So, unarmed strike is on the simple weapon chart. Does that mean I can take the duelist fighting style and use it with unarmed strike?
Ask your DM.
If I were your DM, the answer would be: That entirely depends on when and how you intend to make these hypothetical unarmed strikes, but if you are hoping to multi-class as a monk and a class that gets you a fighting style and get duelist style as a boost to your already monk-level-boosted unarmed strikes you are out of luck - duelist style is for using one weapon and not having any other weapons ready, and a monk's entire body is a weapon, which is why they can make an unarmed strike (or two) as a bonus action even when wielding weapons in both hands.
Right, the issue with the whole duelist style + unarmed being considered a weapon is that you have another fist. If unarmed strike is considered a weapon, you're automatically dual wielding 2 weapons and then fail the duelist clause that you can't be wielding another weapon. Nevermind being a monk since they get their own boosts to unarmed strike as Aaron pointed out. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Thanks for the answers guys.
Noctaem-
Unarmed is not a "Light" weapon, ergo cannot be dual-weilded.
To the original post I allow it, but it wouldn't stack with a multiclass Monk strike.
strider13x wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Timborama wrote:
I meant dual-wield, not Dual-Wield (I try to use caps for game mechanics, if I can. Note me capitalizing Dual Wielder, the feat, and Attack as in the action). Also, Wield was a 4E term, and has taken a bit of a back seat this edition. Heck, it's not even in the glossary! So, same with Dual Wielding, too.
But I understand the semantical confusion and the need to barge on in! Though I have a feeling you know what we meant...
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Waters are even more muddied when you consider that a character can wield a weapon in each hand and make attacks with both of them even without using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules if they have access to Extra Attack or similar.
Yunru wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
While the dev's are not completely clear with their wording, the intent of the rule is that Hold =/= Wield. To wield it, means to use it in the manner it is intended and is a term used exclusively in respect to weapons (despite it having multiple definitions in common usage).
IOWs, the dev's use it exclusively to mean - making attacks with a weapon and/or parrying (if any). It's not intuitive, but that is how it is used in every instance of the word within the rules.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Yunru wrote:
So...about Duelist and Unarmed Strike...
Timborama wrote:
Yunru wrote:
The monk/duelist fighter ties one hand behind his back and fights using only the other. Now he's only wielding one weapon.
ShinQuickMan wrote:
You also don't wield you hand in your hand.
Let's see... An unarmed strike is listed as a simple melee weapon in the chart.
There is no rule that ever implies or expliciy states that a character can ever have more than one "unarmed strike" weapon.
Therefore, the conclusion is that a character only ever has access to one unarmed strike weapon. Describing the unarmed strike as a headbut instead of an elbow is similiar to saying you thrust with your longsword instead of slash with it. It's just descriptions of how you are using your unarmed strike in this instance just like the other is a description of how you used the longsword in that instance.
So now that we have dealt with whether there are multiple unarmed strike weapons a person can use let's talk about wielding...
Two-Weapon Fighting - "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."
Dual Wielder - "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the onehanded melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light."
The first thing you should notice is that Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't require you to wield a weapon at all. It only requires you to be holding the weapons. The second thing you should notice is that Dual Wielder mentions using two-weapon fighting even when the weapons you are wielding....
Since Two-Weapon fighting doesn't require you to be wielding weapons why does Dual Wielder assume you are wielding weapons? I think the answer is that the developers are using wielding to mean holding (at least here). That means we have at least one precedent where to wield and to hold are equivalent.
My conclusion is that since an Unarmed Strike cannot be held it cannot be wielded. It's still a weapon and anything that affects or requires a weapon can be used with an Unarmed Strike. However, an unarmed strike is not a wieldable or holdable weapon. Therefore things like Duelist and Dual Wielder do not work with it since it cannot be wielded.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Another way to approach the answer is looking at the president set by the other fighting style options. Archery requires Ranged, Protection requires Shield, Defense requires Armor, ergo Duelest requires a held weapon.
