Unarmed Strike Discussion

[Rubik]

wouldnt the monk thing only apply to your hands?A monk's unarmed strike can be performed with any feasible part of the body. Hands, forearms, elbows, shoulder-slams, body-checks, headbutts, jumping butt-stomps (see Mario), knees, shins, feet...

The monk's entire body is a weapon, and therefore any enhancements must apply to the entire body, unless the ability in question (such as the kensai's class abilities) specifies otherwise.

[malonkey1]

Here are more ideas for you:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15474863#post15474863

And don't forget Hardening magical effects.

Wait, would an unarmed Swordsage's effective monk levels stack for feats involving Monk progression, either for stacking (Tashalatora) or simply improving the abilities (Superior Unarmed Strike)?

[Rubik]

Wait, would an unarmed Swordsage's effective monk levels stack for feats involving Monk progression, either for stacking (Tashalatora) or simply improving the abilities (Superior Unarmed Strike)?Anything that specifies monk levels, no. Things that specify the monk's unarmed strike? Probably. Things that specify unarmed strikes in general? Yes.

[Vogonjeltz]

The content of the action doesn't vary greatly at all (you're making attacks with a different weapon). Most importantly, any variance that does exist exists between characters - you can't be a good tripper and a good trident guy and a good shield thrower at the same time. You can be mediocre at all of those things, but that doesn't really help.

If you had the ability to pick a bunch of different "valid and useful options" then that wouldn't be just full attacking, but standard combat maneuvers are neither valid nor useful. The few that are decent need tremendous focus in order to do anything.

It doesn't take more than 1 feat to be better than average (that's good right?) at any of those three extremely varied options. I think often when we say good what we really mean is "the best possible".


Full attacks also mean no variation based on the terrain or positioning. You're locked into standing in one spot regardless of tactical considerations.

Nothing requires a character to full attack every round, and being able to full attack doesn't hinder mobility in any way. It's an option, not a requirement.


The book doesn't say unarmed damage progression. It says unarmed strike progression. If improved unarmed strike is a part of the monk's unarmed strike progression, and it seems to be so given that it's listed under the monk's unarmed strike ability, then that's a thing that the unarmed swordsage gets.

Progressions aren't static. The improved unarmed strike feat is static, therefore the unarmed strike progression can only be referring to the damage component.


The sad thing is that unarmed swordsages lose their armor proficiency, and they can't use their AC bonus without armor.

Fortunately, several Light Armors have 0 ACP, so there's no real penalty for wearing them, assuming you're not an arcane spellcaster or monk (or trying to wear metal armor as a druid).

Great catch! I suppose there's no reason a DM wouldn't throw this (and improved unarmed strike) to the swordsage so it's a viable variant.


Long feat chains are NOT the way to go with the fighter. That's one of the problems we already have, which is the direct fault of the fighter class. We have a bunch of weak-arsed feats in hugely long chains that never amount to anything, and it leads to martial classes (including fighters) not getting level-appropriate feats, aside from a few very powerful (and usually prereq-less) examples.

Instead of long feat chains, try feats with 3+ related, scaling benefits (much like tactical feats), which are designed to be level appropriate and interlocking in various ways, with something akin to "Fighter 4 or 3+ specific feats" as the prereqs. Just taking fighter levels can sub out for the other prerequisites that would otherwise be required.

If 3.5 were still supported I would like to see feats that improve based on synergy. So you can take them without any requirements, but if you have weapon specialization or focus or dodge, or other lower return feats, they get better. (Or maybe these feats would improve lower feats as well, so dodge becomes a +2 bonus, or weapon spec negates hardness and DR.

A pity that will never happen :(


You could play warblades instead of trying to fix fighters. Just sayin'.

Warblades don't have any ranged competency. So if I want to play an Everyman warrior the Warblade has to sink a feat or a level. Kind of a big investment.

[Marlowe]

Maybe so, but the natural weapon is also a light weapon.

[Necroticplague]

Maybe so, but the natural weapon is also a light weapon.

Incorrect, a natural weapon is not a light weapon, as a light weapon is a subcategory of a manufactured weapon. Natural weapons aren't light, one handed or two handed, ever. The closest such thing is Primary vs. Secondary natural weapons.

That phrase is still redundant by listing all three, as no matter how you cut it, an unarmed strike is either a natural attack, or a light manufactured weapon, and thus can be used in a grapple anyway.

[Segev]

It is actually fairly common English-language shorthand to shorten a phrase that is nearly redundant, such as "select and use," to just the first word of the phrase. While an argument can be made that the writers knew and intended that selection of a feat did not permit its use, an argument could also be made that any situation wherein a feat could be selected but not used would actually include the italicized phrase in order to make it unambiguously clear. Because absent that, it requires a very careful and close reading of obscure rules to determine that there is even a possibility that the ability to select a feat might not entail an ability to use said feat. Especially when a class feature is granting you the ability to select said feat outside of normal rules, and the class is clearly - by fluff and other elements of its design - meant to be doing the kinds of things that feat allows you to do.

The simplest reading is that "monks may select" is shorthand for "monks may select and use," given the context of the class feature and the class taken as a whole. If it were not, it would call out the distinction, probably by noting how this was in some way useful. e.g. "...thus allowing them to qualify for additional feats despite not meeting the prerequisites for this one," or "...thus allowing them to take these feats before they meet the prerequisites, so they can use them as soon as prerequisites are met."

I acknowledge that it is a VALID reading to insist that "select and use" is distinct from "select," but I contend that, given context and how English works, "select" can be legitimately read (and is intended to be read) in that context as synonymous with "select and use." There are plenty of places where the writers' misunderstanding of the rules have led to some clear contradictions or holes where the fluff is not actually being achieved, but this is not one of them.

It is not often that one can see intent clearly enough to use it to help divine what the RAW means, unambiguously, but you can, here. Intent is clear in context, and context gives literal meaning to the RAW. It isn't ambiguous unless you're trying to deliberately make it so.

[geekintheground]

Listed, yes, but is it a simple weapon? and

It is considered a light weapon, and the damage is considered weapon damage for purposes of effects that give bonus to weapon damage rolls. It is thus not actually a weapon, and so proficiencies don't apply.

a morningstar is also considered a light simple weapon, does that mean it isnt a weapon?

[Segev]

a morningstar is also considered a light simple weapon, does that mean it isnt a weapon?

Using the same nitpicking that is being used to make the Monk's abilities not work even as advertised, this doesn't apply because nothing says "is considered" about the morning star. It simply is.


But this really is off-topic for the Tome of Battle and your opinions thereof. I forget; is the morning star a style weapon for any of the 9 disciplines?

[Vogonjeltz]

They are using the game's definition of "progression", which means it appears on the class' table.

Bringing a dictionary to a D&D argument is like bringing a thesaurus to a calculus class and expecting it to be more than tangentially relevant.

I can't find a game definition of progression anywhere in the Glossary of terms. Where are you getting that from?

I have to disagree on your second sentence Fax, D&D often makes use of common meaning of English language terms, rather than reference to some game-defined meaning. Eggynack and I have a dispute over what the phrase "give the swordsage the monk's unarmed strike progression and remove his light armor proficiency." means. The only reason to use the word "progression" instead of the phrase "class feature" would be to specifically reference the increases in unarmed strike damage that the Monk receives based on level.

Two distinct outcomes based on how the words are defined. So far from being tangential, this has a direct impact on outcomes.


I'm using the same definition you are. As Kelderath notes, improved unarmed strike is part of stage one of the monk's unarmed strike progression. The subsequent stages only feature increases in unarmed strike damage, but that doesn't preclude the capacity of that first stage to have a feat. Gaining a single unchanging feat is not in and of itself a progression, but when you pair it with a bunch of other abilities gained over time, that is a progression. You've provided a definition of progression, and the total ability unarmed strike perfectly fits that definition.

Then our disagreement stems from the claim that the feat constitutes any part of the progression. I say it's part of the class feature, not part of the progression. In fact, on page 40 of the PHB on Table 3-10: The Monk, which contains the unarmed strike damage progression. Improved Unarmed Strike, the feat, is not listed there (That comes under the "Special" heading)


You'll see that the decision tree is for their class bonus feat.

Whereas the Fighter starting package example has those parentheticals indicating the source of the bonus feat, the Monk has no such parenthetical. Also, as a human monk it should list 3 feats, human bonus feat, monk 1st level choice, and 1st level character feat. It only lists 2, so I think we can safely assume this is a typographical error and the feat/bonus feat text refer to the 1st level feat/human bonus feat, respectively.

I wouldn't say they get nothing, I'd just say the suggestion is silent on this matter.


It's also unambiguous that Monk's don't have proficiency with Unarmed Strikes, that being a Simple Weapon that doesn't appear on their specific list. Monk is a class that 99%+ of DM's will technically houserule anyway.

Unarmed Strikes are unambiguosly not weapon attacks, and only weapons require weapon proficiencies.


A successful blow, typically dealing non lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons.

In this instance it would be a houserule to require a proficiency.


Sure, but where does it say that anyone is proficient with unarmed attacks? Where is that proficiency listed? In other words, can anyone not be proficient with an unarmed strike?

The glossary states that unarmed attacks aren't weapons.

[eggynack]

Then our disagreement stems from the claim that the feat constitutes any part of the progression. I say it's part of the class feature, not part of the progression. In fact, on page 40 of the PHB on Table 3-10: The Monk, which contains the unarmed strike damage progression. Improved Unarmed Strike, the feat, is not listed there (That comes under the "Special" heading)

Using the damage table makes no sense, because that's the table for the progression of unarmed damage, rather than the progression of unarmed strikes. Unarmed strike progression is all elements of the progression contained within the unarmed strike ability. I don't think there's anything else unarmed swordsage could be pointing to, as that's the only ability particularly referred to in that way.


Unarmed Strikes are unambiguosly not weapon attacks, and only weapons require weapon proficiencies.
That line is referring to weapon as object, rather than weapon in terms of proficiency. You are mistaken due to a number of factors. First, unarmed strikes are natural weapons, as indicated in the body of a number of spells, including align weapon, if you want an example. Second, you absolutely do need proficiency to use natural weapons, because various creature types, including animal, are specifically mentioned as having natural weapon proficiency.

Third, going at it from a different angle, unarmed strikes are explicitly mentioned as being weapons in the weapon section of the PHB, and they are specifically listed as a simple weapon on the table there. The game even says that unarmed strikes are always considered a light weapon. Finally, simple weapons, which unarmed strikes explicitly are, obviously requires a proficiency. There are probably other ways to approach this, but that's a reasonable start.

[Curmudgeon]

Unarmed Strikes are unambiguosly not weapon attacks, and only weapons require weapon proficiencies.
It's not unambiguous, because the game both lists unarmed strike as a weapon, and treats it as a light weapon, for rule purposes. Your highlighted phrase is not quite correct. It is true that only things categorized as weapons require weapon proficiencies. This includes, for instance, attacking with a table leg (not a weapon normally, but considered one for such use). And it also includes unarmed strikes.

[Rubik]

It's not unambiguous, because the game both lists unarmed strike as a weapon, and treats it as a light weapon, for rule purposes. Your highlighted phrase is not quite correct. It is true that only things categorized as weapons require weapon proficiencies. This includes, for instance, attacking with a table leg (not a weapon normally, but considered one for such use). And it also includes unarmed strikes.A club requires a DC Craft check and no time at all to craft from a table leg. So you pick up the leg and can skip the check (which is automatic, unless you have a -2 penalty to Craft checks and roll a 1) and voila. You can go clubbing.

[Curmudgeon]

A club requires a DC Craft check and no time at all to craft from a table leg. So you pick up the leg and can skip the check (which is automatic, unless you have a -2 penalty to Craft checks and roll a 1) and voila. You can go clubbing.
I don't think there's a RAW basis for this allegation (highlighted). A table leg will be suited to holding a table top, and not especially suited to being held in the hand and swung about; it may simply be too thick to grip. There will be attachments at the top (brackets, protruding pegs, or whatever) which will shift the weight from the center line of the leg and consequently make it awkward to swing.

While the cost of materials for a club may be nil, that's not the same as saying you can produce one from any random piece of wood. All it means is that no-one will accuse you of stealing if you pick up raw materials which are suited to club production from the edge of their property as you walk by.

[Rubik]

I don't think there's a RAW basis for this allegation (highlighted). A table leg will be suited to holding a table top, and not especially suited to being held in the hand and swung about; it may simply be too thick to grip. There will be attachments at the top (brackets, protruding pegs, or whatever) which will shift the weight from the center line of the leg and consequently make it awkward to swing.

While the cost of materials for a club may be nil, that's not the same as saying you can produce one from any random piece of wood. All it means is that no-one will accuse you of stealing if you pick up raw materials which are suited to club production from the edge of their property as you walk by.The "crafting" would consist primarily of breaking off a couple of splinters where you hold the table leg, or something. It takes, at most, a second or two.

Can you not visualize picking up a torn-off table leg and clubbing someone over the head with it rather effectively?

[Curmudgeon]

Can you not visualize picking up a torn-off table leg and clubbing someone over the head with it rather effectively?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. My Mom's trestle table (seats 16 with all the leaves added for Thanksgiving) has legs made of 4x6s; those wouldn't make suitable clubs for anyone below Large size.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's not unambiguous, because the game both lists unarmed strike as a weapon, and treats it as a light weapon, for rule purposes. Your highlighted phrase is not quite correct. It is true that only things categorized as weapons require weapon proficiencies. This includes, for instance, attacking with a table leg (not a weapon normally, but considered one for such use). And it also includes unarmed strikes.

Text trumps table, for rules purposes light weapon designation only determines bonuses or penalties, it has no bearing on proficiencies.

The entry for strike, unarmed also mentions that the damage is considered weapon damage. The point being, it's not actually a weapon as revealed by the glossary text.


Using the damage table makes no sense, because that's the table for the progression of unarmed damage, rather than the progression of unarmed strikes. Unarmed strike progression is all elements of the progression contained within the unarmed strike ability. I don't think there's anything else unarmed swordsage could be pointing to, as that's the only ability particularly referred to in that way.

That line is referring to weapon as object, rather than weapon in terms of proficiency. You are mistaken due to a number of factors. First, unarmed strikes are natural weapons, as indicated in the body of a number of spells, including align weapon, if you want an example. Second, you absolutely do need proficiency to use natural weapons, because various creature types, including animal, are specifically mentioned as having natural weapon proficiency.

Third, going at it from a different angle, unarmed strikes are explicitly mentioned as being weapons in the weapon section of the PHB, and they are specifically listed as a simple weapon on the table there. The game even says that unarmed strikes are always considered a light weapon. Finally, simple weapons, which unarmed strikes explicitly are, obviously requires a proficiency. There are probably other ways to approach this, but that's a reasonable start.

First, Unarmed damage is unarmed strike damage. The two things are synonymous.
Second, there is no progression actually given in the monk class feature, it is only presented on the table.
Third, unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, they are totally distinct things. (One uses iteratives, the other does not, for example, there are many more differences.)
Fourth the glossary explicitly states that unarmed strikes aren't weapons, so proficiency is explicitly not required, the text trumps the incidental inclusion on a table as a consequence of being considered a weapon. Needing to be considered a heft of weapon various rules means the thing in question is not a weapon.
Fifth, unarmed strikes are only listed* implicitly as simple weapons because you're inferring purely from speculation on the one table listing that they are simple weapons.

[eggynack]

First, Unarmed damage is unarmed strike damage. The two things are synonymous.
Perhaps. However, the ability says neither unarmed damage nor unarmed strike damage. It, in point of fact, says unarmed strike. That means things that apply to unarmed strike that are damage, and things that apply to it that are not damage.

Second, there is no progression actually given in the monk class feature, it is only presented on the table.
The text references the table, so the text has that aspect of the progression as much as the table does.

Third, unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, they are totally distinct things. (One uses iteratives, the other does not, for example, there are many more differences.)
How they act is irrelevant. The game (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alignWeapon.htm) explicitly calls them (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicFang.htm) natural weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeapon.htm). That last citation even directly refers to natural weapons as weapons.


Fourth the glossary explicitly states that unarmed strikes aren't weapons
Even if that is theoretically accurate, it's a thing contradicted up and down everywhere else in the text. Moreover, there is every indication that it is not accurate. The text there indicates that you don't use weapon as an object, as in something you hold in hand. Unarmed strike is indeed fighting weaponless, for you yourself are the weapon.



So proficiency is explicitly not required.
Where're you getting that from, by the by?

the text trumps the incidental inclusion on a table as a consequence of being considered a weapon.
Good thing I have roughly infinite (Probably actually somewhere from five to ten) text citations then.


Needing to be considered a heft of weapon various rules means the thing in question is not a weapon.
I'm not really sure what this means at all.

Fifth, unarmed strikes are only lifted implicitly as simple weapons because you're inferring purely from speculation on the one table listing that they are simple weapons.
Any type of weapon needs proficiency for you to wield it. The specific type is only relevant insofar as it defines what you need to have proficiency, and unfortunately for the monk, they don't have anything close in this instance. We know absolutely from the text, for example the text that says, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon," that an unarmed strike is a weapon. Thus, the monk needs proficiency, and lacks it. After that point, we need to give authority to something to determine weapon type, and that's the table unless something contradicts it. As the saying goes, table trumps nothing.

Overall, your only evidence is a vague reference in the glossary, stacked up against just about everything else in the game saying the opposite. I don't feel like there's much contest between the two.

[Vogonjeltz]

Perhaps. However, the ability says neither unarmed damage nor unarmed strike damage. It, in point of fact, says unarmed strike. That means things that apply to unarmed strike that are damage, and things that apply to it that are not damage.

False, it does say unarmed damage and links that directly to unarmed strike damage. The monk ability says "A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes", "The unarmed damage on table 3-10 is for Medium monks." and references the table "Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage". I find no basis for the inference you draw.


The text references the table, so the text has that aspect of the progression as much as the table does.

No, the progression is solely on the table. A reference to a thing is not containing a thing. In the same way that a book about money is not the same as having money.


How they act is irrelevant. The game explicitly calls them natural weapons. That last citation even directly refers to natural weapons as weapons.

Three specific spell exceptions. The rule is that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. Natural Weapons constitute armed unarmed attacks, but that is not an unarmed strike. The terminology sounds very similar, but it has different meanings in the game rules.


Even if that is theoretically accurate, it's a thing contradicted up and down everywhere else in the text. Moreover, there is every indication that it is not accurate. The text there indicates that you don't use weapon as an object, as in something you hold in hand. Unarmed strike is indeed fighting weaponless, for you yourself are the weapon.

That isn't theoretical, it exists in fact, as printed in the game manual.


Where're you getting that from, by the by?

"A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls." (emphasis added). Because unarmed strikes aren't attacks made with weapons, there is no such thing as weapon proficiency or non-proficiency with them.


Good thing I have roughly infinite (Probably actually somewhere from five to ten) text citations then.

Feel free to provide citations, rather than your opinion. You gave 3 in this entire post, and they were specific spell exceptions to the rule.


I'm not really sure what this means at all.

"Needing to be considered a heft of weapon" refers to types of weapons:
its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed)

What about that were you not sure of? I'm not seeing anything confusing there, so you'll need to spell out what you aren't sure of.


Any type of weapon needs proficiency for you to wield it. The specific type is only relevant insofar as it defines what you need to have proficiency, and unfortunately for the monk, they don't have anything close in this instance. We know absolutely from the text, for example the text that says, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon," that an unarmed strike is a weapon. Thus, the monk needs proficiency, and lacks it. After that point, we need to give authority to something to determine weapon type, and that's the table unless something contradicts it. As the saying goes, table trumps nothing.

Overall, your only evidence is a vague reference in the glossary, stacked up against just about everything else in the game saying the opposite. I don't feel like there's much contest between the two.

Any type of weapon, yes. This:
a character attacking without weapons lays this entire argument to rest.

They aren't weapons, no proficiency is required and you have no text indicating otherwise.

If you wish to carry this line of thought forward, please feel free to provide text that says explicitly that unarmed strikes are weapons. And no, text indicating the encumbrance of unarmed strikes does not qualify for these purposes.


Oh my god I thought we agreed this was the wrong thread for this

Sorry I have to disagree, this has direct bearing on the question of the Swordsage variant, so it matters for interpreting the Tome of Battle and our opinions of it.

[Curmudgeon]

Three specific spell exceptions. The rule is that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.
Where is that rule you're talking about? All D&D rules I know of state that unarmed strikes are natural weapons. For instance:
A fanged ring grants its wearer the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and the Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) feat.
Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6. It's not just spells that treat unarmed strike as a natural weapon; it counts as one where feats are concerned as well.

Yes, unarmed strike has special properties, what with it using iterative attacks and being considered a weapon even though it's actually weaponless. Nonetheless, the rules say it's a natural attack.

[eggynack]

False, it does say unarmed damage and links that directly to unarmed strike damage. The monk ability says "A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes", "The unarmed damage on table 3-10 is for Medium monks." and references the table "Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage". I find no basis for the inference you draw.
I'm talking about the unarmed swordsage ability. The monk's unarmed strike progression absolutely contains within it unarmed damage, but the unarmed swordsage refers to the whole ability, rather than a subset of it. The unarmed damage table can indeed be considered a progression, and the unarmed strike ability can also be considered a progression, but because the adaptation points towards unarmed strike rather than unarmed damage, it's clear that the ability is what's being referenced.




No, the progression is solely on the table. A reference to a thing is not containing a thing. In the same way that a book about money is not the same as having money.
This analogy doesn't work. The ability is what provides access to the table's damage increases. A book about money does not, by contrast, provide access to money, except insofar as you can sell a book about money. A better analogy would be a book about money which contains money within its pages, which you get all of, and that money within the pages.



Three specific spell exceptions. The rule is that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. Natural Weapons constitute armed unarmed attacks, but that is not an unarmed strike. The terminology sounds very similar, but it has different meanings in the game rules.
It is nowhere indicated that they are exceptions. It just says that this is what unarmed strikes are. No, "For the purposes of this spell, unarmed strikes are natural weapons." Just, "Unarmed strikes are natural weapons." Curmudgeon provided yet more citations of that variety.



That isn't theoretical, it exists in fact, as printed in the game manual.
It's not theoretical that the words that are printed are printed. What is theoretical is that your derived meaning is the correct one.



"A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls." (emphasis added). Because unarmed strikes aren't attacks made with weapons, there is no such thing as weapon proficiency or non-proficiency with them.
Fair enough on that count then.



Feel free to provide citations, rather than your opinion. You gave 3 in this entire post, and they were specific spell exceptions to the rule.
I provided those spell citations, but I also provided citations direct from the weapon rules. For example, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon," from over here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons ). Nothing specific about that.



"Needing to be considered a heft of weapon" refers to types of weapons:

What about that were you not sure of? I'm not seeing anything confusing there, so you'll need to spell out what you aren't sure of.
I just don't think I've ever seen the phrase "heft of weapon" used, though it's plausible that it's a real one. More importantly, I don't really see how any of this disqualifies anything. The unarmed strike does have a heft, for it is a light weapon. I've provided an explicit rules citation along those lines.



Any type of weapon, yes. This: lays this entire argument to rest.
Not really, no. First, if it does mean as you say, then it's a meaning contradicted everywhere else it comes up, from spells to feats to weapon rules. Second, I don't think it necessarily means as you say. A person using unarmed strikes could be termed someone attacking without weapons, because they're not using any objects that are used in attack. Instead, they themselves are a weapon, and you can't particularly have yourself.

They aren't weapons, no proficiency is required and you have no text indicating otherwise.

If you wish to carry this line of thought forward, please feel free to provide text that says explicitly that unarmed strikes are weapons. And no, text indicating the encumbrance of unarmed strikes does not qualify for these purposes.
I've provided a massive amount of citations, some not even from spells, and Curmudgeon has done likewise by this point. I don't know what else you could possibly want. If your issue is somehow with the fact that my argument partially depends on light weapons being weapons, I don't see how you could possibly argue the opposite. It's right there in the name.



Sorry I have to disagree, this has direct bearing on the question of the Swordsage variant, so it matters for interpreting the Tome of Battle and our opinions of it.
Not so much the proficiency part though. The swordsage has simple weapon proficiency, after all.

[Baroknik]

" Originally Posted by unarmed strike
a character attacking without weapons"

Just wanted to point out that this doesn't actually even call out that unarmed strikes aren't weapon-objects. It only calls out that to use an unarmed strike you cannot wield weapons. It says nothing about if you can or cannot use an unarmed strike while attacking with a 'singular' weapon.

[mangosta71]

The monk entry explicitly states that a monk can make unarmed strikes even while wielding a weapon.

As for the unarmed swordsage, if RAW is ambiguous we have to consider RAI. If a call is designed to specialize in unarmed combat, it makes no ****ing sense for it to not have Improved Unarmed Strike. Coming back to the monk, it also makes no sense for it to not be proficient with its primary form of attack. Let's move on.

[geekintheground]

The monk entry explicitly states that a monk can make unarmed strikes even while wielding a weapon.

As for the unarmed swordsage, if RAW is ambiguous we have to consider RAI. If a call is designed to specialize in unarmed combat, it makes no ****ing sense for it to not have Improved Unarmed Strike. Coming back to the monk, it also makes no sense for it to not be proficient with its primary form of attack. Let's move on.

while we cant know RAI without the designers saying "this is what i meant", we can look at RACSD which lines up perfectly with what you just said.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's not just spells that treat unarmed strike as a natural weapon; it counts as one where feats are concerned as well.

Yes, unarmed strike has special properties, what with it using iterative attacks and being considered a weapon even though it's actually weaponless. Nonetheless, the rules say it's a natural attack.

Not to say that Dragon Magic is incorrect, but that's incorrect. Natural Weapons are armed unarmed attacks. They are not however unarmed strikes, and unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons. I will prove this with the following quotations of primary source rules text:

Here's what the MM has to say on Natural Weapons (SRD20 used for easy quoting):

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.

Practically that entire paragraph is important, because it outlines exactly what are natural weapons (note unarmed strikes aren't slams) and because it directly contradicts the description of an unarmed strike from the PHB (SRD20 used for easy quoting):

Unarmed Attacks

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

Attacks of Opportunity

Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks

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.

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

Unarmed Strike Damage

An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

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.

However, the most important aspect of the MM quote is the last sentence: "Refer to the individual monster descriptions."
The most important part of the PHB quote is the sentence under "Armed" unarmed attacks where it puts a list of what constitutes an armed unarmed attack and includes in that list: A monk, a character with the improved unarmed strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Why are these important? Well, first every entry in the MM lists if there are natural weapons and exactly what those weapons are. No humanoids list any natural weapons whatsoever, and the humanoid type (unlike the types that often come with natural weapons) does not list any proficiency with natural weapons under its traits (something held distinct from proficiency with simple/martial weapons).

If the first piece of evidence was not enough, the second quote from the PHB draws a line in the sand between improved unarmed strike (in other words, unarmed strikes) and natural weaponry.

Those are the rules I'm talking about, the core rules of the game.


So is that (simple and martial) melee, or simple and (martial melee)? In the latter case, the Warblade is proficient with light crossbows.

The former. If they wanted the latter, they would have used the Swordsage formulation (note, these are part of a list so it looks funny taken out of context):


you are proficient with simple weapons, martial melee weapons (including those that can be used as thrown weapons)

You are proficient with simple and martial melee weapons (including those that can be used as thrown weapons)

Same book no less.

I agree, they almost certainly want exotic weapon proficiency for the Greatbow.


I'm talking about the unarmed swordsage ability. The monk's unarmed strike progression absolutely contains within it unarmed damage, but the unarmed swordsage refers to the whole ability, rather than a subset of it. The unarmed damage table can indeed be considered a progression, and the unarmed strike ability can also be considered a progression, but because the adaptation points towards unarmed strike rather than unarmed damage, it's clear that the ability is what's being referenced.

No, it doesn't say the whole ability. Here's what it says: "give the swordsage the monk's unarmed strike progression". Unarmed Strike is the class ability name, but there's only one thing that's a progression in it, and that's the table of damage increases. You're reaching to include more than is actually indicated by the text. I fully support that Swordsage should have the whole ability, but I can't agree that the variant actually says that, because it doesn't say that.

I think the parts above addressing curmudgeon apply equally to the remainder of your post (for the most part), so unless there's something in particular, I'll just let that stand as the response.

[eggynack]

No, it doesn't say the whole ability. Here's what it says: "give the swordsage the monk's unarmed strike progression". Unarmed Strike is the class ability name, but there's only one thing that's a progression in it, and that's the table of damage increases. You're reaching to include more than is actually indicated by the text. I fully support that Swordsage should have the whole ability, but I can't agree that the variant actually says that, because it doesn't say that.
Yes, it does. Improved unarmed strike is a part of the total progression. Progression doesn't mean, "On a table," after all. It means a movement towards a more advanced state, and improved unarmed strike is a part of the more advanced state of your ability to unarmed strike. There's no basis whatsoever for thinking that the adaptation is referring to the table progression, and not the progression of the full ability.


I think the parts above addressing curmudgeon apply equally to the remainder of your post (for the most part), so unless there's something in particular, I'll just let that stand as the response.
I think you're missing the part about it being directly referred to as a light weapon. After all, even if it's not a natural weapon (It is. Specific overrides general, and the game specifically says that this is a natural weapon, which overrides any general qualities of natural weapons), it can still be a weapon.

[OldTrees1]

Simple Weapons
Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Increment Weight1 Type2
Unarmed Attacks
Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. Bludgeoning
Unarmed strike — 1d23 1d33 ×2 — — Bludgeoning

Unarmed Strike is listed as a Simple Weapon in the SRD.

[Curmudgeon]

... and unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons. I will prove this with the following quotations of primary source rules text:

Here's what the MM has to say on Natural Weapons (SRD20 used for easy quoting):
...
However, the most important aspect of the MM quote is the last sentence: "Refer to the individual monster descriptions."
...
Why are these important? Well, first every entry in the MM lists if there are natural weapons and exactly what those weapons are. ...

The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
Though most monsters have natural weapons, the Monster Manual is not the primary rules source for natural abilities; that type is excluded from its jurisdiction. The Player's Handbook gives all the rules for playing the game. So your rules source isn't the authority here, and its list of the usual properties for monster natural weapons doesn't have any power to constrain other natural weapons. Consequently what you consider "the most important aspect" is actually irrelevant from a RAW perspective.

[Vogonjeltz]

Though most monsters have natural weapons, the Monster Manual is not the primary rules source for natural abilities; that type is excluded from its jurisdiction. The Player's Handbook gives all the rules for playing the game. So your rules source isn't the authority here, and its list of the usual properties for monster natural weapons doesn't have any power to constrain other natural weapons. Consequently what you consider "the most important aspect" is actually irrelevant from a RAW perspective.

There are only 3 sources for the primary rules, which natural weapons fall under. I provided you the two definitions of what they are.

Not a rhetorical question: where in the primary rules is the definition for natural weapons or unarmed strikes that states the two are synonymous?

Not anecdotal inference mind you, but actual definition as I have provided.


Unarmed Strike is listed as a Simple Weapon in the SRD.

Tables are overrided by text, as I provided in my post prior to this one. It doesn't matter if it's listed in a grouping on the table, the rules text declares otherwise.


Yes, it does. Improved unarmed strike is a part of the total progression. Progression doesn't mean, "On a table," after all. It means a movement towards a more advanced state, and improved unarmed strike is a part of the more advanced state of your ability to unarmed strike. There's no basis whatsoever for thinking that the adaptation is referring to the table progression, and not the progression of the full ability.

I think you're missing the part about it being directly referred to as a light weapon. After all, even if it's not a natural weapon (It is. Specific overrides general, and the game specifically says that this is a natural weapon, which overrides any general qualities of natural weapons), it can still be a weapon.

Light weapon = encumbrance of making the attack, it doesn't mean anything else.

[eggynack]

Light weapon = encumbrance of making the attack, it doesn't mean anything else.
Where're ya getting that one from?

Edit: Just checked. You're somewhat mistaken. In particular, it's not a measure of how hard it is to make an attack, but how hard it is to use a particular weapon. Something needs to be a weapon in order to be a light weapon.


Double-edit:
Tables are overrided by text, as I provided in my post prior to this one. It doesn't matter if it's listed in a grouping on the table, the rules text declares otherwise.
As before, it really doesn't. A person who is without a weapon can use themselves as a weapon. That's the whole point.

[OldTrees1]

Tables are overrided by text, as I provided in my post prior to this one. It doesn't matter if it's listed in a grouping on the table, the rules text declares otherwise.


But for the rules to declare otherwise they would either have to directly refute it (I didn't see such a refutation) or amend it (by saying they were Martial or Exotic since there are no rules against Unarmed attacks having a Simple/Martial/Exotic classification).

[Vogonjeltz]

Where're ya getting that one from?

Edit: Just checked. You're somewhat mistaken. In particular, it's not a measure of how hard it is to make an attack, but how hard it is to use a particular weapon. Something needs to be a weapon in order to be a light weapon.

Double-edit:
As before, it really doesn't. A person who is without a weapon can use themselves as a weapon. That's the whole point.

I posted the following when you asked what the word heft meant:


Originally Posted by PHB 112, Weapons
its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed)


But for the rules to declare otherwise they would either have to directly refute it (I didn't see such a refutation) or amend it (by saying they were Martial or Exotic since there are no rules against Unarmed attacks having a Simple/Martial/Exotic classification).

They aren't weapons at all, which eliminates them from being simple weapons: "attacking without weapons"

*i know my posts were long, but they weren't that long.

[OldTrees1]

They aren't weapons at all, which eliminates them from being simple weapons: "attacking without weapons"

*i know my posts were long, but they weren't that long.
1) You have not shown that they are not weapons. You are not even using RAW terms like natural or manufactured weapons in your argument. The quote you are using could mean "attacking without manufactured weapons" for all you have shown. (not to mention the lack of context for the quote makes it impossible to tell if it is Rules or Description)
2) Not being weapons does not prevent them from being classified as Simple Weapons. See Unarmed Strike & Light Weapon evidence.

You have not made a convincing argument and you have begun to repeat yourself. Is is now time to break it off to another thread?

[eggynack]

I posted the following when you asked what the word heft meant:
There's other words there though. Just on the most basic level, the "its" in that sentence is clearly "the weapon's", based on simple analysis of context. Moreover, as I pointed out, the actual section for the designation says, "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat." Weapons all the way down.



