[3.5] Why separate Proficiency (Unarmed) and IUS? [Archive]

Starbuck_II

2008-10-22, 09:07 AM

As far as I can tell, no one takes -4 for unarmed attacks. No where in the rules says you need Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Unarmed Strike to attack without the -4.

Or everyone without simple weapon proficiency takes -4 to hit; monks and Wizards in the core books.

Notice that Improved Unarmed Strike is not a Weapon Proficiency feat. It is a different kind of feat, usable to both remove the AoO, and to allow a character to deal lethal damage without taking that -4 to attack rolls.
So, still, you are proficient with unarmed strikes. You just provoke AoO from armed enemies and deal non-lethal damage if you don't have IUS.

No one without simple weapon proficiency is proficient in a simple weapon proficiency.
Either, your class lists it or you aren't proficient.

There are only two options:
Unarmed strike is a natural weapon
or
it is a simple weapon (like the PHB shows it on the weapon table)

There are no other options or you are just houseruling.

Frosty

2008-10-22, 09:48 AM

Roderick_BR

2008-10-22, 09:53 AM

Or everyone without simple weapon proficiency takes -4 to hit; monks and Wizards in the core books.

No one without simple weapon proficiency is proficient in a simple weapon proficiency.
Either, your class lists it or you aren't proficient.

There are only two options:
Unarmed strike is a natural weapon
or
it is a simple weapon (like the PHB shows it on the weapon table)

There are no other options or you are just houseruling.
No, I'm not houseruling. I'm just stating that no one takes a -4 penalty for unarmed strikes. You just provoke AoO. Notice that Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization makes an exception for unarmed strikes, meaning that they are not normal feats.

Saying that you requires a feat to have unarmed attacks at all means that YOU are houserulling.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-22, 10:00 AM

You left out Druids. I believe Druids also aren't proficient with Simple Weapons.

Druids can proficiency with natural weapons. So Druids might be proficient (if Unarmed Strikes aren't simple weapons)

kamikasei

2008-10-22, 10:03 AM

Saying that you requires a feat to have unarmed attacks at all means that YOU are houserulling.

No one has said that. What's being said is that unarmed strike is a simple weapon, not everyone is proficient in all simple weapons, therefore not everyone is proficient in their own unarmed strike and those who are not take the nonproficiency penalty. Monks are not proficient in all simple weapons, and their class does not grant them proficiency. Can you provide any evidence that something other than class can provide this proficiency (and does so by default for all characters)?

Coidzor

2008-10-22, 10:06 AM

Isn't it just that you take the negative to hit (and most of the reason for the AoO) derived from attempting to deal lethal damage with what is naturally nonlethal?

Starbuck_II

2008-10-22, 10:11 AM

Isn't it just that you take the negative to hit (and most of the reason for the AoO) derived from attempting to deal lethal damage with what is naturally nonlethal?

Even dealing nonlethal with a non-proficient weapon has a penalty to hit.

Example, a Wizard using a sap (he isn't proficiet in saps) still takes a penalty to hit while dealing nonlethal.

sonofzeal

2008-10-22, 10:11 AM

Actually, we worked this through not long ago in our gaming group. See, the issue is that Unarmed Strikes are neither Natural Weapons nor Manufactured Weapons. They're specifically "considered a light weapon", but occupy a unique place on the list and are never treated as a Manufactured or Natural weapon except by Monk. Improvised weapons are "considered as manufactured weapons", but I've never seen text to suggest that for Unarmed Strike.

As such, I think it's fair to assume that Unarmed Strikes follow their own rules, and that we can't just assume that something about Manufactured Weapons carry over. And when you get rid of that assumption, IMO the case for the -4 kind of falls apart, as it isn't implied by any of the text that specifically refers to Unarmed Strike.

Riffington

2008-10-22, 10:12 AM

Man, any of you who actually use the RAW houserule must be playing a really weird game...

kamikasei

2008-10-22, 10:15 AM

Isn't it just that you take the negative to hit (and most of the reason for the AoO) derived from attempting to deal lethal damage with what is naturally nonlethal?

For simplicity, let's take a Commoner as our example and assume that his one weapon proficiency is in, say, the dagger.

He is nonproficient with unarmed strike (and if someone wants to actually provide evidence against this statement, I'd be delighted to hear it). Therefore if he makes an unarmed attack he takes a -4 for nonproficiency and further provokes an attack of opportunity. This attack will deal nonlethal damage. If he wants to deal lethal damage he has to take another penalty on top of that, and still provokes the AoO.

A monk, by virtue of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, can deal lethal damage with no additional penalty and doesn't provoke an AoO, but the feat doesn't grant him proficiency, and neither does his class.

Armar

2008-10-22, 10:21 AM

Allright, let's see what d20srd says about unarmed attacks:

Unarmed Strike

A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

So, we are told that an unarmed attack is considered a light weapon. There's no mention of natural weapon anywhere there. Allright, now let's look at two things that are mentioned in it's section for natural weapons:

Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons.

So, if unarmed attack was a natural weapon, then you would not be able to make several attacks with it. Also, it goes on to list the most common ones (Bite, claw, talon, gore, slap, slam, sting, tentacle) with no mention about unarmed attacks.

So, now with both 'Natural weapons' and 'Unarmed attack' -sections pointing us that unarmed attacks are NOT natural weapons, let's take a look at humanoids, particulary this one point:

Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.

So, any humanoid with a character class uses it's proficiencies. Now, with unarmed attack being listed with simple weapons, being always considered a light weapon (NOT a natural weapon), and monks, wizards and druids having no proficiency with them, we will finally arrive to...

A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

:smallamused:

tl;dr: Monks get -4 to hit with unarmed attacks.

EDIT:

Also, A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Gerrtt

2008-10-22, 10:32 AM

As silly of an issue as this is, I simply refuse to believe that it hasn't been addressed in a FAQ, Eratta, or otherwise helpful manner.

I mean, seriously, a class designed to use unarmed strikes that isn't RAW proficient? I can't believe I missed it. Probably because it's so obviously intended (I mean, their first class feature has to do with more effectively using unarmed strikes) for them to use that weapon.

Ridiculous. Out of curiosity, is unarmed swordsage proficient with unarmed strikes?

Starbuck_II

2008-10-22, 10:38 AM

KaganMonk

2008-10-22, 10:41 AM

{Scrubbed}

Starbuck_II

2008-10-22, 10:46 AM

{Scrubbed}

Yes, WotC are idiots.
What else is new?

Coidzor

2008-10-22, 10:47 AM

Hmm, what about the rules about gaining feats in weapons you're not proficient with?

Though the argument that it is in a category of its own due to its weirdness is an attractive one... and the bit about monks getting their unarmed attacks treated as both natural and manufactured. Since they're technically both if you bend your head enough.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-22, 10:49 AM

Hmm, what about the rules about gaining feats in weapons you're not proficient with?

Except, Unarmed Striked has exceptions listed in Weapon Focus (almost like they knew you wouldn't be prioficient)

kamikasei

2008-10-22, 10:50 AM

{Scrubbed}

I assume you would place yourself in the "in favour" camp (in favour of what?), and so I would thank you not to call me an idiot, directly or otherwise, nor to imply that I am a powergamer* who only likes things if they're overpowered.

* The various interpretations of this term aside, it's clearly being used in a derogatory way here.

For myself, I see this argument in two lights: firstly, as a response to people who argue that the monk is not weak based on fairly dubious reasoning around precise interpretations of certain rules, as it helps to deflate those arguments if you point out that applying that level of scrutiny and legalism hurts as well as helps the class. Secondly, as an illustration of the poor job Wizards did/do on design and editing.

If DMing for a player who wants a monk I would of course tell him he'll be considered proficient with his unarmed strike and probably make gauntlets a special monk weapon in which he's proficient, too. But the fact that I would put in place a reasonable houserule to bring the class in line with what it was intended to do and make it a bit more balanced does not mean that the rules as they are written are fine and dandy. I'm arguing that the houserule is necessary while others seem to be arguing that the fix it puts in place is already there in the rules; and I find their argument unconvincing.

The Rose Dragon

2008-10-22, 10:51 AM

RAW doesn't have to make sense. By RAI, sure, Monks are considered proficient with unarmed strikes. However, RAI isn't RAW, and is basically meaningless to discuss.

I don't think anyone actually enforces that rule.

Coidzor

2008-10-22, 10:54 AM

Except, Unarmed Striked has exceptions listed in Weapon Focus (almost like they knew you wouldn't be prioficient)

The comparison to the grapple for "wigginess" as a weapon in that feat does seem to suggest it's at least in its own subcategory of rules and rumors of rules. Thanks.

Starsinger

2008-10-22, 10:55 AM

Maybe it's not RAI that monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes, suddenly special monk weapons have an appeal.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-22, 11:17 AM

Maybe it's not RAI that monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes, suddenly special monk weapons have an appeal.

Whoa, you just blew my mind.

J.Gellert

2008-10-22, 11:18 AM

Unarmed Strike.

un·armed /ʌnˈɑrmd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-ahrmd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. without weapons or armor.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unarmed?o=0

How can you possibly consider the "Strike without weapons" to be a simple weapon?

To take it one step further, who is going to allow a player to enchant his unarmed strike (hey, simple weapons can be enchanted, right?) to be a +3 Dancing Flaming Burst Unarmed Strike?

I usually don't feed self-explanatory topics like this one but that was one blind reading of the rule. I mean, really, Pete-blind. :smallcool:

Starbuck_II

2008-10-22, 11:20 AM

Unarmed Strike.

How can you possibly consider the "Strike without weapons" to be a simple weapon?

To take it one step further, who is going to allow a player to enchant his unarmed strike (hey, simple weapons can be enchanted, right?) to be a +3 Dancing Flaming Burst Unarmed Strike?

I usually don't feed self-explanatory topics like this one but that was one blind reading of the rule. I mean, really, Pete-blind. :smallcool:
I'd allow it, but it needs to be masterwork.

Wait, how does one make a masterwoirk unarmed strike? Perfect body Monk ability?

Zeful

2008-10-22, 11:21 AM

That only works if your Ash Williams because only masterwork weapons can be enchanted, your unarmed strike can't be made, so you can't have a masterwork version. Ergo, no enchanting your unarmed strike (unless your a Kensai).

kamikasei

2008-10-22, 12:12 PM

How can you possibly consider the "Strike without weapons" to be a simple weapon?

Because it's stated to be so (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions)?

Thane of Fife

2008-10-22, 12:33 PM

Wait, how does one make a masterwoirk unarmed strike? Perfect body Monk ability?

If it's a weapon, then you should be able to Polymorph Any Object it into a Masterwork version of itself. And I believe that that would be permanent.

Or, alternatively, you could polymorph the monk into a monk with masterwork unarmed strikes. I believe it should work either way.

Kemper Boyd

2008-10-22, 01:04 PM

Does someone actually play with monks getting a -4 penalty?

Jack Zander

2008-10-22, 01:07 PM

I do. It helps balance them out in my campaigns because monks are so broken.

Dur hur hur

Frosty

2008-10-22, 08:52 PM

So does everything think Improved Unarmed Strike is a stupid feat and anyone who is proficient with all Simple weapons can punch someone without provoking an AoO?

Riffington

2008-10-22, 09:36 PM

So does everything think Improved Unarmed Strike is a stupid feat and anyone who is proficient with all Simple weapons can punch someone without provoking an AoO?

Yeah, but then again I feel the same about Mageslayer :smallcool:

Frosty

2008-10-22, 10:41 PM

What? You want to remove defensive casting?

tyckspoon

2008-10-23, 01:33 AM

How can you possibly consider the "Strike without weapons" to be a simple weapon?

Because, rules-wise, it's gotta be something. The only other option for it is 'natural weapon', and the rules go to some effort to state that an Unarmed Strike is Not A Natural Weapon. So we have this bizarre case where people should clearly be proficient with their own fists, in the same way things with natural weapons are considered proficient.. but they're actually a weapon class, so you don't actually get automatic proficiency if you pick one of the classes with a limited proficiency list. It probably would have remained just one of D&D's many idiosyncratic quirks if they hadn't then produced a class whose combat shtick was built largely around unarmed strikes..

Tsotha-lanti

2008-10-23, 03:21 AM

Yes they do. However, IUS only allows you to avoid the AoO. It doesn't say anything about avoiding the -4 non-proficiency penalty.

This leads me to believe Monks take a -4 but don't provoke when they attack. Another reason why Monks sucks, and another reason why the designers of the Monk class were probably smoking something illegal when they designed it.

It's obvious that this is not the intention, and therefore we can conclude that although unarmed strike is listed with the simple weapons, it is not a weapon of any sort. If anything, it's a "sorta-natural attack".

Roderick_BR

2008-10-23, 08:04 AM

No one has said that. What's being said is that unarmed strike is a simple weapon, not everyone is proficient in all simple weapons, therefore not everyone is proficient in their own unarmed strike and those who are not take the nonproficiency penalty. Monks are not proficient in all simple weapons, and their class does not grant them proficiency. Can you provide any evidence that something other than class can provide this proficiency (and does so by default for all characters)?
My only evidence is that unarmed strike does not require profiency like weapons do. Again, I point to weapon focus and weapon specialization. They specifiy that the feat can also be taken with unarmed strike and grapple. If they were weapon profiencies, it wouldn't need to point it out, or mention something like "you can use this feat with unarmed strikes and grapples even if you are not proficient with them".
It's more a case of a mistake from WotC's part, in not putting unarmed strike as it's own category in the weapons lists (unarmed, simple, martial, exotic), and they thinking it would be too silly to make an errata about it. And nowhere, in any official book, any character ever took a -4 to his attack roll when trying to hit someone with his bare hands.

Oslecamo

2008-10-23, 08:13 AM

It's called unarmed strike for a reason.

It isn't a weapon! Yes, you can attack with it, but it never counts as a weapon, and since it isn't a weapon, you cannot be no proefecient with it.

It even has it's own combat rules. And nowhere in them it says you take a -4 penalty to hit if you're not proefecient with it, whereas in armed combat section it says you take a -4 penalty to hit if you're not proefecient

kamikasei

2008-10-23, 08:15 AM

My only evidence is that unarmed strike does not require profiency like weapons do. Again, I point to weapon focus and weapon specialization. They specifiy that the feat can also be taken with unarmed strike and grapple. If they were weapon profiencies, it wouldn't need to point it out, or mention something like "you can use this feat with unarmed strikes and grapples even if you are not proficient with them".

Now see, that actually is a good argument and I'm provisionally convinced, though I'll check over the issue in more detail later. Though I don't care how silly Wizards thought it might be, that they listed unarmed strike as a simple weapon and then gave no thought to how people might take that as interacting with proficiencies is pretty crap editing.

Kemper Boyd

2008-10-23, 08:54 AM

Though I don't care how silly Wizards thought it might be, that they listed unarmed strike as a simple weapon and then gave no thought to how people might take that as interacting with proficiencies is pretty crap editing.

It's more a case that Wizards can't take into account people being so deeply anal about something as insignificant as this.

kamikasei

2008-10-23, 09:01 AM

It's more a case that Wizards can't take into account people being so deeply anal about something as insignificant as this.

You need your ruleset to be a lot more consistent and sensible before you can claim the moral high ground about fault-finding.

Oslecamo

2008-10-23, 09:24 AM

You need your ruleset to be a lot more consistent and sensible before you can claim the moral high ground about fault-finding.

This would be true, if it wasn't the fact that all the other RPG systems people claim to be so superior to D&D have rules so loose it's a wonder the books themselves don't fall apart.

No, seriously, I've just been looking trough BESM 3rd edition and every other page there's an huge warning to the DM that some combinations may ending too powerfull or nonsense and the DM should handwave it as it goes, and the other pages have abilities that just say:"Homebrew it yourself".

kamikasei

2008-10-23, 09:29 AM

This would be true, if it wasn't the fact that all the other RPG systems people claim to be so superior to D&D have rules so loose it's a wonder the books themselves don't fall apart.

"Consistent and sensible" and "loose" are not antonyms.

Craby

2008-10-23, 10:18 AM

so we have come to the conclusion that everyone is auto proficient with unarmed attacks? maybe solve natural weapon proficiency at the same time.

unarmed strike: simple weapon via the weapon chart. also light weapon because of the description text next to the chart.

weapon focus: requires proficiency with selected weapon, but "You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for purposes of this feat."

combat section: (under standard actions) unarmed attacks- ...is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following ... Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed ... You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Combat: Injury and Death: Nonlethal Damage- "You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll." works the same going from 'lethal' to 'nonlethal'. so thats where the -4 comes from that the IUS negates, allowing a change from lethal to nonlethal at-will, and enables AoO. IUS does not grant proficiency.

Magic Weapon: "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell."

Magic Fang: "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)"

this all leaves to question... why would ANYONE playing a monk use anything other than unarmed strike? meaning special monk weapons are useless unless you wanted to change damage type for the cost of a few gold. damage dice of unarmed are equal or greater than any special monk weapon. granted there are disarm or trip benefits to some of those, but i see those as circumstantial benefits and no reason to constantly use them besides fluff. (magic weapons are a different story)

i personally believe that a proficiency should be needed to make an unarmed attack with out the -4. only because it takes time and training to use your fists as a weapon. i am sure martial arts training would be translated as IUS because it is now a lethal weapon if used properly. but there is a great difference between fighting ability of some who has been in many of fights (be it school, bar, prison whatever) and someone who has never had to have even the most minor physical confrontation.

same thought goes for natural weapons. a cat that hunts for its food is more efficient than one who is given its food. some of that is instinct and some of it is taught. which is why... instinct, can make attack with negative. and taught/practiced, receives proficiency.

i just wanted to clear things up.

Frosty

2008-10-23, 07:41 PM

Kamikasei, how would you fix monk when one of your players say they want to play monk?

kamikasei

2008-10-24, 03:41 AM

Kamikasei, how would you fix monk when one of your players say they want to play monk?

I don't have any fixed idea, I'd come up with something if the issue arose. Mostly I'd just browse the various monk fixes here, talk to the player, and synthesize something that works.

At the least I'd allow gauntlets/gloves which could add enhancements and/or special abilities to the unarmed strike. But there'd probably be a fairly extensive reworking required which would depend on the general makeup and style of the rest of the party and game.

RPGuru1331

2008-10-24, 04:16 AM

This would be true, if it wasn't the fact that all the other RPG systems people claim to be so superior to D&D have rules so loose it's a wonder the books themselves don't fall apart.

No, seriously, I've just been looking trough BESM 3rd edition and every other page there's an huge warning to the DM that some combinations may ending too powerfull or nonsense and the DM should handwave it as it goes, and the other pages have abilities that just say:"Homebrew it yourself".

7/10. Points are not for the attempt itself, but the target audience. Mascot-tan's portrayal of D20 was quite spot on, after all.

Out of curiosity, is this thread just to point out a humorous gap in the rules, or an actual attempt to nerf Monks further into the ground?

...And wouldn't this also apply ot Druids in Wildshape form? Would they eat proficiency penalties for every last proficiency they lack? After all, Bite is listed as a different attack from Slam, for instance...

Starbuck_II

2008-10-24, 06:51 AM

7/10. Points are not for the attempt itself, but the target audience. Mascot-tan's portrayal of D20 was quite spot on, after all.

Out of curiosity, is this thread just to point out a humorous gap in the rules, or an actual attempt to nerf Monks further into the ground?

...And wouldn't this also apply ot Druids in Wildshape form? Would they eat proficiency penalties for every last proficiency they lack? After all, Bite is listed as a different attack from Slam, for instance...

Druids get proficiency in every natural attack at 1st level: You should reread their prioficiencies.

Riffington

2008-10-24, 07:24 AM

Out of curiosity, is this thread just to point out a humorous gap in the rules, or an actual attempt to nerf Monks further into the ground?

To point out a humorous consequence of the RAW houserule that some people seem to like here.

kamikasei

2008-10-24, 07:31 AM

To point out a humorous consequence of the RAW houserule that some people seem to like here.

Shouldn't it be the OP telling us why he created the thread?

Looking at the original post, there's no mention of monks, only of wizards, and it doesn't seem like a joke but a serious question. Frosty was asking why proficency in the unarmed strike and Improved Unarmed Strike were separate things, and others responded that there is no such thing as proficiency in unarmed strike. That debate naturally led to discussions of the monk.

And frankly I don't think talk of "the RAW houserule" is particularly constructive.

Craby

2008-10-24, 10:14 AM

this effects everyone who wants to ever make an unarmed strike, not just monks and druids. the thread did indeed start with wizards.

so...

unarmed strike is a natural weapon through the text on the 'magic fang' spell.

humanoids do not automatically gain proficiency with their natural weapons (unarmed strike).
"Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class."
now, this leaves out very few classes. except the ones that it matters most for...

my vote:
unarmed strike gets a -4 to attacks
simple weapon proficiency feat negates this

unarmed strike gets an additional -4 to attacks when being used as lethal damage
improved unarmed strike negates this

so if a PC with neither feat wants to make an unarmed strike and deal lethal damage the have at least a -8 added to the attack (more depending on other class, race, size, circumstance negatives they have of course)

if this is true. monk special weapons have a place in the world. sure you might do more damage with your fists but can you hit?
if it is not, then go ahead and scratch out a couple paragraphs in the PHB because no one should ever choose a special monk weapon over their unarmed attack, excluding trip and disarm attacks.

Riffington

2008-10-24, 10:26 AM

kamikasei

2008-10-24, 10:31 AM

There's a difference between a post and a thread. The question of wizards' proficiencies deserves a couple posts. The fact that the rulebook forgot to specify monks' proficiency in unarmed strikes is worthy of a thread.

So instead of speaking for Frosty, you're speaking for me and anyone else posting in the thread?

Riffington

2008-10-24, 11:50 AM

So instead of speaking for Frosty, you're speaking for me and anyone else posting in the thread?

Yes.

Of course, I expected (and expect) some of the others posting in the thread to give their opinions as well. How else could a question about multiple peoples' motivations be answered?

Starbuck_II

2008-10-24, 12:22 PM

Yes.

Of course, I expected (and expect) some of the others posting in the thread to give their opinions as well. How else could a question about multiple peoples' motivations be answered?

A vote? It worked for 8 bit Theatre.

Craby

2008-10-24, 12:33 PM

back on topic please.

Riffington

2008-10-24, 01:42 PM

back on topic please.

Assuming the topic you want to talk about is alternate monk weapons:
denying monks a feat doesn't create a use for those weapons. After all, monks' unarmed attacks do so much more damage than alternative weapons that every monk of level 8+ would just take Weapon Proficiency: Unarmed (or a level of another class). Which is fine if you think monks get too many feats, I suppose.

The uses I can come up with for monk weapons include:
Tripping
Disarming
Shuriken weirdness
Doing non-bludgeoning damage
Bypassing DR
Getting situational enchantments (X-slayer, Spellstoring, etc) with the added bonus that the user can hit once with the weapon then switch to elbows.
Being enchanted, then passed from one monk to another (useful in war, if the opposing army can't use your magic equipment against you)
Counting as exotic weapons (for exotic weapons master, etc)
Abusing the Defender enchantment without your DM slapping you.

There may be more uses, but yeah... 90%+ of your monk's attacks should probably be unarmed strikes.

Craby

2008-10-24, 02:04 PM

topic of the thread was unarmed strike and if you get a -4 to atk from being non proficient with it or not. this is not a monk discussion. it just happens to be the unarmed attack effects them the most. but certainly effect everyone without simple weapon proficiency.

my special monk weapons comment was just a side note. this is not a monk discussion.

Riffington

2008-10-24, 02:34 PM

Then yes: commoners, wizards, and druids have a -4 to hit with a punch.

Frosty

2008-10-24, 07:02 PM

So instead of speaking for Frosty, you're speaking for me and anyone else posting in the thread?

I posted this thread because I was genuinely interested why by RAW WotC made it so you could be good enough at Unarmed to not provoke an AoO yet still bad enough to take a -4 to hit. It just doesn't make sense logically.

NephandiMan

2008-10-24, 07:37 PM

It just doesn't make sense logically.

There you have it, folks. D&D 3.X in a nutshell. :smallbiggrin:

Thane of Fife

2008-10-24, 07:41 PM

I posted this thread because I was genuinely interested why by RAW WotC made it so you could be good enough at Unarmed to not provoke an AoO yet still bad enough to take a -4 to hit. It just doesn't make sense logically.

Couldn't someone be capable of punching someone else fairly reliably, but having considerably more difficulty doing so if that other person is holding them at bay with a spear? Imagine, say, a boxer fighting a trained spearman. The boxer is quite capable of punching somebody, but he isn't trained to punch people with big pointy sticks.

Frosty

2008-10-24, 08:05 PM

RPGuru1331

2008-10-24, 08:08 PM

Um.. being good at finding openings, maybe?

If Druids have proficiency with Natural Attacks, do Wizards for when they Shapechange? Is it explicitly granted by the spell? Just curious, and at home so I can't check the rules end of it m'self.

Frosty

2008-10-24, 09:02 PM

I think everybody is proficient with natural attacks. Humans and other PHB races just happen to not have any.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-24, 11:01 PM

I think everybody is proficient with natural attacks. Humans and other PHB races just happen to not have any.

No Frosty, not they aren't.
Evidence:
a. Humaniods are only proficient if they have racial HD (humans and other that gain class HD don't get that)
b. Druids gain proficiency with naturtal attacks (look in the PHB it says that)

These together coupled show that the designer's intent (or why did they invent these rules) and rules show that you are not auto proficient with natural attacks.

Frosty

2008-10-24, 11:32 PM

kamikasei

2008-10-25, 07:56 AM

I posted this thread because I was genuinely interested why by RAW WotC made it so you could be good enough at Unarmed to not provoke an AoO yet still bad enough to take a -4 to hit. It just doesn't make sense logically.

On balance, I think I'm convinced by Roderick_BR's argument and a closer reading of the rules that there is no such thing as proficiency in unarmed strike.

Unarmed strike is listed on the weapons table as a simple weapon, but the text for it states that "the damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls" It also says "an unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon". Note the use of "considered".

Then, we have Weapon Focus:
"Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat."

Grapples and rays clearly aren't weapons in which one can or must be proficient, so the fact that unarmed strike is grouped with them and excluded from "any type of weapon" seems clear enough.

So on the whole I think it's fair to say that unarmed strikes are not really weapons and you can't be nonproficient in them. By this reasoning I would also consider gauntlets not to be weapons, properly speaking, despite their inclusion on the weapons table, so that helps monks out a bit too. What's annoying is that they seem to have left the interaction of unarmed strikes and natural weapons vague still; an unarmed strike clearly isn't a natural weapon as if it were you would always be considered armed, not provoke AoOs, etc., but it's not clear to what extent effects that work on natural weapons should also work on unarmed strikes (magic fang seems like it might apply to both based on its wording, but the amulet of might fists mentions them separately, and so on).

Frosty

2008-10-25, 11:22 AM

On balance, I think I'm convinced by Roderick_BR's argument and a closer reading of the rules that there is no such thing as proficiency in unarmed strike.

Unarmed strike is listed on the weapons table as a simple weapon, but the text for it states that "the damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls" It also says "an unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon". Note the use of "considered".

Then, we have Weapon Focus:
"Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat."

Grapples and rays clearly aren't weapons in which one can or must be proficient, so the fact that unarmed strike is grouped with them and excluded from "any type of weapon" seems clear enough.

So on the whole I think it's fair to say that unarmed strikes are not really weapons and you can't be nonproficient in them. By this reasoning I would also consider gauntlets not to be weapons, properly speaking, despite their inclusion on the weapons table, so that helps monks out a bit too. What's annoying is that they seem to have left the interaction of unarmed strikes and natural weapons vague still; an unarmed strike clearly isn't a natural weapon as if it were you would always be considered armed, not provoke AoOs, etc., but it's not clear to what extent effects that work on natural weapons should also work on unarmed strikes (magic fang seems like it might apply to both based on its wording, but the amulet of might fists mentions them separately, and so on).

Even if what you say is true, isn't it complete retarted that WoTC would write the rules SO unclearly that it's easy to read it my way?

kamikasei

2008-10-25, 11:35 AM

Even if what you say is true, isn't it complete retarted that WoTC would write the rules SO unclearly that it's easy to read it my way?

Oh, absolutely. They shouldn't have put unarmed strike on the weapons table (or at least, not under a specific category of weapon) without noting that it's not considered a weapon. My argument above comes down to a balance of evidence rather than an actual clear statement, which is a failing of the system.

Enguhl

2008-10-25, 04:27 PM

Well I guess wizards aren't proficient with ray attacks. Sure they just have to make a ranged touch attack, but that doesn't mean they are proficient with the rays (compared to a fighter using a bow to make a ranged attack, the fighter is proficient with the bow.)
That also means that touch attacks are at a -4 as well, since they aren't specifically stated that they are proficient with their hands. And for that matter they aren't proficient with their spells period, would that mean the touch attack (not ranged touch) spells are at a -8, due to the non-proficiency with hands and spells?

Seriously, I think it's assumed that everyone knows how to throw a punch well enough, the attack of opportunity would be due to the awkward way they move their body, that they don't know how to do so and keep themselves defended, etc. I don't think WotC wanted to make a table just for unarmed strikes, so they put it under simple.

kamikasei

2008-10-25, 04:37 PM

No one has argued that rays, touch attacks, etc. require proficiency because nowhere are they listed as weapons, while unarmed strike is.

OracleofWuffing

2008-10-25, 05:05 PM

I CAN SORT OF UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

You cna take IUS without having Proficiency (Simple weapons) so you're good enough to punch the spearman, but you still suck enough to take -4? WTH?

Okay, this is kind of silly, but I think everyone's in agreement that the rules themselves are kind of silly: Think of IUS enhancing your ability to parry an oncoming attack, with the whole nonlethal damage thing as bonus. That is, it's like the enemy attempts the AoO, but your unarmed strike is so agile that it prevents it from even starting*, and it teaches you to punch harder or something. However, IUS doesn't magically teach you the general weak points of your targets, hence the theoretical RAW -4 that everyone agrees is kinda silly.

*Using time travel, so no, this doesn't use up that AoO for that target.

...Yeah, it doesn't really convince me, either. Long story short, this really only works if you accept that the feat's kind of a misnomer. Teaches you how to attack weapons, not creatures.

Oslecamo

2008-10-25, 05:38 PM

No one has argued that rays, touch attacks, etc. require proficiency because nowhere are they listed as weapons, while unarmed strike is.

Page and book please. I don't remember seeing weapon:unarmed strike listed anywhere.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-25, 05:44 PM

Page and book please. I don't remember seeing weapon:unarmed strike listed anywhere.

PHB 121 and the table under simple weapons page 116, table 7-5 Weapon groups.

If they didn't want unarmed strike to be under simple weapons: they wouldn't have put it under simple weapons.

kamikasei

2008-10-25, 05:45 PM

Page and book please. I don't remember seeing weapon:unarmed strike listed anywhere.

PHB p116, or here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions). ...As stated repeatedly already in the thread, though not with a page number. What did you think I was talking about, most recently here:

Unarmed strike is listed on the weapons table as a simple weapon...

?

If they didn't want unarmed strike to be under simple weapons: they wouldn't have put it under simple weapons.

Ha! You give them too much credit.

OracleofWuffing

2008-10-25, 05:50 PM

Page and book please. I don't remember seeing weapon:unarmed strike listed anywhere.

I see it on Page 121 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook. Specifically, second paragraph, second column, first sentence. Alternatively, Here, under "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm), where it says, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."

Edit: Obligatory semi-ninja statement.

Oslecamo

2008-10-25, 06:07 PM

Excellent.

Now go to the DMG and read the part where the DM is strongly recomended to change whatever rules he doesn't like, add rules he would like to have and to talk to the players to try to avoid gaming problems and make the experience enjoyable for everyone.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-25, 06:10 PM

kamikasei

2008-10-25, 06:11 PM

Now go to the DMG and read the part where the DM is strongly recomended to change whatever rules he doesn't like, add rules he would like to have and to talk to the players to try to avoid gaming problems and make the experience enjoyable for everyone.

Oh, come on!

The argument was over what the rules actually say. You can't argue that they don't say something, then when countered switch to arguing that it doesn't matter what they say because you can change it. You can argue that the reading is incorrect, or you can argue that the rule is a mistake and should be changed. You can't argue both at once and use the one to avoid having to defend the other.

Given that I have already conceded that the reading is incorrect this goalpost-shifting is just absurd.

Oslecamo

2008-10-25, 06:11 PM

We were discussing the rules. It is hard to discuss houserules: because they change from house to house.

The ability to change the rules it's a rule itself.

kamikasei:what I'm trying to say is that it's useless to discuss a rule that everybody either misinterprets or doesn't use in the first place.

Aka everybody assumes the monk has automatically proefecinency on unarmed strike, and if that's not the case, then I doubt any DM will be evil enough to enforce it.

kamikasei

2008-10-25, 06:15 PM

The ability to change the rules it's a rule itself.

Which taken as you seem to wish to means that no statement about what the rules say can actually be made. Druids gain an animal companion? Well, the DM can rule that they don't. Wizards prepare spells from a spellbook? Well, the DM can rule that they don't. Fighters know how to use all martial weapons? Well, the DM can rule that they don't. In discussions of the rules of D&D, Rule Zero is the last defense of those without a case to make.

Flickerdart

2008-10-25, 06:19 PM

And for that matter they aren't proficient with their spells period, would that mean the touch attack (not ranged touch) spells are at a -8, due to the non-proficiency with hands and spells?
The long-lost piece that balances the Wizard! Except, you know, it doesn't.

kamikasei

2008-10-25, 06:23 PM

kamikasei:what I'm trying to say is that it's useless to discuss a rule that everybody either misinterprets or doesn't use in the first place.

If you thought that you could have said so in the first place. Since you only say this after your argument was refuted*, frankly, I doubt your sincerity. If discussing the rule is not worth our time, what was the point of this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5172957&postcount=82)?

* your specific argument on that point, not any entire side of the discussion.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-25, 07:17 PM

Oh, come on!

The argument was over what the rules actually say. You can't argue that they don't say something, then when countered switch to arguing that it doesn't matter what they say because you can change it. You can argue that the reading is incorrect, or you can argue that the rule is a mistake and should be changed. You can't argue both at once and use the one to avoid having to defend the other.

Given that I have already conceded that the reading is incorrect this goalpost-shifting is just absurd.

Isn't that how my American politics chooses a President? Goalpost shifting and houseruling what they mean?

So why was this never erratad (IUS)?

Roderick_BR

2008-10-25, 10:44 PM

No Frosty, not they aren't.
Evidence:
a. Humaniods are only proficient if they have racial HD (humans and other that gain class HD don't get that)
b. Druids gain proficiency with naturtal attacks (look in the PHB it says that)

These together coupled show that the designer's intent (or why did they invent these rules) and rules show that you are not auto proficient with natural attacks.
Uh, I think that IS what Frosty said. Humans doesn't have natural attacks, so if they had, they'd be proficient.
The problem is if US is a weapon or not. Reading again, it does say that US counts as a light weapon for purposes of getting feats that affects your attack and damage rolls.
The main argument is that since it's in the list, one need a feat to be proficient with it, even though nowhere else it says a person can't punch another without getting a peanlty, other than the AoO.
It's like the wizard, that was already pointed. Using a touch attack spell counts as being armed, so you don't provoke AoO if you don't have IUS... but do they have proficiency: touch attack, meaning that they get a -4 (not -8, touch attack by itself is already considered a weapon).
I still think it's just something they forgot to add, and felt it was too silly to errata it.

Frosty

2008-10-26, 12:27 AM

Still, it's a rather large oversight given the Monk...

kamikasei

2008-10-26, 04:27 AM

Isn't that how my American politics chooses a President? Goalpost shifting and houseruling what they mean?

Not really, rather it's how most rhetoric in general functions. What matters isn't being correct, making a solid argument, or finding the truth; what matters is convincing people watching, who probably aren't paying proper attention, that you won.

Craby

2008-10-27, 09:11 AM

Starbuck_II

2008-10-27, 09:25 AM

turkishproverb

2008-10-27, 09:48 AM

"When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls."

no where does it say that spells are weapons. wizards do not get a -4 atk with offensive spells. if they decide to punch or kick someone though, without having the simple weapon proficiency feat, good luck.

no, because they aren't weapons, read :

On balance, I think I'm convinced by Roderick_BR's argument and a closer reading of the rules that there is no such thing as proficiency in unarmed strike.

Unarmed strike is listed on the weapons table as a simple weapon, but the text for it states that "the damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls" It also says "an unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon". Note the use of "considered".

Then, we have Weapon Focus:
"Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat."

Grapples and rays clearly aren't weapons in which one can or must be proficient, so the fact that unarmed strike is grouped with them and excluded from "any type of weapon" seems clear enough.

So on the whole I think it's fair to say that unarmed strikes are not really weapons and you can't be nonproficient in them. By this reasoning I would also consider gauntlets not to be weapons, properly speaking, despite their inclusion on the weapons table, so that helps monks out a bit too. What's annoying is that they seem to have left the interaction of unarmed strikes and natural weapons vague still; an unarmed strike clearly isn't a natural weapon as if it were you would always be considered armed, not provoke AoOs, etc., but it's not clear to what extent effects that work on natural weapons should also work on unarmed strikes (magic fang seems like it might apply to both based on its wording, but the amulet of might fists mentions them separately, and so on).

Craby

2008-10-27, 11:10 AM

it is a weapon.
it is a natural weapon.

unarmed strike: simple weapon via the weapon chart. also light weapon because of the description text next to the chart.

weapon focus: requires proficiency with selected weapon, but "You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for purposes of this feat."

combat section: (under standard actions) unarmed attacks- ...is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following ... Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed ... You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Combat: Injury and Death: Nonlethal Damage- "You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll." works the same going from 'lethal' to 'nonlethal'. so thats where the -4 comes from that the IUS negates, allowing a change from lethal to nonlethal at-will, and enables AoO. IUS does not grant proficiency.

Magic Weapon: "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell."

Magic Fang: "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)"

and

humanoids do not automatically gain proficiency with their natural weapons (unarmed strike).
"Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class."

you can gain proficiency with unarmed strike by having the simple weapon proficiency feat. most classes get it automatically. but the few who dont (druids, monks, wizards) would get a -4 atk with unarmed strike unless they take the SWP feat.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-27, 11:13 AM

it is a weapon.
it is a natural weapon.

You are saying it is both?
So having proficiency with US can be gained by simple weapons or natural weapon proficiency?

That actually isn't unreasonable.

you can gain proficiency with unarmed strike by having the simple weapon proficiency feat. most classes get it automatically. but the few who dont (druids, monks, wizards) would get a -4 atk with unarmed strike unless they take the SWP feat.

Druids are proficient with all natutal attacks (while wild shaped).

Craby

2008-10-27, 11:28 AM

Druids are proficient with all natutal attacks (while wild shaped).

agreed. but while in humanoid form they are not proficient with unarmed strike.

turkishproverb

2008-10-27, 12:14 PM

it is a weapon.
it is a natural weapon.

and

you can gain proficiency with unarmed strike by having the simple weapon proficiency feat. most classes get it automatically. but the few who dont (druids, monks, wizards) would get a -4 atk with unarmed strike unless they take the SWP feat.

Wrong, the separation for weapon focus makes it clear it is considered like grapple and rays, IE: not a weapon but you cans till take it. If you choose to ignore these rules you may, but it clearly violates raw.

Roderick_BR

2008-10-27, 12:16 PM

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a
If anyone is interested, these articles at Wizards explains what exactly Unarmed Strikes are, as in, if they are weapons or natural weapons, and when to apply each case (for example, if can be enchanted with the Magic Fang spell as a natural weapon, but you can't get the Improved Natural Attack Feat, and you can use the Weapon Focus feat as a weapon, but can't be enchanted with the Magic Weapon spell).

Nowhere, though, it states if a character takes a -4 if he doesn't have Simple Weapon Proficency. It does states some attack bonuses pointing Str/Dex bonuses and base attack bonus without addding the -4, but they use humanoid monsters as examples, so it's not a good evidence (either of it not needing proficiency, or they not reading their own rules). It only points out that you can get a -4 to attack rolls to deal lethal damage if you don't have the feat. So, a wizard or druid trying to hit a commoner behind the head to knock him out, will likely fall flat on his face with a whooping -8 to his attack rolls.

Fax Celestis

2008-10-27, 12:49 PM

kamikasei

2008-10-27, 01:12 PM

Starbuck_II

2008-10-27, 01:29 PM

Thanks Roderick, those articles are interesting and clear up the ambiguities I mentioned (though I'm not sure from where in the rules they're getting some of the statements they're working from).

Craby, you seem to be ignoring the points I made earlier. What about my reasoning that unarmed strikes aren't weapons in which one can be proficient or nonproficient do you find unconvincing? In particular I see that you appear to be maintaining that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, which seems clearly false to me (and is stated to be so in the articles linked by Roderick).

The articles say this:
"For purposes of weapon enhancements, an unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.
It also reflects the fact that a creature making an unarmed strike is using part of its body in the attack."

Monks are different (I don't mean the normal way):
"A monk's unarmed strikes can be treated as either manufactured or natural weapons when applying spells or effects that enhance either manufactured or natural weapons. For example, either a magic weapon spell or a magic fang spell can enhance a monk's unarmed attacks. "

So we have evidence supporting natural weapon.
They say they aren't, but they function from spells just like them.

Really the designers screwed up.
They should have made unarmed strikes it's own labeled type of group. But no, they grouped it with simple weapons in the PHB.

They could have written that it is not a simple weapon or natural weapon clearly, but no. They left references to it as a natural weapon (Magic Weapon and Magic Fang spells).

Craby

2008-10-27, 01:41 PM

WotC certainly did go through a lot of trouble to not put unarmed strike under a specific category, if that was their intention

since unarmed strike can be considered to be a weapon at times and can be considered a natural weapon at times(magic fang), why cant you be considered non proficient with it?

then there is that whole rule zero thing and you can play as you want. but in the books it ways no where that a character would be proficient or non proficient with their unarmed strike. for me, unless it is said that "it is" then by all means "it is not". (ruling out givens of reality where the 5 senses are intact and everyone has two arms two legs and one head, of course.) otherwise they would have to declare that sorcerers are not proficent with martial weapons, and bards are not proficient with heavy armor.

both sides have an argument. both sides can make point. without a definitive rule or errata no conclusion can be reached.

the articles linked do help, but still dont even glance at a proficiency. i tried to find something like that when the thread started but WotC buried 3.5 support pretty deep when 4th released.

kamikasei

2008-10-27, 01:41 PM

The articles say this:
"For purposes of weapon enhancements, an unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon...."
...
So we have evidence supporting natural weapon.
They say they aren't, but they function from spells just like them.

That unarmed strikes act like natural weapons with regard to certain spells is implied in the rules and stated outright in those articles, but it's much, much clearer that they're not natural weapons than that they're not simple weapons. Simple reason: natural weapons deal lethal damage and leave you considered armed. For an unarmed strike to be a natural weapon wouldn't just mean there's an extra penalty in there, it'd mean they behave differently to how they're explicitly stated to.

ashmanonar

2008-10-27, 01:43 PM

Kamikasei, how would you fix monk when one of your players say they want to play monk?

I would suggest the unarmed Swordsage variant.

kamikasei

2008-10-27, 01:45 PM

both sides have an argument. both sides can make point. without a definitive rule or errata no conclusion can be reached.

Nonsense. Of course it's possible to reach a conclusion. Different people may reach different conclusions based on the weight they give different parts of the arguments, but we're not incapable of settling this.

Specifically, could you explain what you find problematic with the points I mention above: firstly, that unarmed strike damage is "considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects..." (if it was a weapon, shouldn't it simply BE weapon damage?), and secondly, that the weapon specialization and weapon focus feats specifically list unarmed strike, grapples, and rays as separate from any "one type of weapon"?

since unarmed strike can be considered to be a weapon at times and can be considered a natural weapon at times(magic fang), why cant you be considered non proficient with it?
...
but in the books it ways no where that a character would be proficient or non proficient with their unarmed strike. for me, unless it is said that "it is" then by all means "it is not".

Something can be "considered a weapon" for specific purposes, generally where another effect specifies that it works on weapons, and yet not "really" be a weapon under the rules. My conclusion is that unarmed strike is such a thing, considered to be a weapon in some cases but not actually a weapon and therefore not something with which one can or cannot be proficient. If proficiency is a non-issue, then the absence of a statement of proficiency does not imply non-proficiency.

I've shown how I came from roughly your view to the contrary in the course of this thread; it might be more productive if you responded to those points rather than arguing from scratch.

Craby

2008-10-27, 01:54 PM

Nonsense. Of course it's possible to reach a conclusion. Different people may reach different conclusions based on the weight they give different parts of the arguments, but we're not incapable of settling this.

Specifically, could you explain what you find problematic with the points I mention above: firstly, that unarmed strike damage is "considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects..." (if it was a weapon, shouldn't it simply BE weapon damage?), and secondly, that the weapon specialization and weapon focus feats specifically list unarmed strike, grapples, and rays as separate from any "one type of weapon"?

without a mass agreement on a house rule, a conclusion cant be reached. because it is not printed and published with the Wizards logo attached.

considered weapon damage for purpose of effects, is simply clarifying that even if it is nonlethal it is still considered a weapon for damage effects.

weapon focus/spec, i see them as making exceptions to the rule. much like weapon finesse does with rapiers and whips.

for the record i see your points of it not being any specific weapon or weapon type. and am not avoiding or ignoring your points. only showing the other side.

kamikasei

2008-10-27, 02:05 PM

without a mass agreement on a house rule, a conclusion cant be reached. because it is not printed and published with the Wizards logo attached.

But that's only if a house rule is necessary. What's being debated here is whether that's so or whether the rules already can be most justificably read as saying you don't need proficiency in unarmed strike.

A conclusion can be reached because you can look at the evidence and arguments and conclude that one or the other position is correct.

considered weapon damage for purpose of effects, is simply clarifying that even if it is nonlethal it is still considered a weapon for damage effects.

That doesn't follow at all. A sap, for example, deals non-lethal damage by default but needs no statement that it's "considered a weapon" because it is a weapon. Saying "unarmed strike damage is considered weapon damage for the purpose of effects which operate on weapon damage" is saying "although unarmed strike is not a weapon, if an effect operates on the damage dealt by a weapon, it also operates on the damage dealt by an unarmed strike".

weapon focus/spec, i see them as making exceptions to the rule. much like weapon finesse does with rapiers and whips.

Weapon finesse: "with a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain...". Rapiers, whips, and spiked chains are not light weapons, hence why they're listed separately. There is no repetition or exception-making in this list.

Weapon focus: "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat." See what your own comparison here implies?

"I see them as..." seems a bit weasel-wordy to me. The text itself is not really ambiguous.

for the record i see your points of it not being any specific weapon or weapon type. and am not avoiding or ignoring your points. only showing the other side.

Well, until this post that I'm quoting here you seemed to be restating arguments made by myself earlier in the thread without consideration given to the counterarguments made by others and repeated by me.

Heliomance

2008-10-27, 02:20 PM

The question really isn't worth the amount of vitriol that's coming through. You should really just relax. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)

kamikasei

2008-10-27, 02:53 PM

The question really isn't worth the amount of vitriol that's coming through.

This idea that vigorously arguing with someone entails vitriol or personal enmity bothers me no end. If anyone perceives vitriol directed their way I'm sure they're capable of objecting themselves.

hamishspence

2008-10-27, 03:04 PM

Yes, nothing wrong with arguments, as long as arguers are civil.

Hawriel

2008-10-27, 03:07 PM

So does everything think Improved Unarmed Strike is a stupid feat and anyone who is proficient with all Simple weapons can punch someone without provoking an AoO?

I posted here few days ago when this was one page long but the server shut down for half an hour and lost the post. I just remember the thread last night.

NO you thinking is flawed in two ways. I say flawed becuase you are reading WOTC rules and trying to see their logic through the poor writing will confuse just about every one. You also have to look at it it a real world perspective. In this case WOTC is trying to translate a real world event into D20 rules. Fighting with out a weapon both agaisnt an unarmed apponent and armed apponent. They are also adding in varying levels of experince and abbility in fighting with out weapons.

WOTC are morons. However they had a flash of simple honest commen sence when making the weapons list charts, then total fugged them up on the very next page like they always do.

Unarmed strike was put on the simple weapon list for simple easy to find reasons. They then caused confusion in the unarmed strike explination text in the weapons list and the monk class section.

The weapons list should have read somthing like this. An unarmed strike is not a natrual weapon like claws are to a dragon or the horns of a bull. An unarmed strike is when a character or NPC attacks with out a natual or manufactured weapon. Such as striking with a fist, kick or head but.

Unarmed strike should be in the combat section under combat maneuvers.
Character attacking an opponent with an unarmed strike provokes an AoO. A person with out the unarmed strike proficiency takes a -4 to the attack roll for not being proficiant.

Imp unarmed strike does not help explain their thinking eather.
"You are considered to be armed even when unarmed" "that is you no longer provoke an AoO."

Here is a better explination of the benefits of the feet.
A character with Imp unarmed strike has the training and or experince in fighting unarmed that they can deal leathal or subdual damage as they so chose. The character is also trained or experinced enough with fighting armed opponents. For example a monk is trained in fighting armed apponents when unarmed. A rogue who grew up in the slums developed the experince of fighting agaisnt armed apponents.

I think it would have been alot easyer for peaple to understand if WOTC made one feet. Simple weapon feet. Just like the martial weapon feet exept for simple weapons. They forgot that not all classes have all simple weapons as proficiencies.

Look at the simple weapon list. For the most part all of the weapons on that list are eather very easy to learn, such as the crossbow. Or are very simple common weapons that the peassantry would have access to such as a staff, club or spear. An unarmed strike is obviously somthing a peasant has access to, however not all peaple have the experince or abbility to learn how to fight. The wizard is ment to be such a character. The wizard class is set up like the archtype recluse nerd who never learned to fight. They never learned how to through a simple punch. However using a stick (staff) is alot easyer. you just swing and when you hit you dont risk braking your hand. The weapons a wizard can use are very traditional like the dagger and staff. The club and cross bow are very easy to use.

I talked about AoO and why they work with trips and disarmes with a friend of mine. My friend is a black belt in Tung Su Do, a korean form of karate. It is very hard to attack a person with a weapon and not get hurt. You have nothing to block the weapon with other than your own body. So your only option is to avoide the weapon, wile getting past the weapon to hurt the opponent. So you can see for yourself get one of your friends and give him a stick. Then attack him with nothing but your hands. How many times does your friend hit you with the stick befor you lay a hand on him?

Craby

2008-10-27, 03:16 PM

if it was a weapon, shouldn't it simply BE weapon damage?

"considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects" is needed because unarmed strike does not include an actual weapon. unarmed strike is an attack that can be treated as a natural weapon in certain situations. in the chart it is under the unarmed attack bracket of the simple weapon section, with gauntlets, which is armor not weapons, and also falls under the "considered weapon" field.

It also says "an unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon". Note the use of "considered".

let me go back and argue this. unarmed strike is "considered" a light weapon because it is not declared on the weapon chart. it does not claim it light, one handed, two handed, or ranged.

Weapon focus: "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat."

weapon focus says this for the same reason why unarmed strike is "considered" a light weapon. the chart does not clearly state that it is a weapon of any caliber.

which is what this argument is all about. the books dont state it as a particular weapon of any type. but puts in under simple weapons, implying a charcter needs simple weapon proficiency to make attacks with it without a -4 penalty.

it would have made it alot easier if WotC put the unarmed attacks under its own chart above the weapon charts. but they didnt.

Well, until this post that I'm quoting here you seemed to be restating arguments made by myself earlier in the thread without consideration given to the counterarguments made by others and repeated by me.

if i did not cover a statement of yours it is because i didnt think anything was wrong with it.

i like to collect points in the argument so details arent lost, so readers jumping in at the end can catch up quick. if i missed some of your points an offended you. im sorry. i also only keep the references in the book in most cases because it allows people to chose a standing without too much influence. post #53 in this thread.

i just wanted to clear things up.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-27, 03:16 PM

strike explination text in the weapons list and the monk class section.

The weapons list should have read somthing like this. An unarmed strike is not a natrual weapon like claws are to a dragon or the horns of a bull. An unarmed strike is when a character or NPC attacks with out a natual or manufactured weapon. Such as striking with a fist, kick or head but.

If an unarmed strike isn't a simple weapon or a manufactored weapon: then doesn't it bypass DR?
Any non weapon bypasses DR. DR only blocks weapon (improvised, manufactored, natural) attacks according to Monster manual.

Wow, this whole time I thought monks suck because of DR but they bypass it.
That might move Monk up a tier no?

Craby

2008-10-27, 03:26 PM

I think it would have been alot easyer for peaple to understand if WOTC made one feet. Simple weapon feet. Just like the martial weapon feet exept for simple weapons. They forgot that not all classes have all simple weapons as proficiencies.

there is a simple weapon proficiency feat. the only classes from the PHB that do not automatically get it is the Monk, Druid, and Wizard.

kamikasei

2008-10-27, 03:39 PM

"considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects" is needed because unarmed strike does not include an actual weapon. unarmed strike is an attack that can be treated as a natural weapon in certain situations.

I'm not sure what you're arguing any more. You seem to be mixing game terms with undefined ones of your own invention.

There are two types of weapon of which I know in D&D, manufactured and natural. Neither would be termed an "actual" weapon and the other not. To my knowledge the effects that the line in question refers to do not differentiate between manufactured and natural weapons.

Let me summarize my position and perhaps you could say where and why you disagree.

Unarmed strike is not a weapon. One cannot be proficient or nonproficient in it.
It deals damage based on your size, which may be modified like weapon damage, say by effects like Power Attack.
It is neither a manufactured or natural weapon, but is treated as a natural weapon by certain effects such as the magic fang spell.
Any given character can make unarmed attacks at their full BAB along with any iterative attacks this grants. No one takes a -4 for lack of proficiency.
The inclusion of the unarmed strike on the weapons table under "simple weapons" is done for convenience and should not be taken to imply that it is a simple weapon requiring proficiency as such. It is not a weapon at all as indicated by the balance of evidence from e.g. the Weapon Focus feat and the specific description in the weapons text.

Note that this is not an argument, just a list of consequences. The last point is the argument in a nutshell.

if i missed some of your points an offended you. im sorry.

It's not a matter of offense, and I have taken none. It's just that you seemed to be making points as if they had gone unanswered when I had given counterarguments to them already. New readers would be misled by such a summary, if it was for their benefit that you made it.

Hawriel

2008-10-27, 03:42 PM

If an unarmed strike isn't a simple weapon or a manufactored weapon: then doesn't it bypass DR?
Any non weapon bypasses DR. DR only blocks weapon (improvised, manufactored, natural) attacks according to Monster manual.

Wow, this whole time I thought monks suck because of DR but they bypass it.
That might move Monk up a tier no?

UM WHAT?:smalleek::smallconfused:

Of corse not. Again your brakeing away from common sence. Under your logic and interpritation of DR then a group of adventurers armed with pots and pans can bypass any DR. Damage reduction is used to emphasise the toughness of the creature like an iron golem. Your not going to harm an iron golem with a dagger in the same way that your not going to harm an iron safe with a dagger. DR is really hardness for creatures.

Another thing I cant understand is why you all think a ray is a weapon. it is not. Its as much as a weapon as pointing a flashlight. I have no idea why you would think that weapon style feets would work with a ray. It is a magical effect that comes out of a wizard's pointed finger. It is not a weapon its self.

A fist is, to an extent. A fist, foot, elbow, and so on are physical parts of a humanoide body that are not made for but can be used with skill as a weapon. An eagles claw is a weapon because it is directly made and used for killing. a hand is not. A hand is a simple weapon because it is a form of attack. A person can learn how to use their fist as a weapon.

A natural weapon (claw,horn)or fashioned weapon (stick, knife) are made or developed with the purpose of causing physical harm. A hand has not been directly developed for the primary purpose of causing physical harm. However it can be used to do so. The school yard bully and Bruce Lee have proven this.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-27, 03:55 PM

UM WHAT?:smalleek::smallconfused:

Of corse not. Again your brakeing away from common sence. Under your logic and interpritation of DR then a group of adventurers armed with pots and pans can bypass any DR. Damage reduction is used to emphasise the toughness of the creature like an iron golem. Your not going to harm an iron golem with a dagger in the same way that your not going to harm an iron safe with a dagger. DR is really hardness for creatures.

Pots and pans are improvised weapons (DR stops those). Sorry, doesn't fly by the rules.
Unless you are telling Unarmed Strikes are improved weapons?

DR isn't hardness: Hardness is better.

turkishproverb

2008-10-27, 03:58 PM

Why would it not being a weapon bypass DR?

Starbuck_II

2008-10-27, 04:07 PM

Why would it not being a weapon bypass DR?

I'll repeat it:
DR only blocks weapon (improvised, manufactored, natural) attacks according to Monster manual.

Are my post being skimmed but not read?
And since I don't feel like posting the mondster manual text-
SRD says:

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

I bolded the important part. DR only cares about weapons: natural, improvised, or manufactored.

If it isn't one of those: DR can't do a thing.

This means falling damage is not blocked by DR unless you houserule otherwise.

But anyway, if Unarmed Strikes was neither a natural, improvised, or manufactored weapon: it bypasses DR.

The Glyphstone

2008-10-27, 04:08 PM

Another thing I cant understand is why you all think a ray is a weapon. it is not. Its as much as a weapon as pointing a flashlight. I have no idea why you would think that weapon style feets would work with a ray. It is a magical effect that comes out of a wizard's pointed finger. It is not a weapon its self.

Complete Arcane would like to have a word with you. Specifically, Page 72 and the section Feats and Weaponlike Spells.

turkishproverb

2008-10-27, 04:08 PM

I'll repeat it:
DR only blocks weapon (improvised, manufactored, natural) attacks according to Monster manual.

Are my post being skimmed but not read?
And since I don't feel like posting the mondster manual text-
SRD says:

I bolded the important part. DR only cares about weapons: natural, improvised, or manufactored.

If it isn't one of those: DR can't do a thing.

This means falling damage is not blocked by DR unless you houserule otherwise.

But anyway, is Unarmed Strikes was neither a natural, improvised, or manufactored weapon: it bypasses DR.

Sorry, I meant to ask you where that was in raw. my bad

I'd say that qualifies under the "considered a weapon for purposes of damage" stuff myself, but it is another case of bad wording.

Fax Celestis

2008-10-27, 04:09 PM

Complete Arcane would like to have a word with you. Specifically, Page 72 and the section Feats and Weaponlike Spells.

So would Weapon Focus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#weaponFocus).

Craby

2008-10-27, 04:38 PM

I'm not sure what you're arguing any more. You seem to be mixing game terms with undefined ones of your own invention.

There are two types of weapon of which I know in D&D, manufactured and natural. Neither would be termed an "actual" weapon and the other not. To my knowledge the effects that the line in question refers to do not differentiate between manufactured and natural weapons.

Let me summarize my position and perhaps you could say where and why you disagree.

my actual weapon = manufactured weapons (clear that up) something you can hold in your hand and is meant to be a weapon. will use manufactured natural and improvised terminology here on out.

Unarmed strike is not a weapon. One cannot be proficient or nonproficient in it.

it is a weapon via the simple weapons chart.

It deals damage based on your size, which may be modified like weapon damage, say by effects like Power Attack.
It is neither a manufactured or natural weapon, but is treated as a natural weapon by certain effects such as the magic fang spell.
Any given character can make unarmed attacks at their full BAB along with any iterative attacks this grants. No one takes a -4 for lack of proficiency.

agreed

The inclusion of the unarmed strike on the weapons table under "simple weapons" is done for convenience and should not be taken to imply that it is a simple weapon requiring proficiency as such. It is not a weapon at all as indicated by the balance of evidence from e.g. the Weapon Focus feat and the specific description in the weapons text.

if it was not a weapon, then for convenience it would not be placed under a weapon chart. they could have listed unarmed attacks in its own chart and left them out of simple weapons all together. they did not. all weapons/attacks under the simple weapon chart should require the simple weapons proficiency feat in order to not have a -4 atk for non proficiency. the same is expected of the martial and exotic charts.

the weapon focus text and unarmed attack text is declaring special rules. allowing the unarmed attack under the weapon focus text does not exclude it from the prerequisite of needing to be proficient with it. weapon focus states it separate from "type of weapon" because it is an attack type (unarmed vs armed) not a weapon type.

Craby

2008-10-27, 04:42 PM

Are my post being skimmed but not read?

i am in agreement with many of your posts. would have replied giving you a "ya! way to go" but saw it an unneeded +2 bonus from aiding since you already rolled a natural 20.

Craby

2008-10-27, 04:58 PM

Look at the simple weapon list. For the most part all of the weapons on that list are eather very easy to learn, such as the crossbow. Or are very simple common weapons that the peassantry would have access to such as a staff, club or spear. An unarmed strike is obviously somthing a peasant has access to, however not all peaple have the experince or abbility to learn how to fight. The wizard is ment to be such a character. The wizard class is set up like the archtype recluse nerd who never learned to fight. They never learned how to through a simple punch. However using a stick (staff) is alot easyer. you just swing and when you hit you dont risk braking your hand. The weapons a wizard can use are very traditional like the dagger and staff. The club and cross bow are very easy to use.

yes a commoner does have access and can use staffs, daggers, and unarmed strike.

because:

Humanoid Type

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They usually are Small or Medium. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype.

Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are presented as 1st-level warriors, which means that they have average combat ability and poor saving throws.

Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type.
Features

A humanoid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* 8-sided Hit Dice, or by character class.
* Base attack bonus equal to ¾ total Hit Dice (as cleric).
* Good Reflex saves (usually; a humanoid’s good save varies).
* Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, or by character class.

Traits

A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
* Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. If a humanoid does not have a class and wears armor, it is proficient with that type of armor and all lighter types. Humanoids not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Humanoids are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
* Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.

a basic human with no levels of anything has simple weapon proficiency. if they have a level in anything their abilities and proficiencies get replaced by the class.

The Rose Dragon

2008-10-27, 05:35 PM

Starbuck_II

2008-10-27, 05:38 PM

There are no basic humans with no levels in anything. Anything without racial hit dice always has a class level, and humanoids are proficient with only their class weapons if they don't have racial hit dice.

Good point, so a commoner has 1 simple weapon: can he choose unarmed strike?
If simple, yes he can.

I wonder why no one ever asked the designers a few years back? You think they would answer a FAQ about it, wouldn't they?

Craby

2008-10-27, 05:38 PM

a basic human with no levels of anything has simple weapon proficiency. if they have a level in anything their abilities and proficiencies get replaced by the class.

change to a basic humanoid with no levels
thanks for catching it.

Craby

2008-10-27, 05:40 PM

I wonder why no one ever asked the designers a few years back? You think they would answer a FAQ about it, wouldn't they?

was thinking the same. may the search for an FAQ/Errata begin!

Fiery Diamond

2008-10-27, 06:48 PM

I'm not sure what you're arguing any more. You seem to be mixing game terms with undefined ones of your own invention.

There are two types of weapon of which I know in D&D, manufactured and natural. Neither would be termed an "actual" weapon and the other not. To my knowledge the effects that the line in question refers to do not differentiate between manufactured and natural weapons.

Let me summarize my position and perhaps you could say where and why you disagree.

Unarmed strike is not a weapon. One cannot be proficient or nonproficient in it.
It deals damage based on your size, which may be modified like weapon damage, say by effects like Power Attack.
It is neither a manufactured or natural weapon, but is treated as a natural weapon by certain effects such as the magic fang spell.
Any given character can make unarmed attacks at their full BAB along with any iterative attacks this grants. No one takes a -4 for lack of proficiency.
The inclusion of the unarmed strike on the weapons table under "simple weapons" is done for convenience and should not be taken to imply that it is a simple weapon requiring proficiency as such. It is not a weapon at all as indicated by the balance of evidence from e.g. the Weapon Focus feat and the specific description in the weapons text.

Note that this is not an argument, just a list of consequences. The last point is the argument in a nutshell.

It's not a matter of offense, and I have taken none. It's just that you seemed to be making points as if they had gone unanswered when I had given counterarguments to them already. New readers would be misled by such a summary, if it was for their benefit that you made it.

Agreement from me. I read the whole thread sort of dumbfounded that anyone ever thought otherwise. It was poor writing design on the part of WoTC, but what you've said is fairly obviously what they meant. I'm not saying it necessarily should be that way - I think unarmed fighting should be nonlethal at -4, lethal at -6 or something, and require a single feat, available at BAB +1, that allows lethal and nonlethal at no penalty and no AoO provoked. That would be more realistic. But hey, it's D&D, who cares about realism?

Frosty

2008-10-27, 07:23 PM

Michaelos

2008-10-27, 09:07 PM

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-10-27, 09:26 PM

So, if it is written in in a 3.5 book, it counts as RAW...

According to the RAW for the 5th level example monk, on page 118 and 119 of the DMG, there is clearly not a -4 non proficiency penalty in the totals. It gives him a +5 attack bonus, with +3 from Base, and +2 from strength. Therefore, RAW, no non proficiency penalty exists, because if there was, it would be in the example and it isn't.

However, as a mind bending Irony, the example 5th level monk does not have Improved Unarmed Strike listed as one of his feats.

I attempted to reconcile that as RAW too, but I gave up.Example characters never follow RAW, and only rarely follow RAI. There's a ToB class, the RKV, which has to worship We Jas, and the example is a follower of St Cuthbert. There's the Arcane Heirophant, where the example character shouldn't have Wildshape, but does.

Michaelos

2008-10-27, 09:33 PM

kamikasei

2008-10-28, 01:12 AM

So, if it is written in in a 3.5 book, it counts as RAW...

The books are generally inconsistent and certain things are given priority over others. The text of a class ability, for example, supersedes the class progression table. Example characters are way down the hierarchy; they're so often cobbled together by someone who wasn't paying attention.

Hawriel

2008-10-28, 01:52 AM

I leave for a day and a half and another page shows up. Jeez...

Now, what do people think *should* be the way to go? I think unarmed sucks enough that we shouldn't even require a feat for someone to avoid provoking an AoO.

Again let me give you an example of how the AoO is ment to be used to mimic the real life fighting its supposed to. Give your friend a stick and try to punch him with out him hitting you with it. That is why unarmed combat provoks an AoO. The improved unarmed strike feat is there to reprisent training in combating armed apponents when unarmed.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-10-28, 01:53 AM

Frosty

2008-10-28, 01:56 AM

The books are generally inconsistent and certain things are given priority over others. The text of a class ability, for example, supersedes the class progression table. Example characters are way down the hierarchy; they're so often cobbled together by someone who wasn't paying attention.

So does that mean the example character of the Rainbow Servant is also dead wrong? It shows the character as only able to cast 4th level spells instead of 5th level spells.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-10-28, 02:00 AM

So does that mean the example character of the Rainbow Servant is also dead wrong? It shows the character as only able to cast 4th level spells instead of 5th level spells.Generally RS is considered balanced and probably RAI if you follow the table and example character, but RAW says the text is right.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-28, 05:57 AM

Example characters never follow RAW, and only rarely follow RAI. There's a ToB class, the RKV, which has to worship We Jas, and the example is a follower of St Cuthbert. There's the Arcane Heirophant, where the example character shouldn't have Wildshape, but does.

To be fair, that exanmple character is a example of the adaptation of another religion (it says that is okay to do).

Don't get me started on Complete Scoundrel:
Battle Trickster; he doesn't quallify for most of his tricks!

Not to get off topic-
And did you ever read the Master of masks?
It says you can wear more than one mask on page 53 under Persona Masks (one or more persona masks can be worn at the same time), but then says you can't in the class ability Many Faces until they let you.

kamikasei

2008-10-28, 06:23 AM

So does that mean the example character of the Rainbow Servant is also dead wrong? It shows the character as only able to cast 4th level spells instead of 5th level spells.

The way I would put it is that the actual rules as written are found in the text of the class description, the tables etc. which accompany them are helpful summaries which may contain errors, and then the examples are very likely to contain errors and shouldn't be relied upon; but any of the above may serve as a guide to what the designer intended if you think they screwed up the rules text itself. Or they may just be an editing mistake. It has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not familiar with the Rainbow Servant, but the rule would be that the example character is incorrect if it contradicts the rule text. However, it may reflect what the designer actually wanted with the class.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-10-28, 06:29 AM

I'm not familiar with the Rainbow Servant, but the rule would be that the example character is incorrect if it contradicts the rule text. However, it may reflect what the designer actually wanted with the class.Long-term debate. The text says 'full-progression caster', the table says it loses 4 levels, and the example seems to agree with the table(having lost 2 levels at the right point). However the class is Incantrix level if it doesn't lose levels and Mystic Theurge level if it does, so the debate has never been resolved.

Kemper Boyd

2008-10-28, 08:30 AM

Now, what do people think *should* be the way to go? I think unarmed sucks enough that we shouldn't even require a feat for someone to avoid provoking an AoO.

Unarmed fighting does suck. In my D20 Conan game, I've combined Improved Unarmed and the Brawl feat so a character with Improved Unarmed deals 1D6+STR damage and does not provoke AoO's.

Craby

2008-10-28, 09:05 AM

Agreement from me. I read the whole thread sort of dumbfounded that anyone ever thought otherwise. It was poor writing design on the part of WoTC, but what you've said is fairly obviously what they meant. I'm not saying it necessarily should be that way - I think unarmed fighting should be nonlethal at -4, lethal at -6 or something, and require a single feat, available at BAB +1, that allows lethal and nonlethal at no penalty and no AoO provoked. That would be more realistic. But hey, it's D&D, who cares about realism?

what they MEANT in the book is hardly the same as what IS in the book. they never do say that you receive a -4 non proficiency penalty if you are not trained with simple weapon, but they never say that you dont need to be proficient with it either. there is more evidence pointing toward the need for proficiency (ex:simple weapon chart) than there is for no proficiency needed besides RAI.

viewing it with a proficiency requirement does give unarmed nonlethal a -4 atk (like you suggest) and gives unarmed lethal a -8 atk (like you suggest, with a bit more penalty though) and either way you provoke AoO. with IUS it removes the -4 from changing nonlethal to lethal and no longer provokes AoO, the -4 non proficiency remains unless the SWP feat is taken.

Frosty

2008-10-28, 09:38 PM

Long-term debate. The text says 'full-progression caster', the table says it loses 4 levels, and the example seems to agree with the table(having lost 2 levels at the right point). However the class is Incantrix level if it doesn't lose levels and Mystic Theurge level if it does, so the debate has never been resolved.

I wouldn't say it's Incantatrix level. Nothing tops Incantatrix except Planar Shepherd.

Glenstorm

2008-10-28, 11:46 PM

Rainbow servant was reprinted(in other languages) to have text that matches the table, and the latest printing always takes precedence

Fishy

2008-10-29, 08:53 AM

Unarmed Attacks and Touch Spells

As Rules of the Game has noted before, you can use an unarmed attack to deliver a spell with touch range. You make the unarmed attack as you would normally. Your unarmed attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity because you're delivering a touch spell.

While we're on it, this part just plain doesn't make sense to me.

If I try to punch him in the nose, he gets an AoO.
If I try to touch him on the shoulder, he doesn't.
If I try to punch him in the nose and my hand is glowing blue, he doesn't?

What?

kamikasei

2008-10-29, 08:59 AM

While we're on it, this part just plain doesn't make sense to me.

If I try to punch him in the nose, he gets an AoO.
If I try to touch him on the shoulder, he doesn't.
If I try to punch him in the nose and my hand is glowing blue, he doesn't?

What?

The way I would see it is: it's hard to attack someone with your fists in a way that denies them an opening; looked at another way, it's a lot easier to nullify a fist or hand than a blade, so you can take an opening with much less risk of injury to yourself than if your opponent was armed. Thus, attacking unarmed provokes an AoO.

If you're holding the charge of a touch spell in your hand, it's a lot deadlier, and a lot harder for others to avoid being harmed by. Blocking or dodging the force of a blow is one thing, avoiding being touched by any part of the striking hand, even glancingly, is quite another. Thus, attacking with a touch spell does not provoke an AoO because while you may not be any more skilled an assailant, your target can afford to take far fewer chances in his counterattack.

Starbuck_II

2008-10-29, 09:19 AM

While we're on it, this part just plain doesn't make sense to me.

If I try to punch him in the nose, he gets an AoO.
If I try to touch him on the shoulder, he doesn't.
If I try to punch him in the nose and my hand is glowing blue, he doesn't?

What?

Rule of cool wins?
This hand glows brightly with an awesome power! Its burning grip tells me to grasp victory. TAKE THIS! MY LOVE, MY ANGER, AND ALL OF MY SORROWS!
Shining Finger!

Fishy

2008-10-29, 09:24 AM

kamikasei

2008-10-29, 09:39 AM

@kamikasei: Well, yes, that explains 1 and 2, but what happens when you take option 3?

Mechanically, you're trying to beat his AC, not his touch AC. If you manage to touch him on the arm but without enough force to do any damage, the spell doesn't go off.

So, you're doing the same physical motions you would if you were punching him, he's trying to avoid or parry you in exactly the same way he would if you were punching him, but somehow, he doesn't get the same opening for a counterattack. What's going on?

Ah, I see where you're coming from.

In option one, you're unarmed and trying to beat the target's regular AC.
In option two, you're armed and trying to beat his touch AC.
And in option three, you're armed and trying to beat his regular AC.

The AoOs work off of whether you're armed or unarmed, not off of the AC you're targeting. Because you have touch spell in your hand, whichever AC you're going after, your target will find it more dangerous to attempt to counterattack or exploit any openings you may leave him. For greater verisimilitude it might help if, say, taking an AoO against an opponent making an unarmed attack coupled with a touch spell meant that you left yourself a little more open in turn and that therefore if the opponent's attack exceeded your touch AC that the spell would discharge even if the regular attack didn't and/or even if your attack prevented his. (Phew!) However, they've abstracted this away and it's simply handled as "having a touch spell in your hand makes you as hard to take AoOs against as having any other weapon in your hand".

Fishy

2008-10-29, 09:59 AM

kamikasei

2008-10-29, 10:04 AM

Except now, just to make things more perverse, mix in the Invisible Spell metamagic from cityscape.

'Holding' a touch spell makes you more dangerous even if the target you're fighting has no idea that you're holding a touch spell.

Technically, I'm pretty sure you could get, say, a katar or similar weapon, cast invisibility on it, and then wield it; it'd look like you were making a fist or some odd martial arts strike, no weapon would be visible, yet again you'd be more dangerous despite the target's ignorance.

Hooray, consistency!

Fishy

2008-10-29, 10:23 AM

Ah, but then you're still trying to stab the guy with a piece of metal, whereas with an invisible spell, you're still punching him in the face.

Anyway. Even if you leave simulationism as a lost cause, IUP weirdness sort of makes sense from a game design perspective if you consider the Sunder and Disarm options.

If you spent a standard action to break the barbarian's axe in half, and then he Power Attacked you anyway, you'd end up feeling stupid. With the rules as they are now, Sunder/Disarm costs you an attack, but you get your action back if he tries to hit you, tries to draw a weapon, tries to back off, or just do anything other than run away- in which case you've won. So, because unarmed attacks provoke AoOs, Fighters get to do more interesting things than 'I attack him'. Which is always nice.

But even if you want to punish characters that find themselves unexpectedly disarmed, you don't want to punish characters that are disarmed-by-choice: Which includes Wizards as well as monks, apparently.

turkishproverb

2008-10-29, 10:24 AM

what they MEANT in the book is hardly the same as what IS in the book. they never do say that you receive a -4 non proficiency penalty if you are not trained with simple weapon, but they never say that you dont need to be proficient with it either. there is more evidence pointing toward the need for proficiency (ex:simple weapon chart) than there is for no proficiency needed besides RAI.

viewing it with a proficiency requirement does give unarmed nonlethal a -4 atk (like you suggest) and gives unarmed lethal a -8 atk (like you suggest, with a bit more penalty though) and either way you provoke AoO. with IUS it removes the -4 from changing nonlethal to lethal and no longer provokes AoO, the -4 non proficiency remains unless the SWP feat is taken.

ONly if you ignore all of Raw but a little chart, when the charts in raw are some of the first things to mess up, such as level progression charts. Several places clearly mark Unarmed strike with other non weapon items on lists of things you can take bonusus in, such as "weapon focus". Again, if you choose to ignore these, your being unfaithful to RAW.

Craby

2008-10-29, 11:25 AM

ONly if you ignore all of Raw but a little chart, when the charts in raw are some of the first things to mess up, such as level progression charts. Several places clearly mark Unarmed strike with other non weapon items on lists of things you can take bonusus in, such as "weapon focus". Again, if you choose to ignore these, your being unfaithful to RAW.

it lists them with other non weapon items, yes. but says nothing about excluding it from the need of being proficient. a grapple is a special attack. proficiency would not be needed to make a mounted attack, disarm, or charge. they get plenty of penalties on their own as it is. unarmed strike is an attack, using your body as a weapon, to deal damage as a weapon.

the humanoid description in the back of the MM states that all humanoids are proficient with simple weapon unless they have a character class.

the text description next to the weapon chart says "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon." why wouldnt it be considered a light weapon for the purposes of weapon proficiency.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-10-29, 04:40 PM

I wonder why no one ever asked the designers a few years back? You think they would answer a FAQ about it, wouldn't they?

In retrospect, it probably should have been errataed for completeness or cleared up by the RC, but WotC has dropped the ball on a few of these.

However, personally I think this is one of those blatantly obvious cases like, say the drowning rules.

horseboy

2008-10-29, 06:34 PM

As silly of an issue as this is, I simply refuse to believe that it hasn't been addressed in a FAQ, Eratta, or otherwise helpful manner.

Last time I checked the 3.5 FAQ it was in there that Monks should be considered proficient in unarmed strikes. It was in the Monk section of the FAQ right around "can monks flurry with gauntlets", which they answered "no". They said nothing about everyone else, just that yes, monks are proficient in unarmed strikes.

It makes sense that people aren't proficient, though. Thinking about how many people hurt themselves when trying to punch somebody/thing. Of course, that'd be interjecting "sense" into the morass of 3.x.

Frosty

2008-10-29, 09:12 PM

So the FAQ confirms the existance of unarmed strike proficiency?

turkishproverb

2008-10-29, 11:32 PM

it lists them with other non weapon items, yes. but says nothing about excluding it from the need of being proficient. a grapple is a special attack. proficiency would not be needed to make a mounted attack, disarm, or charge. they get plenty of penalties on their own as it is. unarmed strike is an attack, using your body as a weapon, to deal damage as a weapon.

the humanoid description in the back of the MM states that all humanoids are proficient with simple weapon unless they have a character class.

the text description next to the weapon chart says "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon." why wouldnt it be considered a light weapon for the purposes of weapon proficiency.

where is the light weapon class? there isn't one, its called simple weapon. Don't confuse the two terms, as it creates fallacy in attempts to claim RAW. If i had my guess, it was chosen as a wording specifically to AVOID people using the "its a simple weapon, -4 for you" argument

And Grapple IS an attack, usually using your body as a weapon. Sounds like US, don't it?

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-10-30, 12:57 AM

Last time I checked the 3.5 FAQ it was in there that Monks should be considered proficient in unarmed strikes. It was in the Monk section of the FAQ right around "can monks flurry with gauntlets", which they answered "no". They said nothing about everyone else, just that yes, monks are proficient in unarmed strikes.

It makes sense that people aren't proficient, though. Thinking about how many people hurt themselves when trying to punch somebody/thing. Of course, that'd be interjecting "sense" into the morass of 3.x.

Could you provide a quote or page reference?

Roderick_BR

2008-10-30, 06:08 AM

(...)
the weapon focus text and unarmed attack text is declaring special rules. allowing the unarmed attack under the weapon focus text does not exclude it from the prerequisite of needing to be proficient with it. weapon focus states it separate from "type of weapon" because it is an attack type (unarmed vs armed) not a weapon type.
Wait, what? You just agreed that Weapon Focus specifically states Unarmed Strikes, along Grapples, and Melee and Ranged Touch attacks, but it is not evidence? So, you can get a +1 to attack (maybe a +2 to damage later) even without being proficient, even though Weapon Focus requeriment is proficiency in the weapon? That doesn't make sense. If it were the case, it would say "Special: you can choose Unarmed Strikes, even if you are not proficient with it", instead of just reminding you that US can be used with it even if there's no proficiency for it.

where is the light weapon class? there isn't one, its called simple weapon. Don't confuse the two terms, as it creates fallacy in attempts to claim RAW. If i had my guess, it was chosen as a wording specifically to AVOID people using the "its a simple weapon, -4 for you" argument

And Grapple IS an attack, usually using your body as a weapon. Sounds like US, don't it?
Great point there. It's pointing US's "weapon size" not it's "weapon category", as in, if it can be used with feats like Weapon Finesse, not if it's simple or not. As me, and many others pointed out, it's more a lack of attention from the designers to not put it under it's own category, like Natural Attacks does, or state, in the US description that it doesn't need proficiency.

About Monks: After some thinking, I got a conclusion: Unlike normal US, the monk's US is considered a natural weapon (being able, for example, to take Improved Natural Attack, thing a normal person with just the IUS feat can't), and all creatures with natural attacks are automatically proficient with them. So Monks are always proficient with their US as well. At least this point we are done with.

kamikasei

2008-10-30, 06:16 AM

About Monks: After some thinking, I got a conclusion: Unlike normal US, the monk's US is considered a natural weapon (being able, for example, to take Improved Natural Attack, thing a normal person with just the IUS feat can't)

Only "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve..." (which I am assuming is the basis of the Improved Natural Attack eligibility you mention, which I wasn't aware of / hadn't heard of).

I find the FAQ explanation that monks are proficient with their unarmed strike, but can't flurry with gauntlets, odd. That they can't flurry with gauntlets implies that gauntlets are considered weapons which aren't special monk weapons. But, gauntlets are grouped with unarmed strike on the weapons table, and their text says they're considered unarmed attacks except that they allow lethal damage. By the same reasoning that led me to conclude unarmed strikes are not really weapons, gauntlets shouldn't be either, and thus shouldn't affect flurry. So does that FAQ ruling imply that gauntlets and in turn unarmed strikes really are simple weapons, but that monks are magically proficient in them anyway?

(Of course, this also raises the question of whether treating gauntlets as "un-weapons" so that monks can use them to flurry leaves them ineligible for the weapon enchantments that would be the whole point of using them.)

Starbuck_II

2008-10-30, 10:26 AM

About Monks: After some thinking, I got a conclusion: Unlike normal US, the monk's US is considered a natural weapon (being able, for example, to take Improved Natural Attack, thing a normal person with just the IUS feat can't), and all creatures with natural attacks are automatically proficient with them. So Monks are always proficient with their US as well. At least this point we are done with.

Where did you read you are auto proficient with natural weapons? The Monster Manual disagrees.
Only those with racial HD are.

Roderick_BR

2008-10-30, 11:31 AM

Where did you read you are auto proficient with natural weapons? The Monster Manual disagrees.
Only those with racial HD are.
Oh. I'll have to read it again... so, if a creature have natural attacks, but does not have racial HDs, he can't use them?
"Don't worry, I don't bite... Or at least I take a -4 to use my bite attack"

Starbuck_II

2008-10-30, 11:41 AM

Oh. I'll have to read it again... so, if a creature have natural attacks, but does not have racial HDs, he can't use them?
"Don't worry, I don't bite... Or at least I take a -4 to use my bite attack"

Yeah, read the Type again.

Example oozes say:
Proficient with its natural weapons only.

Monstrous Humanoid:
Proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.

Undead says:
Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry

Humans are weird:
Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type.

1) Oozes: Notice the word proficient. Meaning they require proficiency.
2) Monstrous Humaniod: So they are proficient with natural weapons (it will be listed in entry that they have claws, slams, or bite).
3) Undead: So again listing proficiency with natural weapons.
4) humans if have Racial HD will gain Humaniood features...meaning natural attacks I guess. Good for Lizardfolk, maybe?

Frosty

2008-10-30, 07:29 PM

Only "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve..." (which I am assuming is the basis of the Improved Natural Attack eligibility you mention, which I wasn't aware of / hadn't heard of).

I find the FAQ explanation that monks are proficient with their unarmed strike, but can't flurry with gauntlets, odd. That they can't flurry with gauntlets implies that gauntlets are considered weapons which aren't special monk weapons. But, gauntlets are grouped with unarmed strike on the weapons table, and their text says they're considered unarmed attacks except that they allow lethal damage. By the same reasoning that led me to conclude unarmed strikes are not really weapons, gauntlets shouldn't be either, and thus shouldn't affect flurry. So does that FAQ ruling imply that gauntlets and in turn unarmed strikes really are simple weapons, but that monks are magically proficient in them anyway?

(Of course, this also raises the question of whether treating gauntlets as "un-weapons" so that monks can use them to flurry leaves them ineligible for the weapon enchantments that would be the whole point of using them.)

Do you allow gauntlets to count as monk weapons in your games?

kamikasei

2008-10-31, 03:24 AM

Do you allow gauntlets to count as monk weapons in your games?

It's never come up; I've not had anyone playing a monk so I haven't ruled on it. As I'm reading the rules now I would say that gauntlets just count as unarmed strikes but let you add weapon enhancements to them. Not precisely RAW, but not too much of a stretch. Thus they wouldn't be special monk weapons, but wouldn't need to be.

Craby

2008-10-31, 04:09 PM

where is the light weapon class? there isn't one, its called simple weapon. Don't confuse the two terms, as it creates fallacy in attempts to claim RAW. If i had my guess, it was chosen as a wording specifically to AVOID people using the "its a simple weapon, -4 for you" argument

there isnt a light weapon class in terms of simple/martial. its considered a light weapon like the dagger or shortsword.

edit: i knew the terms i was using and listed them all as i intended. i guess the use of the italics on weapon was lost or looked over.

And Grapple IS an attack, usually using your body as a weapon. Sounds like US, don't it?

yes but it does not deal weapon damage and is a special attack. where US does and is not.

Wait, what? You just agreed that Weapon Focus specifically states Unarmed Strikes, along Grapples, and Melee and Ranged Touch attacks, but it is not evidence? So, you can get a +1 to attack (maybe a +2 to damage later) even without being proficient, even though Weapon Focus requeriment is proficiency in the weapon? That doesn't make sense. If it were the case, it would say "Special: you can choose Unarmed Strikes, even if you are not proficient with it", instead of just reminding you that US can be used with it even if there's no proficiency for it.

no. i did not exclude US from the requirement of proficiency. it is listed separate because it is not a manufatured (hold it in your hand) weapon.

Great point there. It's pointing US's "weapon size" not it's "weapon category", as in, if it can be used with feats like Weapon Finesse, not if it's simple or not. As me, and many others pointed out, it's more a lack of attention from the designers to not put it under it's own category, like Natural Attacks does, or state, in the US description that it doesn't need proficiency.

in the descriptive text of the long bow or shortsword it doesnt list the weapon category (simple/martial) so why would they for US when they havent for any other. they list what it is considered as. because it actually is not a light weapon like the dagger, light mace, or sickle. but it is considered a light weapon for game terms.

it would have been easy to put it in its own category, but it isnt.

Craby

2008-10-31, 04:16 PM

It's never come up; I've not had anyone playing a monk so I haven't ruled on it. As I'm reading the rules now I would say that gauntlets just count as unarmed strikes but let you add weapon enhancements to them. Not precisely RAW, but not too much of a stretch. Thus they wouldn't be special monk weapons, but wouldn't need to be.

"Gauntlet:
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack..."

you are correct, you could flurry with gauntlets. they arent and dont need to be special monk weapons.

BUT... this happens

"When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses her AC bonus, as well as her fast movement and flurry of blows abilities."

now, the monk wouldnt be wearing a full suit of armor but this may still aply. if it doesnt the damage die of the gauntlet might replace the increased damage the monk gets for US, quite the price to pay (especially higher levels) to gain an enchanted weapon when you can 'magic fang/weapon' it. you deal lethal with IUS anyway so upgrading to gauntlets for that benefit is unnecessary.

hamishspence

2008-10-31, 04:21 PM

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-10-31, 04:23 PM

"Gauntlet:
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack..."

you are correct, you could flurry with gauntlets. they arent and dont need to be special monk weapons.

RAW? No.
They are not special monk weapons and they are not unarmed strikes, so you cannot use FoB.
The fact that you still provoke AoO with them does not mitigate this.

However, I would recommend kamikasei's suggestions for any game though.

BUT... this happens

"When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses her AC bonus, as well as her fast movement and flurry of blows abilities."

now, the monk wouldnt be wearing a full suit of armor but this may still aply.

This is irrelevant to the current situation.

Craby

2008-10-31, 04:27 PM

they aren't armour cos they don't affect AC. suit can have gauntlets in it though.

Or maybe, suit comes with plain metal gloves, and gauntlets are "Fighting Gauntlets"- special weapon that can be substituted for metal gloves without affecting integrity of suit.

"Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets."

personally im not sure how hide gauntlets would be the same as scale mail or full plate gauntlets.. but hey.

Craby

2008-10-31, 04:32 PM

RAW? No.
They are not special monk weapons and they are not unarmed strikes, so you cannot use FoB.
The fact that you still provoke AoO with them does not mitigate this.

However, I would recommend kamikasei's suggestions for any game though

RAW yes. they are not special monk weapons. they allow lethal instead of nonlethal with unarmed strike. and are considered unarmed strike. unless you are now saying that monks cant flurry with unarmed strike.

This is irrelevant to the current situation.

yes its irrelevant to the overall topic of proficiency with unarmed strike, but is relevant to the "use unarmed strike with gauntlet" topic.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-10-31, 04:37 PM

RAW yes. they are not special monk weapons. they allow lethal instead n nonlethal with unarmed strike. and are considered unarmed strike. unless you are now saying that monks cant flurry with unarmed strike.

The problem is that they are in fact not considered Unarmed Strikes. They are considered unarmed attacks, which just means that you provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking without the necessary feats.

yes its irrelevant to the overall topic of proficiency with unarmed strike, but is relevant to the "use unarmed strike with gauntlet" topic.

No, because they are not armor, they are weapons.

Craby

2008-10-31, 04:49 PM

The problem is that they are in fact not considered Unarmed Strikes. They are considered unarmed attacks, which just means that you provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking without the necessary feats.

No, because they are not armor, they are weapons.

ok thats fine with me. point made and agreed.
would you require proficiency with said weapon?

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-10-31, 04:51 PM

ok thats fine with me. point made and agreed.
would you require proficiency with said weapon?

I would not, but the RAW do if you want to attack without penalty. :smalltongue:

Craby

2008-10-31, 05:00 PM

I would not, but the RAW do if you want to attack without penalty. :smalltongue:

so per RAW you are in agreement that unarmed strike is in need of proficiency in order to attack with it?

and yes there is always rule zero.

Craby

2008-10-31, 05:05 PM

Last time I checked the 3.5 FAQ it was in there that Monks should be considered proficient in unarmed strikes. It was in the Monk section of the FAQ right around "can monks flurry with gauntlets", which they answered "no". They said nothing about everyone else, just that yes, monks are proficient in unarmed strikes.

was this found? perhapse we can derive an answer for the "everyone else" as well.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-10-31, 05:26 PM

so per RAW you are in agreement that unarmed strike is in need of proficiency in order to attack with it?

Yes, I agree that the PHB is in need of errata to bring it in line with both RAI and the monk's ability to use their signature style effectively.

I think it is rather obvious that monk's are intended to be proficient or that US should be exempt from the proficiency rules.

horseboy

2008-10-31, 06:12 PM

Could you provide a quote or page reference?Crap, can't find it now, though I did find this:
The sap is mentioned in the sneak attack description
primarily to make it clear that you can make sneak attacks with
nonlethal weapons (such as saps and unarmed strikes), even
though you cannot make sneak attacks when you decide to deal
nonlethal damage with a weapon that normally deals lethal
damage (see the previous question).So, they are considering an unarmed strike to be a nonlethal weapon. Weapons need weapon proficiency to use properly. Wizards suck it at punching.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-10-31, 06:15 PM

Crap, can't find it now, though I did find this: So, they are considering an unarmed strike to be a nonlethal weapon. Weapons need weapon proficiency to use properly. Wizards suck it at punching.

It is hardly surprising that an unarmed strike is a weapon though. :smallamused:

horseboy

2008-10-31, 06:34 PM

RAW yes. they are not special monk weapons. they allow lethal instead of nonlethal with unarmed strike. and are considered unarmed strike. unless you are now saying that monks cant flurry with unarmed strike.
If you want the FAQ quotes on gauntlets:

Can a monk use a +5 gauntlet in an unarmed attack,
gaining all of her class benefits as well as the +5 bonus on
attack rolls and damage rolls from the gauntlet?
Gauntlets are indeed a weapon. If a monk uses any weapon
not listed as a special monk weapon, she does not gain her
better attack rate. She would, however, gain the increased
damage for unarmed attacks.

Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a
magic weapon?
No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal
answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes).
The amulet of mighty fists (DMG 246) grants the wearer an
enhancement bonus on unarmed and natural weapon attacks,
which would include the monk’s unarmed strike.

Those I know, since it came up frequently in monk defense threads.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-10-31, 06:38 PM

Those I know, since it came up frequently in monk defense threads.

LOL, it has been a while has it not. :smalltongue:

horseboy

2008-10-31, 07:20 PM

Yeah, and I'm okay with that. :smallamused:

Frosty

2008-10-31, 08:21 PM

RAW? No.
They are not special monk weapons and they are not unarmed strikes, so you cannot use FoB.
The fact that you still provoke AoO with them does not mitigate this.

I still don't quite understand this Silvanos :smallconfused:

I thought Gauntlets DO count as unarmed strikes except for the lethal/non-lethal part?

SO to clear things up, you think that by RAW, monks have a -4 to their unarmed attacks without spending an extra feat, but you feel that it is rather stupid and that RAI/houseruled IUS should have unarmed proficiency built-in?

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-10-31, 08:32 PM

I still don't quite understand this Silvanos :smallconfused:

I thought Gauntlets DO count as unarmed strikes except for the lethal/non-lethal part?

SO to clear things up, you think that by RAW, monks have a -4 to their unarmed attacks without spending an extra feat, but you feel that it is rather stupid and that RAI/houseruled IUS should have unarmed proficiency built-in?

The problem with gauntlets is that they are still weapons even though their only function is to turn the damage from non-lethal to lethal and having the benefit of being manufactured.

I think it is quite obvious that the intend is for monks not to have a penalty with unarmed strikes. How that should be accomplished (RAI) is a little less clear. Incorporating it into the IUS is certainly a viable solution.

House ruling gauntlets/hand-wraps for the monk is another obvious suggestion.

Frosty

2008-11-01, 02:47 AM

The problem with gauntlets is that they are still weapons even though their only function is to turn the damage from non-lethal to lethal and having the benefit of being manufactured.

I think it is quite obvious that the intend is for monks not to have a penalty with unarmed strikes. How that should be accomplished (RAI) is a little less clear. Incorporating it into the IUS is certainly a viable solution.

House ruling gauntlets/hand-wraps for the monk is another obvious suggestion.

House-ruling how? Making it a Monk weapon and giving Monks proficiency in Gauntlets?

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 02:54 AM

House-ruling how? Making it a Monk weapon and giving Monks proficiency in Gauntlets?

Allowing hand-wraps/gloves to be enhanced like weapons is the solution I would prefer. It avoids the gauntlet proficiency issue entirely and it fits the monk a little better.

hamishspence

2008-11-01, 08:51 AM

An unarmed attack is a Simple Weapon.

All monk Unarmed strikes are also Unarmed attacks.

Also, a Monk Unarmed Strike is a Natural weapon for purposes of any Natural Weapon effect or feat. (at least, I think so- so monk can take Improved Natural Attack?

All creatures with Natural weapons use their "primary attack bonus"- they are Proficient with Natural Attacks.

So, a monk is Proficient with Unarmed Strike.

A gauntlet is "otherwise treated as an unarmed strike" apart from lethal damage, But, is a Simple weapon.

Should one have to take Simple Weapon Proficiency (which covers all simple weapons, to use gauntlets without penalty? I'd say yes.

But, since it is "otherwise treated as unarmed attack" Id say anything with Unarmed Attack proficiency can use gauntlets as unarmed attacks without penalty.

Since all classes have access to "improved unarmed strike" and the attacks are described as "unarmed strikes" instead of unarmed attacks, either the PHB is very badly written, or unarmed strike and unarmed attack are synonymous.

EDIT:
IN other words- wizards etc take non-proficiency penalty, cos for them its not a natural attack, monks don't because for a monk, and only a monk, an unarmed attack is effectively a natural attack.

hamishspence

2008-11-01, 09:42 AM

I've just checked monk guide in Dragon- yes they can take Improved Natural Weapon.

However, if they have a natural weapon, and monk levels- say, a shifter monk, it can use both its flurry of blows, AND its natural weapons, BUT not use natural weapons as part of flurry.

and finally "A monk may consider a gauntlet as an unarmed strike and use one during her flurry of blows"

If you consider Guide Articles (and only Guide Articles) in Dragon as canon, this should be a pretty useful answer.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 10:12 AM

The monk's Unarmed Strike is only treated as a natural weapon for spells and effects that enhance or improve either, so there is no way that grants proficiency.

It is true that the monk may take improved natural attack, but that requires that one accepts the FAQ's mandate to tweak definitions.
Later books have supported the FAQ position, but going by a strict reading of CORE alone a monk would only be able to benefit from the feat, but not qualify without being a race already endowed with natural weapons.

The Dragon guide/article gives some sound advice for house rules, (which may even have been the original intent).

hamishspence

2008-11-01, 10:26 AM

the phrasing in each Guide is that they are The Rules, as if they were official- Rules Clarifications, Updates.

They could be wrong, but unless you are going so RAW that drowning someone can bring them from negative to 0 HP, they make a pretty good basis to work from.

Starbuck_II

2008-11-01, 11:35 AM

hamishspence: I'll look at your argument.

Premise 1-An unarmed attack is a Simple Weapon.

Premise 2-All monk Unarmed strikes are also Unarmed attacks.

Premise 3- Also, a Monk Unarmed Strike is a Natural weapon for purposes of any Natural Weapon effect or feat. (at least, I think so- so monk can take Improved Natural Attack?

Premise 4 - All creatures with Natural weapons use their "primary attack bonus"- they are Proficient with Natural Attacks.

This Premise 4 is wrong.
Nothing is auto-proficient. Monster Manual shows that type grants sometimes proficiency but only if have racial HD.

Subconclusion 1- So, a monk is Proficient with Unarmed Strike.
Wrong again

Premise 5- A gauntlet is "otherwise treated as an unarmed strike" apart from lethal damage, But, is a Simple weapon.

Premise 6- Should one have to take Simple Weapon Proficiency (which covers all simple weapons, to use gauntlets without penalty? I'd say yes.

Subconclusion 2- But, since it is "otherwise treated as unarmed attack" Id say anything with Unarmed Attack proficiency can use gauntlets as unarmed attacks without penalty.

conclusion - Since all classes have access to "improved unarmed strike" and the attacks are described as "unarmed strikes" instead of unarmed attacks, either the PHB is very badly written, or unarmed strike and unarmed attack are synonymous.

Again, the conclusiomn doesn't work because this linked argument requires all the premises to be correct, especially Premise 4.

Until you prove that Monster Manual us wrong about prificiency with natural weapons (and one would think it would be primary source); you can't be auto prioficient.

hamishspence

2008-11-01, 11:43 AM

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 03:08 PM

yes- some monsters are fully proficient, some (cows, etc) aren't.

Dragon mag Monk Guide is passable, since it at least splits them, while pointing out you get both- say, a 20th level monk creature with claws and bite (dragon, say) could use Flurry and natural attacks in same full round attack.

Closest thing to proof that they are proficient, is all statted monks in products lack the non-proficiency penalty- is non-proficiency penalty routinely left out when creature is shown with weapon it isn't proficient with?

There is no doubt that Dragons are proficient with their natural weapons or that a full attack can combine both natural and manufactured weapons as long as the creature is normally capable of wielding both.

Unarmed Strikes are not natural weapons though.

Dragon Magazine is not RAW, just very useful advice in this case.

hamishspence

2008-11-01, 03:26 PM

They many not be natural weapons, but they do qualify for feats that demand natural weapons (in the monk, and only the monk,'s case.)

I think an FAQ confirms this.

Maybe unarmed strikes are unique among simple weapons, no matter what, they never ever have a non-proficiency penalty because they are not a normal simple light weapon- even if you are proficient, you provoke attacks of opportunity, and like saps, they are a base non-lethal weapon.

So, you could still say, no non-proficiency penalty.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 03:31 PM

They many not be natural weapons, but they do qualify for feats that demand natural weapons (in the monk, and only the monk,'s case.)

They do, if you accept that the FAQ has a mandate to tweak definitions as I mentioned earlier. However, just because they qualify does not mean that they actually get those feats...

Again, obviously the intend is that monk's should not suffer non-proficiency penalties, but it would have been helpful if the RAW actually came out and said that clearly.

hamishspence

2008-11-01, 03:33 PM

I'd say, if player spends a feat on, say Improved Natural Attack, should get it- makes monks a little more competitive.

Craby

2008-11-01, 03:33 PM

yes- some monsters are fully proficient, some (cows, etc) aren't.

cows are proficient with their natural attacks. but they take different penalties for being non combative.

"Animal Type-
Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore uses its natural weapons as a secondary attack. Such attacks are made with a -5 penalty on the creature’s attack rolls, and the animal receives only ½ its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment."

Dragon mag Monk Guide is passable, since it at least splits them, while pointing out you get both- say, a 20th level monk creature with claws and bite (dragon, say) could use Flurry and natural attacks in same full round attack.

"When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)."

natural weapons are not included. so no, a monk cannot use flurry and natural attacks in the same full attack.

Closest thing to proof that they are proficient, is all statted monks in products lack the non-proficiency penalty- is non-proficiency penalty routinely left out when creature is shown with weapon it isn't proficient with?

it was stated earlier in this thread that...

Example characters never follow RAW, and only rarely follow RAI. There's a ToB class, the RKV, which has to worship We Jas, and the example is a follower of St Cuthbert. There's the Arcane Heirophant, where the example character shouldn't have Wildshape, but does.

you cannot use example characters as an accurate depiction of the rules. seems you should be able to, unfortunately you cant.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 03:37 PM

I'd say, if player spends a feat on, say Improved Natural Attack, should get it- makes monks a little more competitive.

I'd say they should not need to do anything.:smallsmile:

hamishspence

2008-11-01, 03:37 PM

Not in the flurry, in addition to the flurry, there is difference.. The two sets of attacks are separate.

Maybe Dragon magazine was being overly generous?

Craby

2008-11-01, 03:38 PM

Maybe unarmed strikes are unique among simple weapons, no matter what, they never ever have a non-proficiency penalty because they are not a normal simple light weapon- even if you are proficient, you provoke attacks of opportunity, and like saps, they are a base non-lethal weapon.

So, you could still say, no non-proficiency penalty.

so you are suggesting that US shouldnt follow the rules of any other weapon in the charts.

in order to not have the non proficiency penalty to attacks with a long sword, you need the martial weapon proficiency feat.

why would all simple weapons not fall under the same expectations. even with gauntlets, in the same section of the chart as unarmed strike, it is expected.

no where in RAW does is say that no non proficiency penalty applies to unarmed strike.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 03:39 PM

"When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)."

natural weapons are not included. so no, a monk cannot use flurry and natural attacks in the same full attack.

You cannot use natural weapons in a FoB, but that does not in any way prevent you from using them in the same full attack, just not as part of the flurry.

Craby

2008-11-01, 03:41 PM

Not in the flurry, in addition to the flurry, there is difference.. The two sets of attacks are separate.

Maybe Dragon magazine was being overly generous?

"A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows."

when making a full attack with flurry, you can no nothing else in the round. like all other full round actions. there is no "in addition to" full round actions.

hamishspence

2008-11-01, 03:43 PM

Unarmd strikes are a very unusual weapon, and gauntlets are arguably just cheap way to make them do lethal instead of non-lethal damage.

Question is, should that way, in the Monk guide, phrased as "rules clarifications" as if it were "Sage advice" be taken as at least RAI, and possible RAW as well?

It would make for a fix to the fact that monk weapons can be magically enhanced, unarmed strikes cannot, normally.

+6 Flaming Burst Gauntlets- Hands of Fire.

And if you have more attacks than just the flurry, you're not using them all, so its not a full attack.

Craby

2008-11-01, 03:47 PM

Unarmd strikes are a very unusual weapon, and gauntlets are arguably just cheap way to make them do lethal instead of non-lethal damage.

Question is, should that way, in the Monk guide, phrased as "rules clarifications" as if it were "Sage advice" be taken as at least RAI, and possible RAW as well?

It would make for a fix to the fact that monk weapons can be magically enhanced, unarmed strikes cannot, normally.

+6 Flaming Burst Gauntlets- Hands of Fire.

Raw already states that monks unarmed strike can be enhanced by magic.

"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Craby

2008-11-01, 03:51 PM

And if you have more attacks than just the flurry, you're not using them all, so its not a full attack.

it is a full round action to use flurry.

it is a full round action to use additional attacks granted to you by having a high base attack bonus.

you cannot do both.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 03:51 PM

Raw already states that monks unarmed strike can be enhanced by magic.

"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

They can be enhanced by magic, but that does not mean that they can be made into permanent magic weapons.

Craby

2008-11-01, 03:53 PM

They can be enhanced by magic, but that does not mean that they can be made into permanent magic weapons.

true. but you could always cast permanency on them.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 03:54 PM

it is a full round action to use flurry.

it is a full round action to use additional attacks granted to you by having a high base attack bonus.

you cannot do both.

That is not correct. Nowhere does it state that FoB is a special full round action.

To use FoB you must make a full attack, which will grant you all the normal benefits of such action including the ability to fight with two weapons and use your natural weapons as secondary attacks.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 03:56 PM

true. but you could always cast permanency on them.

Which does not solve the monk's problem...

Craby

2008-11-01, 04:05 PM

That is not correct. Nowhere does it state that FoB is a special full round action.

To use FoB you must make a full attack, which will grant you all the normal benefits of such action including the ability to fight with two weapons and use your natural weapons as secondary attacks.

flurry allows one extra attack when making a full attack. and all attacks take a -2. cant use anything but unarmed or special monk weapon as part of the flurry.

does the weapon restriction only apply to the extra attack? or the entire attack?

Craby

2008-11-01, 04:07 PM

Which does not solve the monk's problem...

it solves the problem of not having magic weapons when only using unarmed strike.

proficiency problem remains.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 04:09 PM

flurry allows one extra attack when making a full attack. and all attacks take a -2. cant use anything but unarmed or special monk weapon as part of the flurry.

does the weapon restriction only apply to the extra attack? or the entire attack?

It applies to the whole flurry, i.e all iterative attacks and the extra attack.
It does not apply to secondary natural attacks or off-hand attacks made as part of TWF or MWF.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 04:13 PM

it solves the problem of not having magic weapons when only using unarmed strike.

proficiency problem remains.

It van be dispelled and it does not allow for any special enhancements, only straight bonuses.

Craby

2008-11-01, 04:21 PM

It applies to the whole flurry, i.e all iterative attacks and the extra attack.
It does not apply to secondary natural attacks or off-hand attacks made as part of TWF or MWF.

so full round attack:
flurry restrictions applies to base attack, any extra base attacks at -5 intervals, and the extra attack granted by flurry is made at full base attack. then more attacks, if they have any natural attacks granted by race, or if they have TWF, are made.(not particularly in that order)

they can also be made as part of the full attack? makes sense, and they dont have the weapon restrictions of flurry. they do have the -2 from it though, it applies to AoO too.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-01, 04:23 PM

That is correct.

Craby

2008-11-01, 04:24 PM

It van be dispelled and it does not allow for any special enhancements, only straight bonuses.

so you grab a special monk weapon that is enchanted. and can use it as part of the flurry. one of the reasons to pick up a special monk weapon instead of always punching things, along with not having non proficiency penalties, tripping and disarming with less consequences of a failure.

Frosty

2008-11-01, 10:11 PM

It applies to the whole flurry, i.e all iterative attacks and the extra attack.
It does not apply to secondary natural attacks or off-hand attacks made as part of TWF or MWF.

Are you SURE about it? I'm reading FoB right now and it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Part of FoB states that "but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round." That sounds like to me it'd affect TWF and even secondary natural attacks.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-02, 02:09 AM

Are you SURE about it? I'm reading FoB right now and it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Part of FoB states that "but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round." That sounds like to me it'd affect TWF and even secondary natural attacks.

Yes it does, but there was never any doubt about that. :smallsmile:

I am answering the questions about the weapon restriction, not the -2 penalty. That applies across the board.

Talic

2008-11-02, 03:27 AM

Also note that when you use a BAB progression attack, you may make no more than 1 natural weapon attack total, and it's considered secondary.

So no Claw/Claw/Bite/Flurry! action.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-11-02, 03:47 AM

Also note that when you use a BAB progression attack, you may make no more than 1 natural weapon attack total, and it's considered secondary.

So no Claw/Claw/Bite/Flurry! action.

A full attack using natural weapons attacks as secondary attacks and iterative attacks as primary may use all natural weapons available as secondary attacks.

So your example FoB/Bite/Claws could indeed be used as long as no claw/arm is used for an unarmed strike.

hamishspence

2008-11-02, 06:13 AM

Check numerous monsters with weapons and many natural attacks- when they use full attack, they get them all, except the "hand" or implement used to wield the weapon.

All, primary and secondary, take -5 penalty, unless Multiattack, which means -2 penalty.

Archfiends in Fiendish Codices show this.

hamishspence

2008-11-02, 06:14 AM

if nearly every limb appears to be a weapon, you could say that unarmed strikes are kicks and head butts. (pazuzu has clawed feet, so might have to head butt)

Frosty

2008-11-03, 11:35 PM

if nearly every limb appears to be a weapon, you could say that unarmed strikes are kicks and head butts. (pazuzu has clawed feet, so might have to head butt)

For monks, they ARE.

hamishspence

2008-11-04, 08:09 AM

For monstrous monks too, I think. Dragon monk- claw, tail, bite, wings, and- head butt?

Darrin

2008-11-04, 09:34 AM

so you grab a special monk weapon that is enchanted. and can use it as part of the flurry. one of the reasons to pick up a special monk weapon instead of always punching things, along with not having non proficiency penalties, tripping and disarming with less consequences of a failure.

You can use the Unorthodox Flurry feat (Dragon Compendium, p. 109) to treat any light weapon as a special monk weapon, including for flurry of blows. It also provides a proficiency for that weapon, unless it's exotic. This works for gauntlets (which, although they are not listed as light weapons, the non-spiked version are treated like unarmed strikes, which are always considered light). I'm not sure if natural weapons are always considered light weapons, although the description for Power Attack seems to think they are.