Again, as a DM I would allow it (Im holding my hand in a fist), but it wouldn't stack with Dual-Weilder Feat because Duelist is specific to one weapon. Would Dual-Weilder Feat allow 2 Unarmed Strikes? Yes! But not at +2 damage each.
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
What would fix all of this confusion? Removing unarmed strike from the weapon list? Giving it a Special property that offers some more explanation of intent? This conversation will continuously repeat itself otherwise.
mrpopstar wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
It may not quite be a "nonissue", but it sure as heck feels more like something geographically akin to Mount Molehill.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I'll grab my parka and a couple sherpas and we'll get right on it...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
So I guess every discussion on every forum about the rules is completely pointless then because it can all be handwaved away. Ok well in that case you can go away since you've solved the universe and we can keep discussing stuff 
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Wow. I must be tired. Not only can I think of no puns (I'm usually the one starting it in real life) but I'm not even sure what we're talking about any more.
If you can interpret the sentence
When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike
two ways, why wouldn't you interpret it the way that is simplest and make most sense? It doesn't say you have to be unarmed to make an unarmed strike.
Anyways, I'm auto' here.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I've derived more fun from collaboration and consensus than from any other method of table management.
Every group is different.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I would like to recant a previous statement though... just because a DM is changing rules during the gameplay, potentially causing players confusion and the want or need to change what they're doing, doesn't mean there's terrible gameplay.
Terrible gameplay is really only when people aren't having fun.
Anyway, agree to disagree.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
For me, it's simply a practical matter - at some point when an adjudication is required on an intractable debate, it's the DM who does that. Whether debate is done during play, before play or after play is a matter to be discussed by the players and DM - preferrably at a session zero. The DM should respect players' opinions and their right to voice them, but when the narrative of the game is being derailed over a rules debate, the DM has the game-given right to ask, politely, for the player to accept his decision and move on.
The player should be encouraged to debate interpretations of rules but in the way established by the group as appropriate. If the player feels the DM is a 'bad' one, using whatever definition he applies, then he has the option to leave the table.
El_Condoro wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
You don't seem to get that fair is subjective. What is fair in one situation won't be fair in another. Until you get that, there is nothing more to discuss with you on the topic. Take your one true way and enjoy it. I'll have no part of it.
Orethalion wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Two threads that have been on these forums recently that have caused a lot of debate: the use of the suggestion spell and whether Sneak Attack can do extra damage when a net is used. Both have many arguments to-and-fro and both sides believe they are correct. If a DM adjudicates one way on one of those issues and a player believes it should be ruled the other, the player may say it's "unfair" but the DM says it's "fair". The DM gets the final say, but in those cases and many others (e.g. how specific alignments are played) what is "fair" and what is not is subjective. The meanings of the word do not change but how its interpreted sure does.
El_Condoro wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
<sniff><sniff>
Anyone else smell that? Someone out there's playing wrong. We best let them know for their own good.
Onetruewayists unite!
Motto: "Stamping out badwrongfun, one table at a time!"
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
To the extent that this is even still about the original question:
As a DM, I have no problem allowing the Duelist bonus to apply to Unarmed Strike, provided that the character is not wielding any other weapons.
Unarmed Strikes are only actually useful on Monks. A Monk literally cannot benefit from any other fighting style (unless you're somehow playing an archer monk...which is terrible).
If I had a player who wanted to play a multiclass Monk/[Fighter/Paladin/Ranger], I'd have no issue with them stretching the interpretation of Duelist so that their class features can actually interact with one another.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
...not to mention how easy it is to use a keyboard to type a chain of bombastic words like, "That has not happened in one of my games in about 20 years."
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I thought it was "Innocent until proven guilty"?
Back to the topic, and from a previous thread:
@MonumentGames: @mikemearls Would you say unarmed strike counts a "wielding" a weapon for purposes of a fighter's Dueling fighting style?
@mikemearls: @MonumentGames Yes.
Take it for what it's worth, obvs.
klobbermeister wrote: