in your left hand. So then, no duealist bonus. Additionally, if you count an unarmed strike as a duelist-wieldable weapon then that means no one can use duelist, because everyone would be wielding an unarmed strike in their off-hand.
BatFett wrote:
Thanks for informing me that the RAW is intended for dual class fighter/monks to use the duelist feature to punch harder. I hadn't come up with a house ruling for this situation, since it hasn't come up in my game yet.
BatFett wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
You are not considered to be wielding a weapon in your hand when unarmed, otherwise you'd never qualify for Duelist. So my interpretation is that you must actually be wielding a melee weapon in one hand for you to use Duelist, according to the rules. Mike Mearls's interpretation doesn't seems to be in line with RAW. (As is a few of his answer on twitter of late, hence why he has put forth that it was not official and only his interpretation of the rules)
BR25 Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
BR73 Melee Attacks: When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as shown in the Weapons table in chapter 5
Plaguescarred wrote:
Yes i would, taken that monster's natural attacks count as such (See nothic's claw in Starter Set pg. 60 for exemple)
Proletheus wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
No because it doesn't specifically say you must be unarmed to make unarmed strike, to me it just give an exemple where you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike when you are unarmed. Perhaps it does i don't know, but i highly doubt its intended to be this way.
But what the sentence establish to me rule-wise, is that when unarmed, you are without weapon which means you don't qualify for Duelist since you don't have a melee weapon in one hand.
adjective
1. (Military) without weapons.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
What is an unarmed strike without any more definition? For me, its a strike done without weapon as the name suggest. This is so vague that it can be anything with your body, technically a pitchnut is an unarmed strike! (Now i want to built a fighter that throws pitchnut 
)
I think you all are lawyering this too much. By design, the 5e rules aren't very amenable to that: they aren't particularly careful about precise use of language or consistency.
Just go with what seems right here. Different tables are going to be different.
Plaguescarred wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Tichrimo wrote:
This does work for Monks who wield a shortsword, right? Even if they replace their shortsword dice with their monk die via martial arts, the Dueling fighting style should add its bonus, correct?