Realization: Monks ARE proficient with Unarmed Strikes

[danzibr]

Thing is, you don't need a definition that says "weapons are ABC." All that you need is "in this game, ABC is a weapon" - which is exactly what the PHB says, by putting Unarmed Strike on the weapons table, describing it in the weapon descriptions, and then saying it's always considered a (light) weapon.

So an exclusive statement such as "weapons are ABC and not XYZ" is not needed to answer the question "is unarmed strike a weapon," any more than you need a definition of "race" to know that "elves are a race." In other words, whatever a race ultimately is, we know that elves are one of them because the book says they are, just like it says unarmed strike is a weapon.

Really I'm interested in Manticore Belt stuff. But this isn't the place for that.

[eggynack]

So let's assume that an unarmed strike is not a weapon. What evidence is there for and against proficiency?

The case for is that, even if it's not a weapon, it is still treated as a weapon, by virtue of the "Always treated as a light weapon" text. The case against is that being always treated as a light weapon does not strictly imply that the game object is treated as a weapon for the purposes of proficiency. I don't see that claim as particularly stable, however, because light weapons are definitionally weapons by several sources, and because a property of weapons is that they require proficiency. I haven't yet seen anything that pokes a serious hole in the overall logic of unarmed strikes requiring proficiency.

[ShaneMRoth]

So let's assume that an unarmed strike is not a weapon. What evidence is there for and against proficiency?

I will not assume something that is directly contradicted by the SRD.

Unarmed Strike is listed in the SRD as an Unarmed Attack, right next to Gauntlet.

So, a plain read of the rules reveals that an Unarmed Strike is a categorized as a Simple Weapon and an Unarmed Attack.

I'm sure someone will come along shortly to tell me how wrong I am...

[Segev]

I will not assume something that is directly contradicted by the SRD.

Unarmed Strike is listed in the SRD as an Unarmed Attack, right next to Gauntlet.

So, a plain read of the rules reveals that an Unarmed Strike is a categorized as a Simple Weapon and an Unarmed Attack.

I'm sure someone will come along shortly to tell me how wrong I am...

Already done in my last post, where I cited another quote that specifically stated an unarmed strike is an attack without a weapon. Therefore, at the very least, you are definitionally not using a weapon when you make one.

That said, yes, we're running around in circles. This was just my first time all the way around the track; I appreciate everybody taking the time to show me all the arguments.

[eggynack]

I will not assume something that is directly contradicted by the SRD.

Unarmed Strike is listed in the SRD as an Unarmed Attack, right next to Gauntlet.

So, a plain read of the rules reveals that an Unarmed Strike is a categorized as a Simple Weapon and an Unarmed Attack.

I'm sure someone will come along shortly to tell me how wrong I am...

It's a pretty standard argument for the result, but it comes up against the text trumps table rule, so any citation that indicates the non-weapon nature of unarmed strikes would win the fight. The glossary entry for weapons vaguely points in the direction of them not being weapons, though I don't think its unambiguous that the text indicates that, and both that specific text, and text of that general sort, make arguing from the table a challenging thing. Not to say it's impossible, because I've taken that route before, but I've found that arguing from the treated as a light weapon text creates a stronger and less assailable position. Similarly, the spell text for stuff like magic fang could be dismissed as a specific case in opposition to a general rule. Again, not a necessarily true perspective, but again, one that can be argued to that argument's detriment.

[Psyren]

You don't even need a text vs. table discrepancy - the text in the weapons section also includes them as weapons, so the fact that the table agrees is nice, but irrelevant.

Already done in my last post, where I cited another quote that specifically stated an unarmed strike is an attack without a weapon. Therefore, at the very least, you are definitionally not using a weapon when you make one.

Actually, that's the definition for "unarmed attack." There is a separate definition in the glossary for "unarmed strike" - so not only does this definition not apply, the glossary itself is indicating they are not the same thing.

What's more, the glossary definition specifically says "an attack with no weapon in hand." That is not at all the same as "no weapon (at all)." A gauntlet is also an attack with no weapon "in hand, "because the weapon is on your hand. But gauntlets are weapons. Note too that gauntlets are listed as unarmed attacks also.

[ShaneMRoth]

It's a pretty standard argument for the result, but it comes up against the text trumps table rule, so any citation that indicates the non-weapon nature of unarmed strikes would win the fight. The glossary entry for weapons vaguely points in the direction of them not being weapons, though I don't think its unambiguous that the text indicates that, and both that specific text, and text of that general sort, make arguing from the table a challenging thing. Not to say it's impossible, because I've taken that route before, but I've found that arguing from the treated as a light weapon text creates a stronger and less assailable position. Similarly, the spell text for stuff like magic fang could be dismissed as a specific case in opposition to a general rule. Again, not a necessarily true perspective, but again, one that can be argued to that argument's detriment.

Just for clarity, I'm claiming that unarmed strike appears in the SRD under a weapon list, and for that reason I am not willing to just assume that unarmed strikes are not weapons.

I understand the "text trumps tables" rule to mean that text is the tie breaker if there is a discrepancy between what appears in a table versus what appears in the text. I take exception to the notion that information in a Table in the SRD can be completely ignored.

The appearance of Unarmed Strike in the SRD as a weapon is strong enough evidence that an Unarmed Strike is a weapon that it would take an unqualified statement in the text to the contrary to refute it.

More to the point, an Unarmed Strike is not an object.

The listing is Unarmed Strike. Not Hands. Not Fists. Not Knuckles. Not feet.

An Unarmed Strike is a verb, not a noun.

It's an action, not an object.

[nyjastul69]

I will not assume something that is directly contradicted by the SRD.

Unarmed Strike is listed in the SRD as an Unarmed Attack, right next to Gauntlet.

So, a plain read of the rules reveals that an Unarmed Strike is a categorized as a Simple Weapon and an Unarmed Attack.

I'm sure someone will come along shortly to tell me how wrong I am...

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care about the arguments either. What I will say is that the SRD is not the rules of the game. It is what WotC release to 3rd parties to use. The rules of the game are the core books. The SRD is not a core source.

[eggynack]

You don't even need a text vs. table discrepancy - the text in the weapons section also includes them as weapons, so the fact that the table agrees is nice, but irrelevant.

Which text are you citing, exactly? I guess one could argue that the weapon's presence in the weapon section of the book indicates that, but the fact that that selfsame area of the book seems to clarify that as an exception a few times, having to point out that its damage is considered weapon damage, and again stating the treated as a light weapon thing, weakens that perspective. I do seem to recall something interesting from that old thread that wasn't delved into all that much, however.

Just for clarity, I'm claiming that unarmed strike appears in the SRD under a weapon list, and for that reason I am not willing to just assume that unarmed strikes are not weapons.

Neither should you assume that. I'm just telling you that a battle on these particular grounds can be an uphill one.

I understand the "text trumps tables" rule to mean that text is the tie breaker if there is a discrepancy between what appears in a table versus what appears in the text. I take exception to the notion that information in a Table in the SRD can be completely ignored.

If the information in that table is contradicted by another source, and I don't know that it is, then that information can, in fact, be completely ignored. That's what that rule being a tiebreaker means. You can use the table information up to the exact point that it's contradicted in text.

The appearance of Unarmed Strike in the SRD as a weapon is strong enough evidence that an Unarmed Strike is a weapon that it would take an unqualified statement in the text to the contrary to refute it.

Maybe, but not necessarily. The exact level of qualification required to such a statement is a bit unclear, by the rules. You end up having to argue both the parameters of the text trumps table rule, and that the text in question does not fit those parameters. Not saying it's impossible, or that you shouldn't do it. Just saying it's a challenge, and one that isn't strictly necessary to resolve this particular issue.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care about the arguments either. What I will say is that the SRD is not the rules of the game. It is what WotC release to 3rd parties to use. The rules of the game are the core books. The SRD is not a core source.

The SRD is the most convenient way to cite things in books it contains information from. It is also almost entirely accurate to the rules of the game, with only maybe one or two exceptions I'm aware of. This is not one of those exceptions. The same exact information can be found in table 7-5 on page 116 of the PHB.

