Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 flashedarling Sep 03, 2014 17:01:43	It turns out to be not so simple a question. Does the Dueling fighter style work with improvised weapons or unarmed attacks? The intention of the fighting syle seems to be to make up for the damage difference between the smaller weapon die of single handed weapons and two-handed weapons. As such letting it apply to improvized and unarmed attacks makes sense as long as the other hand is empty. However this has interesting effects with things like martial arts or two weapon fighting.  I wanted to see what the general opinion on the boards was on this interaction.
#2 2Chlorobutanal Sep 03, 2014 22:37:52	Mike Mearls is apparently okay with Duelist applying to unarmed strikes, and I don't think it'll break the game, but it does add a bit of oomph to Monks who multiclass into a Fighting Style.  In such a case, as long as the Monk doesn't wield any weapons and just uses "unarmed strikes," he or she could get +2 damage on every attack, including Flurry of Blows.   However, one could use a strict interpretation of Duelist and say that an unarmed strike cannot benefit from Duelist at all, as "unarmed strikes" are by definition used without a weapon.  Either you (A) have a weapon wielded and are making an unarmed strke, meaning the wielded weapon is not the one used to make the attack and thus cannot use Duelist, or (B) wield no weapons in order to make an unarmed strike without holding other weapons, but then you have no weapon wielded and thus cannot use Duelist.   In the case of one improvised weapon wielded in one hand by itself, I would allow Duelist.  If a character were holding a table leg (or two table legs and wielded only one as a weapon), I would allow Duelist.   In the case of wanting to use both table legs as weapons in the same round, essentially using improvised weapons and two-weapon fighting, using "two-weapon fighting" kind of invalidates Duelist on the grounds of "are you wielding other weapons?" because two-weapon fighting requires, well, two weapons.   In any round where the PC wants to use two-weapon fighting, even with improvised weapons, I would not allow the Duelist bonus.  I also would say that a character who wishes to two-weapon fight needs to be holding the second weapon while attacking with the first in order to qualify for the bonus action attack, thus disallowing a character from using one weapon (only) with Duelist and then drawing another weapon to make the bonus attack.  Thus, a character that wants to use two table legs to two-weapon fight would need to be "wielding" them both as improvised weapons during all the attacks he or she makes in order to qualify for two-weapon fighting, and therefore could not claim Duelist bonus on any of the attacks.
#3 Amerikajin Sep 04, 2014 7:53:01	An unarmed strike is on the weapons table as a simple weapon, so it's definitely a weapon.  I think the question will boil down to DM interpretation.
#4 Thoughts_My_Aim Sep 04, 2014 8:52:39	Amerikajin wrote:
#5 Amerikajin Sep 04, 2014 12:50:01	Let's assume for a moment that a liberal DM allows a fighter/monk to apply duelist to his unarmed strike, but that he's only allowed to do it when not wielding another weapon (I mean, if he were, then it seems like either duelist would apply to that weapon if it was one-handed, or not at all if the weapon was being wielded in two hands).  What effect does this have on the monk's damage?   I made a DPR spreadsheet, and here are some DPR calculations comparing a greatweapon fighter, straight monk, and fighter/monk duelist for a "typical" round (i.e. no action surge or flurry) at level 3, assuming Strength or Dexterity modifiers of +3, and a target AC of 12.  The fighter is a Champion, and I took crit chance into account. GWF Ftr 3 (single greatsword attack): 8.35 Mnk 3 (quarterstaff + unarmed bonus attack): 9.45 Duelist Ftr 1 / Mnk 2 (2 unarmed attacks): 10.75 So yes, at level 3, the duelist monk would do a bit more damage than a fighter of the same level.  He can also flurry twice between short rests, whereas the fighter can only action surge once.     Now let's look at level 5.  I assume here that the relevant ability modifier is +4, targeting AC 13. GWF Ftr 5 (two greatsword attacks): 20.17 Mnk 5 (two quarterstaff +unarmed bonus attack): 19 Duelist Ftr 1 / Mnk 4 (2 unarmed attacks): 13 Duelist Ftr 1 / Mnk 4 with flurry of blows (3 unarmed attacks, maximum 4 times between short or long rests): 19.5   OK, the duelist is kinda hosed at level 5 without his extra attack, so let's see him at level 6.  Now the fighter has another stat bump, so his Strength mod is +5.  This is also against AC 13. GWF Ftr 6 (two greatsword attacks): 23 Mnk 6 (two quarterstaff + unarmed bonus attack): 19 Duelist Ftr 1 / Mnk 5 (3 unarmed attacks): 21.9 So now the duelist monk is doing better than a single-class monk, but worse then the straight fighter.     The only other level I looked at was level 20 vs. AC 19. GWF Ftr 20 (4 greatsword attacks): 39.67 Mnk 20 with flurry (4 unarmed attacks): 28.4 Duelist Ftr 4 / Mnk 16 with flurry (4 unarmed attacks): 34.7   Long story short, I don't think letting the fighter/monk benefit from duelist will harm game balance at all.  It looks like a straight monk needs the help to keep up at higher levels.   Edit: Actually, a Ftr 4 / Mnk 16 would do less damage, since you only get the 1d10 unarmed strike damage at level 17 monk.  Brings him down to 31.7 DPR.  You could do Ftr 3 / Mnk 17 but then you lose a stat bump / feat.
#6 flashedarling Sep 04, 2014 13:23:17	Thanks for the analysis Amerikajin. I admit, I am interested in the +2 damage bonus on the monk. Partially to make going completely unarmed competitive with using a quarterstaff or spear at low levels.  The fact that until level 15 a monks unarmed attacks are similar to a single hand simple weapon it feels like it would not be game breaking to allow it.    The other reason is that I was interested in making a Tavern Brawler fighter who was purely a wrestler. Unfortunately for that character concept it lags behind quite profoundly without the ability to use the Duelist feature.    The way I read the intention of the Duelist fighter feat is to increase the damage of single handed weapons to bring them in line with a two-handed weapon fighter when they eschew a shield. As such I think it would be fair to read it as "+2 damage to your weapon attacks when you have one hand free".     Given that Mike Mearls said it works (regardless of how well he thought out said answer), and it isn't numerically overpowered I feel better approaching my DM with the proposal. It's not clear cut enough that I'd feel comfortable bringing it to organized play though.
#7 Proletheus Sep 04, 2014 13:52:51	Amerikajin wrote:
(Reply to #6) 2Chlorobutanal	flashedarling wrote:
#9 flashedarling Sep 04, 2014 17:52:29	On a similar note. Does martial arts allow simple weapons and unarmed strikes to count as finesse weapons for the purpose of sneak attack? It effectively gives them the finess property although it does not give them the keyword.    Sneak attack is less useful than a static bonus for a multi-attacker but it may provide a similar enough purpose with slightly less contention.
#10 2Chlorobutanal Sep 04, 2014 18:39:30	Strictly, it does not give the keyword so no.   However, given that design intent (and logical extrapolation) seems to be that a thrown weapon (not strictly "ranged") can be used for Sneak Attack, it would be reasonable to allow it.
#11 Amerikajin Sep 04, 2014 20:02:26	Proletheus wrote:
(Reply to #11) 2Chlorobutanal	Amerikajin wrote:
#13 Gungolphus Sep 05, 2014 3:59:56	2Chlorobutanal wrote: