Realization: Monks ARE proficient with Unarmed Strikes

[ShaneMRoth]

Unarmed Strike is a weapon. It's literally right there on Table 7-5: Weapons (PHB p. 116), and there's no getting around that.

Ah, the Table again...

Someone should really drop some balloons the next time this table appears on this thread.

Well, let's see if I can get around Table-zilla here...

The Unarmed Strike...

You can't Sunder it.

You can't Disarm it.

It has no hit points, no hardness, no armor class.

You can't Craft a Masterwork version of it.

You can't pick it up.

You can't drop it.

You can't lose it.

It doesn't exist.

It isn't a thing.

You can put it in the table that lists Major Artifacts and call it the Unarmed Strike of Vecna.

It's still an action, not a weapon.

And there's no getting around that.

...
You are correct that Unarmed Attack is an action, but that does not mean that Unarmed Strike is an action. Unarmed Strike is a weapon, and Unarmed Attack is both an action and a weapon type.
...

An Unarmed Attack is not a weapon type, it is a type of Attack. More to the point it is type of weaponless attack. It is the absence of a weapon type.

As I established above, since an Unarmed Strike is not a thing, it really has to be an action.

And the word Unarmed in the Strike further reinforces that it is the absence of a weapon.

(There is still no spoon.)

[eggynack]

You can't Sunder it.

Because it's not a weapon that the creature is holding, but instead a weapon intrinsic to the creature.

You can't Disarm it.

I suspect you would be able to, but that it just wouldn't do much. It knocks the weapon out of the target's hands, but that's not a thing here, so it doesn't cause that to happen.

It has no hit points, no hardness, no armor class.

Because it's not an object. Just a weapon.

You can't Craft a Masterwork version of it.

Because it's not an item.

You can't pick it up.

You can't drop it.

You can't lose it.

It doesn't exist.

It isn't a thing.

None of these are strictly qualities of weapons.

It's still an action, not a weapon.

Either it is a weapon and an action, or it is a weapon and not an action. Either way, there's no stopping it from being a weapon, because the text says it's a weapon.

And there's no getting around that.

No, there's no way of getting around the opposite. The text says weapon, so weapon. It's no more complicated than that.

[Extra Anchovies]

You can't Sunder it.

That doesn't make it not a weapon. Provide a rules citation saying that all weapons can be sundered and I'll change my mind.

You can't Disarm it.

That doesn't make it not a weapon. Provide a rules citation saying that all weapons can be disarmed and I'll change my mind.

It has no hit points, no hardness, no armor class.

That doesn't make it not a weapon. Provide a rules citation saying that all weapons have hardness, hit points, and armor class, and I'll change my mind.

You can't Craft a Masterwork version of it.

That doesn't make it not a weapon. Provide a rules citation saying that all weapons can have masterwork versions of them made and I'll change my mind.

You can't pick it up.

That doesn't make it not a weapon. Provide a rules citation saying that all weapons can be picked up and I'll change my mind.

You can't drop it.

That doesn't make it not a weapon. Provide a rules citation saying that all weapons can be dropped and I'll change my mind.

You can't lose it.

That doesn't make it not a weapon. Provide a rules citation saying that all weapons can be lost and I'll change my mind.

It doesn't exist.

Yes it does, PHB p. 121.

It isn't a thing.

Yes it is, PHB p. 121.

You can put it in the table that lists Major Artifacts and call it the Unarmed Strike of Vecna.

No you can't, not without altering the rules.

It's still an action, not a weapon.

Unarmed Attack is an action, Unarmed Strike is a weapon.

An Unarmed Attack is not a weapon type, it is a type of Attack. More to the point it is type of weaponless attack. It is the absence of a weapon type.

When you make an unarmed attack, you attack with an unarmed strike or any of the other valid weapons for unarmed attacks, such as a gauntlet. Unarmed strikes are always considered light weapons (PHB p. 113, 121), so when you attack with an unarmed strike you attack with a light weapon. Unarmed attacks are attacks that involve weapons, and that weapon is "unarmed strike", which falls into the categories "light weapons".

As I established above, since an Unarmed Strike is not a thing, it really has to be an action.

You mean as you failed to establish above. PHB p. 121.

And the word Unarmed in the Strike further reinforces that it is the absence of a weapon.

Only if you take everything in the PHB literally, which you shouldn't be doing. There are a number of terms that the designers gave new, D&D 3.5-specific definitions to, one of which is "unarmed strike".

Also, another thing to note:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Thus, if some aspect of an unarmed attack is not covered in "the following" (which only deals with rules regarding unarmed attacks provoking AoOs and "armed" unarmed attacks), then it is resolved as a normal weapon attack.

Attacks with natural weapons, and unarmed attacks from characters with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, count as armed attacks. To be armed, you have to be armed with something, and in the case of an unarmed attack from a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, they are armed with their unarmed strike. Yes, it sounds contradictory, but again: if you expect the 3.5 rules to make perfect sense, you will be met with only disappointment.

[Taelas]

Unarmed Strike is a weapon. It's literally right there on Table 7-5: Weapons (PHB p. 116), and there's no getting around that.

Except for the actual definition of unarmed attacks.

It is not as clear-cut as you imply, hence the argument that keeps reoccurring.

[Extra Anchovies]

Except for the actual definition of unarmed attacks.

It is not as clear-cut as you imply, hence the argument that keeps reoccurring.

They're referred to as weapons in five different places in the Player's Handbook. If you think that isn't enough times to convince you that they're weapons, well, they're referred to as explicitly weapons more often than anything else in the weapons table is. Must be weird playing D&D without weapons. Caster supremacy, am-I-right?

[ShaneMRoth]

No, there's no way of getting around the opposite. The text says weapon, so weapon. It's no more complicated than that.

Actually, the table says weapon.

The text says...

always considered a light weapon

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following

count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on)

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.

...and my personal favorite...

The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

So the Unarmed Strike is like a weapon, in the sense that Madonna is Like A Virgin.

[eggynack]

Actually, the table says weapon.

The text says...



...and my personal favorite...



So the Unarmed Strike is like a weapon, in the sense that Madonna is Like A Virgin.

No, the text says weapon, on page 114, where it says, "Weapons are described below." The, "Always treated as a light weapon," text does suffice for proficiency, however.

[ShaneMRoth]

Folks... seriously... this is getting... not good.

I'm going to step aside now.

[eggynack]

Folks... seriously... this is getting... not good.

I'm going to step aside now.

Alrighty. Not like you were challenging my points all that much. After all, even were the theoretically action categorized nature of unarmed strikes precluded them being a weapon, it definitely wouldn't preclude them being treated as a weapon.

[Reprimand]

Holy crap this thread is still going?

Lets just agree to disagree at this point.

RAW vs RAI is an uphill battle for everyone involved go get some sleep.

[eggynack]

Lets just agree to disagree at this point.

As I just said, I don't think that my logical line has been sufficiently challenged to justify that. This isn't really a matter of opinion. The game just says weapon straight out, and if it didn't, then proficiency would still be required, because the claim I've put forth with regards to the treated as majig is rather solid.

[Reprimand]

I'm not challenging anything at this point on either side. I think this has gone on for far to long and is going in circle. No one has anyone on the ropes and it's just a loop that has gone its course several times. You should at least go get some rest (unless you just woke up or something) and continue this later I guarantee it's gonna be the exact same thing when you come back.

[eggynack]

I'm not challenging anything at this point on either side. I think this has gone on for far to long and is going in circle. No one has anyone on the ropes and it's just a loop that has gone its course several times. You should at least go get some rest (unless you just woke up or something) and continue this later I guarantee it's gonna be the exact same thing when you come back.

I'm going to be up for a decent amount longer, and probably going to be arguing for some of that time if anything comes up. On the topic of ropes and people being on them, I've been a part of a pretty wide variety of D&D rules arguments, and this is pretty far up there in terms of argument strength. Like, if a completely lost argument is a one, and a completely won argument is a ten, and an argument with both sides equally valid is a five, then I'm sitting somewhere near an eight or nine in this case. For reference, that means it's pretty much all over apart from the part where people explicitly say it's all over

[Reprimand]

I personally agree y'know that unarmed strikes are simple weapons in RAW therefore requiring simple weapon proficiency.

I also think that no sane DM would rule this is the case in a game where a player is relying on unarmed strikes as a primary weapon regardless of RAW.

I just think this has gone on for like way to long.

[eggynack]

I also think that no sane DM would rule this is the case in a game where a player is relying on unarmed strikes as a primary weapon regardless of RAW.

Absolutely. Not giving monks proficiency with their main mode of attack is the height of absurdity. It's just that a thing at the height of absurdity is interesting by nature.

I just think this has gone on for like way to long.

I dunno why. This is still relatively short as far as D&D arguments are concerned. The really long ones fill up the full 50 pages, and sometimes even eat into multiple threads. What you really want, for a long argument, is something with a lot of facets, which possibly contains a number of lesser arguments. A good example of that is a class comparison thread, as classes are really big game objects.

[Reprimand]

Absolutely. Not giving monks proficiency with their main mode of attack is the height of absurdity. It's just that a thing at the height of absurdity is interesting by nature.


I dunno why. This is still relatively short as far as D&D arguments are concerned. The really long ones fill up the full 50 pages, and sometimes even eat into multiple threads. What you really want, for a long argument, is something with a lot of facets, which possibly contains a number of lesser arguments. A good example of that is a class comparison thread, as classes are really big game objects.

You know how fantasy warlords put heads on pikes? My DM does the same but with every character he ever killed he takes your character sheet as a trophy. Everything is RAW 100% of the time and if you play a cleric or druid or wizard he complains about how your OP even though he runs every monster with contingent spells and caster levels.

@quote two I dunno it's like I started on forum boards back in middle school on the (don't laugh) runescape forums and there was just a lot of drama between 1 def clans and I tend ever since tended to avoid conflict on message boards or diffuse situations before they ignite.

[Brookshw]

Unarmed strikes aren't items. There are some items listed that don't have prices, there are some that have insignificant weight, but none that have both cost ∅ and weight ∅. Sling bullets, which can be freely replaced by stones, are listed as having weight 0.

I know that I'm treading into absurd RAW here but I'm getting curious about the absurdity. Craft gives a dc for simple weapons. The arguments put forth is that US are simple weapons. So what prevents crafting or mastercrafting? Unless there's something specific excluding them I think I'm missing the point.

Again, I'm looking at this again as RAW absurdity.

[eggynack]

I know that I'm treading into absurd RAW here but I'm getting curious about the absurdity. Craft gives a dc for simple weapons. The arguments put forth is that US are simple weapons. So what prevents crafting or mastercrafting? Unless there's something specific excluding them I think I'm missing the point.

Again, I'm looking at this again as RAW absurdity.

As he said, it doesn't work because unarmed strikes aren't items. In order to craft an unarmed strike, you would have to use the "make an item of the appropriate type" provision, and while unarmed strikes are of the appropriate type, they're not an item.

[Taelas]

They're referred to as weapons in five different places in the Player's Handbook. If you think that isn't enough times to convince you that they're weapons, well, they're referred to as explicitly weapons more often than anything else in the weapons table is. Must be weird playing D&D without weapons. Caster supremacy, am-I-right?

The definition of unarmed attacks says differently.

Primary source matters. The primary source of unarmed attacks specifically says they are "much like" weapons. If they are only "much like" them, then they by definition are not like them.

It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

No, the text says weapon, on page 114, where it says, "Weapons are described below." The, "Always treated as a light weapon," text does suffice for proficiency, however.

"Light weapons" are not a proficiency group. So... not so much.

[noob]

I really want to craft masterwork feycraft(and all the other non magical weapon modifiers) unarmed strikes and then enchant them and give them to a monk increasing their damage then taking them back and putting them on a barbarian frenetic berseker.
(that would really be funny as a joke for 10 seconds)

[eggynack]

The definition of unarmed attacks says differently.

Primary source matters. The primary source of unarmed attacks specifically says they are "much like" weapons. If they are only "much like" them, then they by definition are not like them.

It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

No, unarmed attacks being much like weapons only definitionally means that they are much like weapons. You cannot infer what they are not from that statement. And, of course, the primary source also says that unarmed strikes are, in fact, weapons. Primary source doesn't exactly matter when all citations are from the same source.

"Light weapons" are not a proficiency group. So... not so much.

Light weapons are definitionally weapons, and I've put together a very long logic chain in this post supporting the claim.

[Brookshw]

As he said, it doesn't work because unarmed strikes aren't items. In order to craft an unarmed strike, you would have to use the "make an item of the appropriate type" provision, and while unarmed strikes are of the appropriate type, they're not an item.

Sure but that's the gist of my question. By RAI, sure, not an item. But by RAW how do we know? Is it specifically called out somewhere in the equipment section? Miles from my books right now and can't check much.

[eggynack]

Sure but that's the gist of my question. By RAI, sure, not an item. But by RAW how do we know? Is it specifically called out somewhere in the equipment section? Miles from my books right now and can't check much.

I would think that itemhood would be an affirmative thing, that you need to be called an item to be an item. As is, unarmed strikes lack any such labeling, and of course all pertinent properties.

[noob]

"Sure but that's the gist of my question. By RAI, sure, not an item. But by RAW how do we know? Is it specifically called out somewhere in the equipment section? Miles from my books right now and can't check much. "
Is it a good idea then to go on this thread where people are shouting RAW(anyway anyone mentally sane will home-rule that monks can use their unarmed strikes)?

[Jormengand]

Neither of the approaches has anything to do with RAI. They rely purely on the rules as they are written.

