Do you know where it says you can’t unarmed strike while holding a two handed weapon? I’m not seeing a requirement for a free hand in the rules.

Yes, I’m aware what the rules say. And those rules specify that an unarmed attack is one option when doing a melee attack. And there are other rules that specify when you can make a melee attack. OPs post was noting the weirdness of D&D, in that there are some things that aren’t explicitly specified in the rules. Specifically, whether using two fists counts as dual-wielding (RAW, it doesn’t).

According to the rules, characters can make a melee attack when performing the Attack action (plus in a number of other cases). Most of the time, the Attack action involves one or more attacks with a weapon (martial classes get more than one starting at level 5).

So any weapon attack can be substituted as an unarmed attack. A character wielding a greataxe who can normally make two attacks with the Attack action could substitute one or both of those attacks with kicks, elbows, or for flavor, releasing the weapon with one hand and bitchslapping their opponent.

The question isn’t whether someone wielding other weapons can make an unarmed attack, it’s a question of when. More specifically, when can a character use a bonus action to make an unarmed attack.

The rules also contain information about dual-wielding weapons:

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. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

OP’s post calls out that fighting bare-fisted would not qualify as two-weapon fighting, and thus RAW a character fighting unarmed could not use a Bonus Action to make an additional attack (despite “wielding” two fists).

My point was that, as a GM, I would rule that fighting unarmed, or fighting with a single one-handed weapon and not having a shield, would qualify as being able to make an additional attack with a bonus action per the two weapon fighting rules.

But per the rules, landing an unarmed attack in this scenario would result in a maximum of one (1) point of damage, as the Str modifier would not be added to the damage (unless the character had some other benefit that improved it, such as a class feature or feat). So there’s no reason to not allow it, as it’s a pretty weak option.

They specifically don’t require a free hand

To be fair, the official D&D rules call it “Two-Weapon Fighting”. Not sure if it’s to avoid this confusion.

Identical weapons are what I typically picture in that scenario, but it makes sense mechanically to allow different types (especially with a rapier/dagger combo being a thing in a lot of fantasy, and probably historically? I dunno).

Jarvis, translate this comment into English

that is helpful.

I probably am also getting mixed memories from playing TMNT/palladium, which had some kind of specialization for two of the same weapons… unless my brain is absolute tapioca, which, considering the hellscape out there, isn’t much of a stretch…

It literally means that you are wielding two. Not a pair.

guess that makes sense.

In actual reality people are quite bad at coordinating similar weapons and don’t get much benefit out of it.

so this is what led me to really think on this one: if people are inherently bad going at it with two of the same, a specialization / class benefit / perk whatev that made each weapon equally effective would incentivize that pursuit.

know it’s very much fantasy. rapier and buckler / parrying dagger / daisho - these let you use your dominant arm for the larger weapon and play defensively (esp buckler) - same with a knight wielding a shield and sword - to my goofy logic this wouldn’t require a special skill or perk, hence wouldn’t be dual wielded.

but, as stated in other replies, I’m also probably mixing up rpg systems like palladium’s rules too, because most of my playtime was a few decades ago lol, and tho I played AD&D and 2.5, I payed a lot more tmnt.

is there something in 5e for paired weapons then?

DMG: Acronym, Dungeon Master’s Guide.

Powergaming [verb]: The practice of optimising games above all other concerns, even fun.

Chud [noun]: A horrible creature that lives in the sewers and survives by licking piss off of boots. Sort like a goblin or ghoul.

Slop [noun]: Art that is of low quality.

Treantmonk [proper noun]: popular Youtuber that designs genuinely impressive powergaming builds for 5e, but frequently uses bad-faith arguments like this.

“X has been a disaster for Y”: A snowclone, ah, alas, I forget where this one comes from.

That’s all up to how you play the game, then. I’ve been in games that are both; ones where I played a “human wizard” and ones where I didn’t know what the other characters’ classes were because they were just, like…Zaraaraasnaan, dude. You know, Z?

Edit: And some games that turned from one to the other, honestly.

but what if you hold 2 gnomes on both hands, can you then quadwield?

Zaraaraasnaan sounds more like a real person than a game piece. What character class am I?

It’s too many rules written with too much haste and no testing. You end up with a ton of rules that aren’t clear and contradict each other constantly. It’s honestly a shit system. New players really should be told to play Pathfinder 2e at this point, not D&D5e. If the company being complete shit wasn’t enough of a reason, the rules making a lot more sense should be.

An unarmed strike is a weapon attack. When you make a weapon attack, you can use a bonus action to make another weapon attack with your offhand. It seems pretty straightforward and intuitive that your offhand weapon attack could be using your bare hand.

That’s a character in the PF2e game I’ve played every week for the past year. I know he’s a gnome because he and the other gnome in the party are total buddies and talk about gnome life all the time. And he’s very sneaky and stealthy, but he also does some magic stuff and is very loud and opinionated. So maybe he’s a rogue, but honestly I couldn’t tell you.

Well good. I feel like you shouldn’t (easily) be able to tell. My question was about me, though. What character class am I? I’m good at soft people skills, cooking, archery, carpentry, languages, project management… am I allowed to wear metal armor? Can I cast spells?

My point isn’t that D&D is bad, it’s not, but it’s also not for me. Different people like different things and that’s great. If you like knowing that someone is playing a cleric or a barbarian (and therefore you also know all the associated limitations and specials of that character), I’m not trying to piss on your picnic. But for me it’s too much like ‘I play a knight and can only more in L-shapes’. Like I said, game pieces, not characters.

coughcough PBtA.Daggerheart.Ironsworn.literallyanythingelse cough

Sorry, that came outta nowhere. ‍️

theminions@lemmy.world The prone stuff also just seems unbelievable. Jabbing someone with your off-hand isn’t going to knock anyone over. It’s not a running body check against someone who isn’t bracing.

I see this all of the time in the PF2r subreddit. Everyone wants to know why it’s so hard to push enemies around or knock them over, as if they’re pro-wrestlers desperate to oversell for you for a paycheque, and not creatures who are opposing your attempts to do those things.

Not completely right

(5.5e) Two-weapon fighting is a Fighting Style that only some classes can get.

Dual Wielder is a general Feat that any character of level 4 with str or dex 13 or higher can take.

Anyone can dual wield when their main weapon has the Light property.