They aren't weapons at all, which eliminates them from being simple weapons: "attacking without weapons"

And as always, that's not the only reading of those words. Moreover, you're still attempting to stack up one phrase in one part of the book with a massive number of things saying the exact opposite, where that one phrase isn't even unambiguously in support of your claim.

[Vogonjeltz]

1) You have not shown that they are not weapons. You are not even using RAW terms like natural or manufactured weapons in your argument. The quote you are using could mean "attacking without manufactured weapons" for all you have shown. (not to mention the lack of context for the quote makes it impossible to tell if it is Rules or Description)
2) Not being weapons does not prevent them from being classified as Simple Weapons. See Unarmed Strike & Light Weapon evidence.

You have not made a convincing argument and you have begun to repeat yourself. Is is now time to break it off to another thread?

If you want to play inference games it could also mean nuclear weapons, or laser weapons. But until proven otherwise, I'm inclined to think the authors weren't deliberately trying to trick the reader and just meant "weapons".

Light weapons dictates the level of encumbrance as shown above, I even included a page number for your convenience. Unarmed strikes are considered light weapons, because they aren't actually weapons at all.


There's other words there though. Just on the most basic level, the "its" in that sentence is clearly "the weapon's", based on simple analysis of context. Moreover, as I pointed out, the actual section for the designation says, "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat." Weapons all the way down.

And as always, that's not the only reading of those words. Moreover, you're still attempting to stack up one phrase in one part of the book with a massive number of things saying the exact opposite, where that one phrase isn't even unambiguously in support of your claim.

Context would be looking up the page number and taking the section as a whole. For context, unarmed strikes are only considered light weapons (and we know light weapons are just a term indicating the encumbrance of use, not an endorsement of weaponhood).

If we took all that into consideration, then we would have context. I don't see that happening in the near future given the pattern displayed so far.

[eggynack]

Context would be looking up the page number and taking the section as a whole. For context, unarmed strikes are only considered light weapons (and we know light weapons are just a term indicating the encumbrance of use, not an endorsement of weaponhood).

If we took all that into consideration, then we would have context. I don't see that happening in the near future given the pattern displayed so far.
There's no context that indicates that unarmed strikes are somehow only light weapons for the purpose of encumbrance, while they're not light weapons for the purpose of being weapons. The definition of light weapon includes the weapon part, as is clear everywhere light weapons are talked about in that section of the book. In fact, the book says the exact opposite of what you're saying. To quote again that age old section of the PHB, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon." That means that it's considered a light weapon for the purposes of lightness, and a light weapon for the purposes of weaponness, for that is what always means. I can't really see any support for the idea that light weapons are somehow not all weapons. Light weapon is fundamentally a quality of weapons.

[OldTrees1]

If you want to play inference games it could also mean nuclear weapons, or laser weapons. But until proven otherwise, I'm inclined to think the authors weren't deliberately trying to trick the reader and just meant "weapons".

Light weapons dictates the level of encumbrance as shown above, I even included a page number for your convenience. Unarmed strikes are considered light weapons, because they aren't actually weapons at all.

Good, you are not persuasive and are inclined to continue believing your point of view, can you stop this cyclic argument that hijacked this thread?

As far as Unarmed Strikes being Simple Weapons, if Unarmed Strikes are considered Light Weapons and are listed as Simple Weapons(in the unarmed section) then why is it so hard to come to the conclusion "Unarmed Strikes are Simple Weapons that are not 'weapons'"?

[Vogonjeltz]

There's no context that indicates that unarmed strikes are somehow only light weapons for the purpose of encumbrance, while they're not light weapons for the purpose of being weapons. The definition of light weapon includes the weapon part, as is clear everywhere light weapons are talked about in that section of the book. In fact, the book says the exact opposite of what you're saying. To quote again that age old section of the PHB, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon." That means that it's considered a light weapon for the purposes of lightness, and a light weapon for the purposes of weaponness, for that is what always means. I can't really see any support for the idea that light weapons are somehow not all weapons. Light weapon is fundamentally a quality of weapons.

Show me an exact quote that light weapon denotes anything but encumbrance. Your position is inadequate to showing said supposition, and nothing said thus far indicates it is anything but the PHB definition I quoted.



Good, you are not persuasive and are inclined to continue believing your point of view, can you stop this cyclic argument that hijacked this thread?

As far as Unarmed Strikes being Simple Weapons, if Unarmed Strikes are considered Light Weapons and are listed as Simple Weapons(in the unarmed section) then why is it so hard to come to the conclusion "Unarmed Strikes are Simple Weapons that are not 'weapons'"?

1) Since when does persuasive ability denote truth? It doesn't, and implying it does is simply fallacious. Example: PT Barnum.

2) I'm still on point, the swordsage doesn't get the improved unarmed strike feat, which is required for its unarmed strikes to be considered armed attacks, the way natural weapons (claws, slams, tentacles and so forth as outlined in the MM) don't. This sloppy editing is indicative of the entirety of the Tome of battle, which is why it is such a terrible book.

3) The table is contradicted by text, by the rules of precedence it no longer matters what the table says, it is automatically wrong. That is why it's hard to come to that conclusion, because the rules say it's not the right conclusion.

[eggynack]

Show me an exact quote that light weapon denotes anything but encumbrance. Your position is inadequate to showing said supposition, and nothing said thus far indicates it is anything but the PHB definition I quoted.

I'll start with the section you quoted, but the whole thing this time.

"Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon’s use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon’s usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large)."

The italicized "weapons" indicates that every set of categories beneath it will apply particularly to weapons, and the bolded "weapon's" indicates the object that is being referred to in the subsequently quoted "its". Light weapon is a category of weapon, not just a category of arbitrary stuff.


3) The table is contradicted by text, by the rules of precedence it no longer matters what the table says, it is automatically wrong. That is why it's hard to come to that conclusion, because the rules say it's not the right conclusion.
You still haven't provided a counter-argument to the idea that your cited text is ambiguous, and moreover, your text is contradicted by other text all over the place.

[OldTrees1]

1) Since when does persuasive ability denote truth? It doesn't, and implying it does is simply fallacious. Example: PT Barnum.

2) I'm still on point, the swordsage doesn't get the improved unarmed strike feat, which is required for its unarmed strikes to be considered armed attacks, the way natural weapons (claws, slams, tentacles and so forth as outlined in the MM) don't. This sloppy editing is indicative of the entirety of the Tome of battle, which is why it is such a terrible book.

3) The table is contradicted by text, by the rules of precedence it no longer matters what the table says, it is automatically wrong. That is why it's hard to come to that conclusion, because the rules say it's not the right conclusion.
1) I never implied persuasion denotes truth. I implied that without a persuasive argument you are wasting your time in a cyclic argument.

2) Yet another cyclic argument that is getting you nowhere but page 50. This one is derived from you arguing over an English word with ambiguous meaning in this context. On a topic where RAW is that RAW is not enough.

3) No, the table is not contradicted by the text. The quote you gave does not show what you want it to show.

Edit: This post is no longer relevant after the move.

[Anlashok]

2) I'm still on point, the swordsage doesn't get the improved unarmed strike feat, which is required for its unarmed strikes to be considered armed attacks, the way natural weapons (claws, slams, tentacles and so forth as outlined in the MM) don't. This sloppy editing is indicative of the entirety of the Tome of battle, which is why it is such a terrible book.

So this statement has issues on three separate counts

1) You're stating an amibiguty as fact. Stop. Everyone knows it's vague. It's vague on purpose

2) You're treating something intentionally made as informal suggestion as rules text. The whole premise of arguing the strict RAW of something that's explicitly neither meant to be rules nor definitive is not only silly, it's downright disingenuous.

3) Throwing the entire book out the window because of some editing issues seems spiteful more than anything else.

[Vaynor]

The Red Towel: This is a continuation of the off-topic discussion from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370707-Your-opinon-on-Tome-of-Battle) on the Tome of Battle regarding unarmed strike progression rules. Rather than move all of the off-topic posts to this thread, I am simply going to move the most recent ones. Try to keep your discussions on topic in the future, or move them to new threads if you'd like to continue the discussion.

Once the new posts are added this thread will be unlocked.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'll start with the section you quoted, but the whole thing this time.

"Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon’s use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon’s usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large)."

The italicized "weapons" indicates that every set of categories beneath it will apply particularly to weapons, and the bolded "weapon's" indicates the object that is being referred to in the subsequently quoted "its". Light weapon is a category of weapon, not just a category of arbitrary stuff.

Anything that can be used in an attack (including improvised weapons, which aren't weapons) has an encumbrance. It has to for the purposes of bookkeeping, but having attributes that a weapon has doesn't make it a weapon.

And it's a category of encumbrance, as in the very quote you provided. I never said it was arbitrary, so I don't know where you got that idea.


You still haven't provided a counter-argument to the idea that your cited text is ambiguous, and moreover, your text is contradicted by other text all over the place.

"attacking without weapons" has two meanings? I don't see the second one, so you'll have to explain what the two possible meanings are, because it isn't at all apparent that there are two.

Well, we know the table can't contradict the text, so that isn't a contradiction. We know the term "light weapon" only refers to an attack encumbrance, and that the unarmed strike is only considered a light weapon, so that also in no way contradicts.

[eggynack]

Anything that can be used in an attack (including improvised weapons, which aren't weapons) has an encumbrance. It has to for the purposes of bookkeeping, but having attributes that a weapon has doesn't make it a weapon.

And it's a category of encumbrance, as in the very quote you provided. I never said it was arbitrary, so I don't know where you got that idea.
It's a category of encumbrance that only weapons have. Your assertion is that it's a category of encumbrance which not-weapons can have, and I see no support in the text for that. I don't see any support for the idea that improvised weapons are non-weapons either, incidentally.


"attacking without weapons" has two meanings? I don't see the second one, so you'll have to explain what the two possible meanings are, because it isn't at all apparent that there are two.
The second meaning is that you are without weapons, where weapon is defined as a particular object separate from yourself. Moreover, it could be indicating that you're attacking with no weapons, thus causing you to attack with the weapon that is unarmed strike. In other words, you would be using no weapons, and unarmed strike replaces that.


Well, we know the table can't contradict the text, so that isn't a contradiction. We know the term "light weapon" only refers to an attack encumbrance, and that the unarmed strike is only considered a light weapon, so that also in no way contradicts.
You are absolutely mistaken on the second point, and other citations have been provided throughout this thread.

[Stella]

Unarmed strikes are not attacks with an actual weapon. The very word "unarmed" means "without a weapon." Since no weapon is being used there is no weapon proficiency required or even possible, and therefore there is no non-proficiency penalty applied to unarmed strikes.

Weapons specifically require proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, and parts of the body are not weapons and therefore do not require proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty.



Unarmed Strike

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.
Being "treated as something" for the purpose of one or more rules does not mean that every similar rule applies, nor does it mean that the thing being treated as something else is actually the thing it is being treated as.
Per the RAW, an Unarmed Attack is not actually a manufactured weapon or a Natural Weapon.


Improved Unarmed Strike [General]
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.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
Normal

Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Being "considered as" does not mean that the thing being being discussed is actually that thing.
If an unarmed attack was actually an attack with a weapon there would be no AoO allowed against those attacks and therefore no need at all for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.


Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage

You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll.
If a monk making an unarmed attack was actually an attack with a weapon there would be a -4 to hit penalty for choosing to deal non-lethal damage. But that is not the case because unlike an attack with a weapon an unarmed strike deals non-lethal damage by default, only gaining the option to deal lethal damage without penalty if the Improved Unarmed Strike feat is taken.


Unarmed Strike

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.
"Considered a light weapon", not "is a light weapon." This distinction would be unnecessary if an unarmed strike was unambiguously an attack with a weapon. Per the RAW, an unarmed strike is not actually a weapon, it is simply treated as such for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.


Weapon Focus [General]

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.

Prerequisites

Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Note the wording: Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose [one of these three things which are not weapons].
Per the RAW, an unarmed strike is not actually an attack with a weapon. Neither is a grapple attack, nor a ray spell. If they were, there would be no reason to list them separately from the text "Choose one type of weapon."

Also note the prerequisite of proficiency with selected weapon. If unarmed strikes or grapples or ray spells had a possible proficiency or were weapons then this prerequisite would apply to them. Since there is no possible proficiency for unarmed strike or grapple or ray spells the prerequisite does not apply.


Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following: [List]
Note the use of the word "like" rather than "is." An unarmed strike is specifically defined as being "much like attacking with a melee weapon", but it isn't actually "attacking with a melee weapon." If an unarmed strike was unambiguously an attack with a weapon this text would be unnecessary.


"Armed" Unarmed Attacks

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.

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)
If an unarmed strike was actually an attack with a weapon there would be no need for this text detailing the cases where a person without a weapon can be considered to be armed.


And now for a few interesting consequences of misinterpreting RAW and making an unarmed strike an attack with a weapon for all purposes, including a proficiency requirement:


Ki Strike (Su)

At 4th level, a monk’s unarmed attacks are empowered with ki. Her unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. Ki strike improves with the character’s monk level. At 10th level, her unarmed attacks are also treated as lawful weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. At 16th level, her unarmed attacks are treated as adamantine weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction and bypassing hardness.
Being treated as something for the purpose of one or more rules does not mean that every similar rule applies, nor does it mean that the thing being treated as something else is actually the thing it is being treated as.
Per the RAW, an Unarmed Attack made by a level 4+ monk is not actually an attack with a magical weapon, lawful weapon, or adamantine weapon.

But if the DM insists, then my 16th level monk is going to be saving all of her fingernail and toenail clippings, as well as all the hair she shaves off of her head. Because it is all actually magic, lawful adamantine, and therefore quite valuable! Blood from bandages applied after combat will be magic, lawful adamantine plate. Perhaps even her urine and feces is magic, lawful adamantine. The innkeeper presents his bill, and I cut my palm and leave him with his payment in the form of magic, lawful adamantine monk's blood. Because it's not blood anymore, it's drops of magic, lawful adamantine, because it must be treated as such in all cases, right?


Disarm

As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.
If an unarmed strike must be treated as an attack with a weapon for all purposes, including requiring proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, then my monk will attempt to disarm anyone who takes a poke at me in a bar. And if successful...then what? Does she "end up with the [body part] in her hand"? No, the entire body is the weapon, since unarmed strike does not distinguish between body parts, so she must "end up with the [entire person] in her hand." This would be an interesting take on "picking up" people at a bar, wouldn't it?

And of course this would have to apply to natural weapons as well. After all, they have the word weapon in their name, right? And the first four words of the description of natural weapons is "Natural weapons are weapons [...]." So what happens when I disarm the lion who attempts to bite me? Do I "end up with the [teeth] in my hand"? Or perhaps I "end up with the [entire jaw] in my hand"? It can't be that I "end up with the lion in my hand", because natural weapons do distinguish between body parts, unlike unarmed attacks.

How much damage does a monk do when they rip the jaw off of a lion by disarming it when it attempts to bite? Disarm causes no damage by RAW, so I'd say none. But it would at least prevent the lion from biting anyone else, right?


The weight of the RAW is telling: If unarmed strikes were considered to be attacks with a weapon in all cases, including a proficiency requirement to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, there would be no need to the great many places where unarmed strikes are handled as a specifically different case from attacking with a weapon. There would be no need for all the separate text detailing how an unarmed strike is "like" an attack with a weapon or "considered as" a weapon in one way or another.


The only real weight for the argument that unarmed strikes are strikes with a weapon comes from the inclusion of unarmed strike in the table of weapons and in the weapon description area. And every place unarmed strike is mentioned in that area there is exception text detailing how it is different from an attack with a weapon. This makes it quite clear that the the inclusion of unarmed strike under the weapon descriptions and in the weapon table was simply a matter of convenience which avoided having to make a completely separate section for something which is treated almost exactly the same.

[Rubik]

Uh... Natural weapons are parts of the body, and they are weapons. So saying "parts of the body aren't weapons" is demonstrably false.

[Vogonjeltz]

Unarmed strikes are not attacks with an actual weapon. The very word "unarmed" means "without a weapon." Since no weapon is being used there is no weapon proficiency required or even possible, and therefore there is no non-proficiency penalty applied to unarmed strikes.

Weapons specifically require proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, and parts of the body are not weapons and therefore do not require proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty.



Being "treated as something" for the purpose of one or more rules does not mean that every similar rule applies, nor does it mean that the thing being treated as something else is actually the thing it is being treated as.
Per the RAW, an Unarmed Attack is not actually a manufactured weapon or a Natural Weapon.


Being "considered as" does not mean that the thing being being discussed is actually that thing.
If an unarmed attack was actually an attack with a weapon there would be no AoO allowed against those attacks and therefore no need at all for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.


If a monk making an unarmed attack was actually an attack with a weapon there would be a -4 to hit penalty for choosing to deal non-lethal damage. But that is not the case because unlike an attack with a weapon an unarmed strike deals non-lethal damage by default, only gaining the option to deal lethal damage without penalty if the Improved Unarmed Strike feat is taken.


"Considered a light weapon", not "is a light weapon." This distinction would be unnecessary if an unarmed strike was unambiguously an attack with a weapon. Per the RAW, an unarmed strike is not actually a weapon, it is simply treated as such for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.


Note the wording: Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose [one of these three things which are not weapons].
Per the RAW, an unarmed strike is not actually an attack with a weapon. Neither is a grapple attack, nor a ray spell. If they were, there would be no reason to list them separately from the text "Choose one type of weapon."

Also note the prerequisite of proficiency with selected weapon. If unarmed strikes or grapples or ray spells had a possible proficiency or were weapons then this prerequisite would apply to them. Since there is no possible proficiency for unarmed strike or grapple or ray spells the prerequisite does not apply.


Note the use of the word "like" rather than "is." An unarmed strike is specifically defined as being "much like attacking with a melee weapon", but it isn't actually "attacking with a melee weapon." If an unarmed strike was unambiguously an attack with a weapon this text would be unnecessary.


If an unarmed strike was actually an attack with a weapon there would be no need for this text detailing the cases where a person without a weapon can be considered to be armed.


And now for a few interesting consequences of misinterpreting RAW and making an unarmed strike an attack with a weapon for all purposes, including a proficiency requirement:


Being treated as something for the purpose of one or more rules does not mean that every similar rule applies, nor does it mean that the thing being treated as something else is actually the thing it is being treated as.
Per the RAW, an Unarmed Attack made by a level 4+ monk is not actually an attack with a magical weapon, lawful weapon, or adamantine weapon.

But if the DM insists, then my 16th level monk is going to be saving all of her fingernail and toenail clippings, as well as all the hair she shaves off of her head. Because it is all actually magic, lawful adamantine, and therefore quite valuable! Blood from bandages applied after combat will be magic, lawful adamantine plate. Perhaps even her urine and feces is magic, lawful adamantine. The innkeeper presents his bill, and I cut my palm and leave him with his payment in the form of magic, lawful adamantine monk's blood. Because it's not blood anymore, it's drops of magic, lawful adamantine, because it must be treated as such in all cases, right?


If an unarmed strike must be treated as an attack with a weapon for all purposes, including requiring proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, then my monk will attempt to disarm anyone who takes a poke at me in a bar. And if successful...then what? Does she "end up with the [body part] in her hand"? No, the entire body is the weapon, since unarmed strike does not distinguish between body parts, so she must "end up with the [entire person] in her hand." This would be an interesting take on "picking up" people at a bar, wouldn't it?

And of course this would have to apply to natural weapons as well. After all, they have the word weapon in their name, right? And the first four words of the description of natural weapons is "Natural weapons are weapons [...]." So what happens when I disarm the lion who attempts to bite me? Do I "end up with the [teeth] in my hand"? Or perhaps I "end up with the [entire jaw] in my hand"? It can't be that I "end up with the lion in my hand", because natural weapons do distinguish between body parts, unlike unarmed attacks.

How much damage does a monk do when they rip the jaw off of a lion by disarming it when it attempts to bite? Disarm causes no damage by RAW, so I'd say none. But it would at least prevent the lion from biting anyone else, right?


The weight of the RAW is telling: If unarmed strikes were considered to be attacks with a weapon in all cases, including a proficiency requirement to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, there would be no need to the great many places where unarmed strikes are handled as a specifically different case from attacking with a weapon. There would be no need for all the separate text detailing how an unarmed strike is "like" an attack with a weapon or "considered as" a weapon in one way or another.


The only real weight for the argument that unarmed strikes are strikes with a weapon comes from the inclusion of unarmed strike in the table of weapons and in the weapon description area. And every place unarmed strike is mentioned in that area there is exception text detailing how it is different from an attack with a weapon. This makes it quite clear that the the inclusion of unarmed strike under the weapon descriptions and in the weapon table was simply a matter of convenience which avoided having to make a completely separate section for something which is treated almost exactly the same.

Wow, thank you for delivering the knockout.

[Gwendol]

Uh... Natural weapons are parts of the body, and they are weapons. So saying "parts of the body aren't weapons" is demonstrably false.

Not quite sure what you are saying here. Natural weapons have their own definition and rules for attacking.
This discussion focuses on unarmed strikes.
An unarmed strike is a weaponless attack. It does not require proficiency (since that applies to weapons).

[Stella]

Uh... Natural weapons are parts of the body, and they are weapons. So saying "parts of the body aren't weapons" is demonstrably false.

Wrong.
Unarmed strike makes no distinction between parts of the body, so it is demonstrably true that parts of the body cannot be a weapon. The whole body is treated as a weapon, which is not the same thing as being a weapon.

As I detailed at length in the post you are responding to.


Unarmed Strike

A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet.


Unarmed Attacks

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

Note how any part of the body can be used to make an unarmed strike. That makes the entire body the thing which is treated as a weapon, not any piece of it separately. Note also that making an unarmed attack is only "much like" attacking with a weapon, it isn't actually attacking with a weapon.

Natural weapons are handled differently, but again I covered that in the same post you are responding to, so I don't feel the need to repeat myself to rebut your statement even further.

[Rubik]

Wrong.Wrong.

Natural weapons are weapons. It's even in the name.

[Brookshw]

Wow, thank you for delivering the knockout.

Yeah, seriously, that was pretty impressive. I'd call it a thread won.

[eggynack]

Unarmed strikes are not attacks with an actual weapon. The very word "unarmed" means "without a weapon." Since no weapon is being used there is no weapon proficiency required or even possible, and therefore there is no non-proficiency penalty applied to unarmed strikes.

Weapons specifically require proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, and parts of the body are not weapons and therefore do not require proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty.
What Rubik said, on this one.



Being "treated as something" for the purpose of one or more rules does not mean that every similar rule applies, nor does it mean that the thing being treated as something else is actually the thing it is being treated as.
Per the RAW, an Unarmed Attack is not actually a manufactured weapon or a Natural Weapon.

Your cited RAW only indicates that unarmed strikes are certain things for certain purposes. It doesn't indicate at all that they aren't something, where that something is in this case a weapon.

Being "considered as" does not mean that the thing being being discussed is actually that thing.
Armed means something different from using a weapon. In point of fact, it means having a weapon, in the same sense that the glossary definition does. If you have naught but your fists, then you don't have a weapon, but your fists themselves can be weapons. In point of fact, an unarmed strike is the weapon you use when unarmed.



If an unarmed attack was actually an attack with a weapon there would be no AoO allowed against those attacks and therefore no need at all for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
That's just a base quality of unarmed strikes, not some quality of not-weapons.


If a monk making an unarmed attack was actually an attack with a weapon there would be a -4 to hit penalty for choosing to deal non-lethal damage. But that is not the case because unlike an attack with a weapon an unarmed strike deals non-lethal damage by default, only gaining the option to deal lethal damage without penalty if the Improved Unarmed Strike feat is taken.
Again, just a basic quality of an unarmed strike. Again, doesn't at all preclude this thing being a weapon.


"Considered a light weapon", not "is a light weapon." This distinction would be unnecessary if an unarmed strike was unambiguously an attack with a weapon. Per the RAW, an unarmed strike is not actually a weapon, it is simply treated as such for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
You haven't actually provided any RAW to support the idea that it isn't a weapon.


Note the wording: Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose [one of these three things which are not weapons].
Per the RAW, an unarmed strike is not actually an attack with a weapon. Neither is a grapple attack, nor a ray spell. If they were, there would be no reason to list them separately from the text "Choose one type of weapon."

Once again, you've provided evidence that an unarmed strike is something. That's not evidence that an unarmed strike isn't something.


Also note the prerequisite of proficiency with selected weapon. If unarmed strikes or grapples or ray spells had a possible proficiency or were weapons then this prerequisite would apply to them. Since there is no possible proficiency for unarmed strike or grapple or ray spells the prerequisite does not apply.
Good thing unarmed strikes do have a possible proficiency, which according to the mighty table of proficiencies, is simple.


Note the use of the word "like" rather than "is." An unarmed strike is specifically defined as being "much like attacking with a melee weapon", but it isn't actually "attacking with a melee weapon." If an unarmed strike was unambiguously an attack with a weapon this text would be unnecessary.
That text is completely necessary, as there are indeed differences between attacking with most melee weapons and attacking with an unarmed strike.


If an unarmed strike was actually an attack with a weapon there would be no need for this text detailing the cases where a person without a weapon can be considered to be armed.
Again, armed and weapon using are different things. Seriously, if they weren't then you would lose anyway, because monks fit right into one of those categories. Your argument at this point basically adds up to, "You don't need unarmed strike proficiency unless you're a monk," which seems somewhat pointless as claims go. Alternatively, unarmed strikes might not be melee weapons. They might just be weapons of their own category.


Being treated as something for the purpose of one or more rules does not mean that every similar rule applies, nor does it mean that the thing being treated as something else is actually the thing it is being treated as.
Per the RAW, an Unarmed Attack made by a level 4+ monk is not actually an attack with a magical weapon, lawful weapon, or adamantine weapon.