No, not treated like a light weapon. Always treated like a light weapon. Always, in all occasions, no matter what, with no exceptions. It's what always means. If light weapons require proficiency, and they do, then unarmed strikes do too, because unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons, and when considering proficiency is a subset of light weapons.

Basic logic is not interpretation. Let's start with that base statement. UAS is always treated as a light weapon. Then, on the basis of the text in a few places (for example, the glossary entry for light weapon that starts with, "A weapon..."), we know that all light weapons are definitionally weapons. Thus, because all light weapons are weapons, we can logically conclude that UAS is always treated as a weapon. From that point, we start considering proficiency, and because all weapons necessarily have a proficiency category (unless stated otherwise explicitly), we know that, when we consider UAS as a weapon, we also treat it as a game object that requires proficiency.

Therefore, without moving outside RAW at all, we can recombine all that information to derive the statement, "An unarmed strike is treated as a weapon for the purposes of proficiency." Then, and only then, once we have unarmed strikes as a thing with proficiency, do we consider the table's categorization of unarmed strikes, and we do so only to determine the type of proficiency of an object we've already determined as requiring it. From this, we know that it is a simple weapon, requiring simple weapon proficiency. Thus, we can reach the ultimate conclusion, that unarmed strikes are considered simple weapons for the purposes of proficiencies. No RAI required.

The game says that weapons have this set of characteristics. The game then says, as I've noted above, that unarmed strikes are weapons.

I think this entire section just bears repeating because it's the best explanation of what's going on.

If you want a more formal version, let "L" be "Light", "W" be "Weapon", "U" be "Unarmed Strike", F be "An object where the Weapon Finesse feat is usable" and "P" be "An item that requires weapon proficiency." Let "X" be a nonspecific object - for example, "(A=>X)=>(B=>X)" means "For any X, if A implies X, so does B." It's used in statements of the type "B is always treated as A."

Now:
Light weapons are finesse-able: L=>F
An unarmed strike is always treated as a light weapon: (W=>X)=>(U=>X) and (L=>X)=>(U=>X)
(L=>F).((L=>X)=>(U=>X)) => (U=>F)
=> Unarmed Strikes can be finessed.

This is the exact conclusion reached by those cunning logicians at WotC. Now, let's use the exact same logic on proficiency:

Weapons require proficiency to wield: W=>P
An unarmed strike is always treated as a light weapon: (W=>X)=>(U=>X) and (L=>X)=>(U=>X)
(W=>P).((W=>X)=>(U=>X)) => (U=>P)
=> Unarmed strikes require proficiency.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The definition of unarmed attacks says differently.

Primary source matters. The primary source of unarmed attacks specifically says they are "much like" weapons. If they are only "much like" them, then they by definition are not like them.

In what way are unarmed attacks not like weapons? The same section immediately tells you: they provoke, they don't threaten. That's it, nothing about proficiency. For that reason, you still need proficiency, as for any other weapon.

[danzibr]

Just a couple comments.

1) Someone said earlier you make an unarmed attack with an unarmed strike. This sounds good and makes total sense, but the PHB doesn't do this. Specifically, I was going through this

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

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.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

And replacing every instance of "unarmed strike" with <weapon>. If we do that we get

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved <weapon> as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make <weapon>s with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her <weapon>s.

Usually a monk’s <weapon>s deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk’s <weapon> 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.

A monk also deals more damage with her <weapon>s than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

Granted only one sounds funny, but still...

2) Why does it matter if an Unarmed Strike is not a light weapon (other than simply knowing)? Since it is *always* treated as a light weapon, whether it actually is or is not seems unimportant.

And to echo ExLibrisMortis, in what way is an Unarmed Strike not a light weapon?

[Brookshw]

I would think that itemhood would be an affirmative thing, that you need to be called an item to be an item. As is, unarmed strikes lack any such labeling, and of course all pertinent properties.

Sure. And we have multiple places they're considered and treated as weapons that we're using to infer various things regarding proficiency. What exactly prevents us from likewise inferring item status for the purpose of crafting?

[danzibr]

Sure. And we have multiple places they're considered and treated as weapons that we're using to infer various things regarding proficiency. What exactly prevents us from likewise inferring item status for the purpose of crafting?

Where does it say weapons are necessarily items?

EDIT: For that matter, what exactly is an item in D&D? I doubt many improved weapons are considered items in the sense that they can be crafted, like rocks.

[Brookshw]

Where does it say weapons are necessarily items?

EDIT: For that matter, what exactly is an item in D&D? I doubt many improved weapons are considered items in the sense that they can be crafted, like rocks.

As to the first, I'd assume weapons have to be items or there'd be no masterwork (or by extension magic) weapons.

I'm not really sure about the second, aside maybe from an item familiar..