[nyjastul69]

Which text are you citing, exactly? I guess one could argue that the weapon's presence in the weapon section of the book indicates that, but the fact that that selfsame area of the book seems to clarify that as an exception a few times, having to point out that its damage is considered weapon damage, and again stating the treated as a light weapon thing, weakens that perspective. I do seem to recall something interesting from that old thread that wasn't delved into all that much, however.

Neither should you assume that. I'm just telling you that a battle on these particular grounds can be an uphill one.


If the information in that table is contradicted by another source, and I don't know that it is, then that information can, in fact, be completely ignored. That's what that rule being a tiebreaker means. You can use the table information up to the exact point that it's contradicted in text.


Maybe, but not necessarily. The exact level of qualification required to such a statement is a bit unclear, by the rules. You end up having to argue both the parameters of the text trumps table rule, and that the text in question does not fit those parameters. Not saying it's impossible, or that you shouldn't do it. Just saying it's a challenge, and one that isn't strictly necessary to resolve this particular issue.


The SRD is the most convenient way to cite things in books it contains information from. It is also almost entirely accurate to the rules of the game, with only maybe one or two exceptions I'm aware of. This is not one of those exceptions. The same exact information can be found in table 7-5 on page 116 of the PHB.

I wasn't claiming a discrepancy. I was only pointing out that using the SRD as a sole, or primary document, is inaccurate.

[eggynack]

I wasn't claiming a discrepancy. I was only pointing out that using the SRD as a sole, or primary document, is inaccurate.

But it's not inaccurate, is the problem. You can point to the SRD as a sole document in the vast majority of cases, maybe in all cases where it applies, and come to a correct conclusion. The SRD may not be a primary source, but it's good enough at its job to be a sole source.

[Psyren]

Which text are you citing, exactly?

The same text I've been citing throughout this thread... PHB 114.

Weapons found on Table 7–5: Weapons are described below, along with any special options for the wielder (“you”) has for their use.

*proceeds to describe weapons, including Unarmed Strike*

And while I'm on the subject, the "unarmed strike is considered light weapon" rule is stated not once, not twice, but three times in the PHB. (PHB 113, 121, 155.)

[eggynack]

The same text I've been citing throughout this thread... PHB 114.

Yeah, I guess that works. Wonder why I missed it the other times. Well, that resolves that, I suppose, though the treated as argument does get around the glossary rooted claim more cleanly. Assuming the glossary claim is an accurate one, which I don't really think it is, then you wind up in ambiguous territory rather than unambiguous weapon territory. By my thinking, the treated as argument is the one with the lowest standard of proof required that still satisfies the need for proficiency.

[bekeleven]

unarmed attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.
unarmed strike: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage.

It seems that an unarmed strike is supposed to be the same thing as an unarmed attack. Neither is an armed attack, and thus provokes and does not threaten, as per page 139. It's still on the weapons table and list, presumably because it can be made a weapon with a feat, as per page 121. The glossary distinguishes between the two, but it seems the distinction is not used consistently elsewhere.

You've stumbled upon my favorite monk-related dysfunction, first found by CaptnQ.

When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons

Do you know that TECHNICALLY, if a Monk misses on ANY roll to hit while performing a flurry of blows it stops being a flurry of blows? I don't even know what that MEANS!

[ShaneMRoth]

Take the focus off the Monk for a moment.

Look at the Wizard instead.

The Wizard, like the Monk, is only proficient with a specific list of weapons and the Unarmed Strike is not one of those weapons.

Assume the Wizard attempts to make lethal attacks with his Unarmed Strike.

The wizard clearly suffers a -4 attack penalty when making any Unarmed Strike, lethal or non-lethal damage.

SRD (Non-Lethal Damage)

Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals 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.

The Wizard is clearly Unarmed when making an Unarmed Strike.

From the SRD (Improved Unarmed Strike)

Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

---

Now, give the Wizard the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Gandalf)


The Wizard is now, by RAW, considered armed with Unarmed Strikes.

SRD (Improved Unarmed Strike)

Benefit
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

The Wizard now, by RAW, threaten adjacent squares and can make attacks of opportunity with Unarmed Strikes.

Attacks of Opportunity

Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.

So what are his attack penalties?

Well, he may be armed, and he may threaten squares, and he may no longer provoke attacks of opportunity when he makes Unarmed Strikes... but since he is still not proficient with Unarmed Strike, he still suffers a -4 penalty to his attack roles.

It's no different than if he picked up a sword. No proficiency means a -4 penalty to attack rolls.

Right?

Wrong.

SRD (Actions in Combat)

Dealing Lethal Damage
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.

So, when Crouching Gandalf makes Unarmed Strikes, by RAW mind you, he is...

1. Armed
2. Threatens Adjacent Squares
3. Doesn't provoke Attacks of Opportunity when he attacks an armed opponent
4. Suffers no penalties to his attack roll when he makes by virtue of making Unarmed Attacks Unarmed Strikes.

There is no mechanical difference between this and proficiency.

None.

And if a Wizard with Improved Unarmed Strike can make an unarmed attack Unarmed Strike without a -4 attack penalty, there is no reason why a Monk can't do the same thing.

::MikeDrop::

[eggynack]

Implied in that sentence, the one which says the user of improved unarmed strike takes no penalties, is that he takes no penalties associated with dealing lethal. That's true just based on context, because it's all part of the same sentence, and if it were not true, then absurdities would result. In particular, if you take that provision as a general one, then you can't take penalties to unarmed strikes for any reason. Power attack for all you want, because that feat is phrased as a penalty to hit, and you can't have those. In summary, the wizard would take a -4 in that situation, and so would the monk, because the penalty you don't take is the one derived from dealing lethal.

[Ger. Bessa]

Since the weapon proficiencies malus are for hand-held weapons, could any character weild a katana (without the proficiency) by holding it in his mouth, under his left armpit or stuck up in his a$$ to make attacks without that malus ?

He of course couldn't take any feat requiring EWP (katana) without picking EWP first, of course. Balance and feat tax and all that.

I ask because monks in particular can use any part of their body...

No, that's not true. I ask if that's another broken thing in the vein of drowning healing, or, you know, monks not being proficient with their unarmed whatever.

[bekeleven]

So if he takes no attack penalties when dealing unarmed strikes, and unarmed strikes are defined as a successful unarmed attack...

Clearly he only takes no attack penalties if he hits someone, and takes a -8 to all attack rolls that miss.

[Segev]

If one is accepting the premise that an unarmed strike is not a weapon, then a wizard would not suffer a -4 to-hit penalty with unarmed strikes, either. He still is not considered armed, and he still provokes AoOs, and he still only does non-lethal damage, but if it is not a weapon then the fact that nonproficiency penalties kick in only with attacks with weapons means that there's no -4 to-hit penalty.

Interestingly, if one argues that an Unarmed Strike is a light weapon, then an Unarmed Strike is not an Unarmed Strike, because using it is making an attack with a weapon. This is an even sillier dysfunction than we'd previously assumed.

[eggynack]

If one is accepting the premise that an unarmed strike is not a weapon, then a wizard would not suffer a -4 to-hit penalty with unarmed strikes, either. He still is not considered armed, and he still provokes AoOs, and he still only does non-lethal damage, but if it is not a weapon then the fact that nonproficiency penalties kick in only with attacks with weapons means that there's no -4 to-hit penalty.

It doesn't matter whether or not you accept that premise. Even were an unarmed strike not a weapon, you'd still take a non-proficiency penalty because it's still always treated as a weapon. It does very much appear to be a weapon, however. The game basically just calls it a weapon outright.

[Ger. Bessa]

If one is accepting the premise that an unarmed strike is not a weapon, then a wizard would not suffer a -4 to-hit penalty with unarmed strikes, either. He still is not considered armed, and he still provokes AoOs, and he still only does non-lethal damage, but if it is not a weapon then the fact that nonproficiency penalties kick in only with attacks with weapons means that there's no -4 to-hit penalty.

That's only to deal non-lethal damage. Nobody takes a penalty to slap someone back to his place. And wizards may be the best class to slap back anyone in d&d 3.5.

The big thing with monk is that they're supposed[citation needed] to kill people with slaps (and pelvic thrusts).

[danzibr]

An Unarmed Strike is a verb, not a noun.

It's an action, not an object.

This sort of thing bothers me the most.

Look at Lich for example. It's a template by definition. So if you become a lich then you become a template...?

[Segev]

This sort of thing bothers me the most.

Look at Lich for example. It's a template by definition. So if you become a lich then you become a template...?

No, you become a templated creature.

You can be a human lich, an elven lich, a dwarven lich, an orc lich, a half red dragon goblin lich...

[Necroticplague]

This sort of thing bothers me the most.

Look at Lich for example. It's a template by definition. So if you become a lich then you become a template...?

1. You don't just become a lich. You become a lich of whatever your previous race was. Human lick, ghost lich (thank you human heritage), minotaur lich, ect.
2. Lich refers to two seperate objects: the template itself, and the resulting creatures. Just as how the Zombie templates produces Zombies, the Lich template creates Liches.

[Psyren]

It doesn't matter whether or not you accept that premise. Even were an unarmed strike not a weapon, you'd still take a non-proficiency penalty because it's still always treated as a weapon. It does very much appear to be a weapon, however. The game basically just calls it a weapon outright.

This. Either it's a weapon (and weapons need proficiency), or it's somehow not a weapon, but always treated as one (and therefore needs proficiency.) Either way it's not looking good for our friend the monk.

[danzibr]

No, you become a templated creature.

You can be a human lich, an elven lich, a dwarven lich, an orc lich, a half red dragon goblin lich...

1. You don't just become a lich. You become a lich of whatever your previous race was. Human lick, ghost lich (thank you human heritage), minotaur lich, ect.
2. Lich refers to two seperate objects: the template itself, and the resulting creatures. Just as how the Zombie templates produces Zombies, the Lich template creates Liches.

...

I get that's what's supposed to happen. I'm saying if you take the words exactly as written, you see lich = template.

Unless you can direct me to where it defines a lich to be a creature with a template. In which case I'll bow out.

Here, http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm (sorry hard to link) after you skip past the fluff in the crunchy part it says lich is a template. Then it goes on to treat a lich as a creature, not a template.

I'm just saying I wish in the text it said lich = creature with a template, not lich = template.

Not that this is the place for such a discussion.

[ExLibrisMortis]

An Unarmed Strike is a verb, not a noun.

This is not correct. "To strike unarmed" is the infinitive form of a verb (with an adverb), and you can conjugate it as 'I strike unarmed' and 'I struck unarmed' and 'I have struck unarmed' and so on. 'An unarmed strike', on the other hand, is clearly a noun group, as indicated by the article 'an'.

[Segev]

This is not correct. "To strike unarmed" is the infinitive form of a verb (with an adverb), and you can conjugate it as 'I strike unarmed' and 'I struck unarmed' and 'I have struck unarmed' and so on. 'An unarmed strike', on the other hand, is clearly a noun group, as indicated by the article 'an'.

To be grammatically pedantic, the bolded phrase's proper conjugation is actually, "I have striken unarmed."

I strike (present)
I struck (past)
I have stricken (past perfect)

[ExLibrisMortis]

Yes, but that sounds funny to me. I don't use it that way (now I'm not a native speaker, so that doesn't have to mean anything, but there you go).

Custom influences which participle is used in set phrases and specific contexts, but in general, the past participle "struck" is more common when speaking of intransitive actions (e.g. He'd struck it rich, or He's struck out on his own, etc.), while "stricken" is more commonly used for transitive actions, especially constructions where the subject is the object of an implied action (e.g. The Court has stricken the statement from the record, or The city was stricken with disease, etc.)

Apparently, you can use either. I did not know that.

[Psyren]

As noted in the quote, "have struck" is fine as past perfect too.

...What were we talking about?