Disfunctional rule is functional

[gr8artist]

Everyone gives the monk hell about not being proficient with unarmed strikes. But a creature is proficient with every natural attack it possesses. And a monk's unarmed strike is a natural attack. So... he's actually been proficient with it all along?

[eggynack]

A class' proficiencies replace the creature's proficiencies. For example, look at the humanoid type. There, it says, "Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class."

Edit: Where in particular are you getting the rule you're citing?

[Sith_Happens]

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.

Trust me, we've been over this far too much already in the main dysfunctional rules thread.

[eggynack]

Also that, which is probably a better argument. Just go with that one about it not counting as a natural weapon for proficiency purposes.

[TuggyNE]

But a creature is proficient with every natural attack it possesses.

There is no such rule.

I've looked and looked, and there is no such rule.

Sorry.

[TypoNinja]

There is no such rule.

I've looked and looked, and there is no such rule.

Sorry.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm

Every Type has listed proficiencies. Most critters are proficient with their natural weapons, Humanoids are not though. Sucks to be us.

[eggynack]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm

Every Type has listed proficiencies.
That's notably a non-factor for humanoids, which covers a good amount of PC's. Past that, I think that Sith's comment covers the issue nicely.