But if the DM insists, then my 16th level monk is going to be saving all of her fingernail and toenail clippings, as well as all the hair she shaves off of her head. Because it is all actually magic, lawful adamantine, and therefore quite valuable! Blood from bandages applied after combat will be magic, lawful adamantine plate. Perhaps even her urine and feces is magic, lawful adamantine. The innkeeper presents his bill, and I cut my palm and leave him with his payment in the form of magic, lawful adamantine monk's blood. Because it's not blood anymore, it's drops of magic, lawful adamantine, because it must be treated as such in all cases, right?
Right. They're not actually magic weapons. Doesn't mean they can't be weapons.


If an unarmed strike must be treated as an attack with a weapon for all purposes, including requiring proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, then my monk will attempt to disarm anyone who takes a poke at me in a bar. And if successful...then what? Does she "end up with the [body part] in her hand"? No, the entire body is the weapon, since unarmed strike does not distinguish between body parts, so she must "end up with the [entire person] in her hand." This would be an interesting take on "picking up" people at a bar, wouldn't it?
Reductio ad absurdum arguments kinda stop applying when you enter the hellish nightscape of pure RAW arguments. After all, the core purpose of this discussion is ostensibly to show that monks lack proficiency with unarmed strikes (or the inverse). The entire point is that RAW is dysfunctional. Proving that RAW is crazy dysfunctional doesn't mean much.



The weight of the RAW is telling: If unarmed strikes were considered to be attacks with a weapon in all cases, including a proficiency requirement to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, there would be no need to the great many places where unarmed strikes are handled as a specifically different case from attacking with a weapon. There would be no need for all the separate text detailing how an unarmed strike is "like" an attack with a weapon or "considered as" a weapon in one way or another.
There's no real onus on rules text to be especially meaningful, and a lot of those situations are ones where it's being clarified what type of weapon an unarmed strike is, rather than ones where it's being clarified that unarmed strikes are weapons.


The only real weight for the argument that unarmed strikes are strikes with a weapon comes from the inclusion of unarmed strike in the table of weapons and in the weapon description area. And every place unarmed strike is mentioned in that area there is exception text detailing how it is different from an attack with a weapon. This makes it quite clear that the the inclusion of unarmed strike under the weapon descriptions and in the weapon table was simply a matter of convenience which avoided having to make a completely separate section for something which is treated almost exactly the same.
There're a bunch of citations provided throughout a lot of this thread, and notably, I don't think that any of them were the ones you refuted the completeness of.


Yeah, seriously, that was pretty impressive. I'd call it a thread won.
Not particularly. I don't think she even discredited a single citation, and all of her counter-citations were either meaningless or circumstantial in nature.

[Gwendol]

Wrong.

Natural weapons are weapons. It's even in the name.

I don't think there is much dispute over that. A creature with natural weapons is considered armed.

[eggynack]

I don't think there is much dispute over that. A creature with natural weapons is considered armed.
Stella has explicitly claimed the inverse.

[Vogonjeltz]

Stella has explicitly claimed the inverse.

No, she was disputing that parts of the body demonstrably are weapons. Natural weapons are a specific exception to them demonstrably not being weapons (as shown in unarmed strikes).

Stella, if I misread what you meant please correct.

[Brookshw]

Not particularly. I don't think she even discredited a single citation, and all of her counter-citations were either meaningless or circumstantial in nature.

Honestly I don't really care about this conversation, but what Stella pointed out, spot on very logical raw backed 100%. What you and rubik are doing? That's the "nu-uh" defense. As an outside observer the refutations I've seen are underwhelming to say the least. I'll stand by my sentiment.

[Rubik]

No, she was disputing that parts of the body demonstrably are weapons. Natural weapons are a specific exception to them demonstrably not being weapons (as shown in unarmed strikes).

Stella, if I misread what you meant please correct.I said, point blank, that natural weapons are weapons, and her first word in response was, "Wrong."

How can you claim that she's not saying what she's very clearly saying, to the point where she literally cannot get any clearer?

[eggynack]

No, she was disputing that parts of the body demonstrably are weapons. Natural weapons are a specific exception to them demonstrably not being weapons (as shown in unarmed strikes).

Given that her argument is that they're not weapons, which means that they don't interact in a silly way with disarm, I don't think you're correct. Her entire claim for that brief period was a reductio ad absurdum premised on the idea of natural weapons as weapons.

Honestly I don't really care about this conversation, but what Stella pointed out, spot on very logical raw backed 100%. What you and rubik are doing? That's the "nu-uh" defense. As an outside observer the refutations I've seen are underwhelming to say the least. I'll stand by my sentiment.
I don't really see how. My citations say that unarmed strikes are weapons. Stella's citations mostly say that unarmed strikes are sometimes weapons. The latter citations do not contradict the former citations, which makes them somewhat pointless, unless the former citations are either completely disproved or counteracted with a citation that directly contradicts them.

[Vogonjeltz]

I said, point blank, that natural weapons are weapons, and her first word in response was, "Wrong."

How can you claim that she's not saying what she's very clearly saying, to the point where she literally cannot get any clearer?

Simple, you posted the following logic proposition:

P1) natural weapons are parts of the body
P2) natural weapons are weapons
C1) therefore all parts of the body are weapons.

This is flawed for the same reason that all men are not Socrates.

She pointed this out by noting that unarmed strikes are attacks made with any part of the body and they aren't weapons. (Nor for that matter do unarmed strikes fall under the purview of natural weapons).

[Stella]

My citations say that unarmed strikes are weapons. Stella's citations mostly say that unarmed strikes are sometimes weapons. The latter citations do not contradict the former citations, which makes them somewhat pointless, unless the former citations are either completely disproved or counteracted with a citation that directly contradicts them.

It's easy to refute something when you misquote it.

I thought I was very clear in my post, but I'll try one more time:

My citations never once say that unarmed strikes are weapons, sometimes or otherwise. They say that they are "considered as" or "like" weapons, but they never say that they are weapons.

You're the one making the claim that an unarmed strike is a weapon, and I've cited a good number of RAW quotations from all over the rule books which make it clear that they are not. I won't repeat them here, and I find the "rebuttal" to all of my RAW citations to be lacking in RAW citations of their own, and only containing opinion, speculation, and misinterpretation. Or just a simple disagreement, which is not a rebuttal at all.

I see how it might be easy to misinterpret the RAW in this case. Which should be obvious to anyone given the continuing disagreement on the subject. But your misinterpretation does not make it RAW. At best there is a contradiction which could be decided either way due to the failure of the game authors to make an explicit statement on the matter, but I think that the matter is quite clear if you just read the RAW. And I'll go so far as to say that I believe that the reason that the authors did not make an explicit statement on the matter is exactly because the matter is clear enough without such a statement.

[eggynack]

It's easy to refute something when you misquote it.

I thought I was very clear in my post, but I'll try one more time:

My citations never once say that unarmed strikes are weapons. They say that they are "considered as" or "like" weapons, but they never say that they are weapons.
You were perfectly clear in that. However, them being considered or like weapons in the ways you've quoted are not mutually exclusive with them actually being weapons.


You're the one making the claim that an unarmed strike is a weapon, and I've cited a good number of RAW quotations from all over the rule books which make it clear that they are not. I won't repeat them here, and I find the "rebuttal" to all of my RAW citations to be lacking in RAW citations of their own, and only containing opinion, speculation, and misinterpretation. Or just a simple disagreement, which is not a rebuttal at all.
No, you've cited a good number of RAW quotations which say that unarmed strikes are a lesser thing, rather than that they're not weapons.

I see how it might be easy to misinterpret the RAW in this case. Which should be obvious to anyone given the continuing disagreement on the subject. But your misinterpretation does not make it RAW. At best there is a contradiction which could be decided either way due to the failure of the game authors to make an explicit statement on the matter, but I think that the matter is quite clear if you just read the RAW. And I'll go so far as to say that I believe that the reason that the authors did not make an explicit statement on the matter is exactly because the matter is clear enough without such a statement.
There is no contradiction, is the problem. It's like, all of your quotes are saying, "This bag contains at least three marbles," and mine are saying, "This bag contains five marbles." The former does not in any way preclude the possibility of the latter. The fact of the matter is that, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon," and that a fist is a natural weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicFang.htm). You haven't disproved any part of that. If your quotes were the only thing indicating the weaponness of unarmed strikes, then showing that those sections are incomplete in their granting of weaponhood would be sufficient, but they're not, so it isn't.

[Rubik]

Simple, you posted the following logic proposition:

P1) natural weapons are parts of the body
P2) natural weapons are weapons
C1) therefore all parts of the body are weapons.

This is flawed for the same reason that all men are not Socrates.I did not, and I would appreciate if you would not blatantly lie about what I said in order to misrepresent it. What I said was:


Uh... Natural weapons are parts of the body, and they are weapons. So saying "parts of the body aren't weapons" is demonstrably false.


She pointed this out by noting that unarmed strikes are attacks made with any part of the body and they aren't weapons. (Nor for that matter do unarmed strikes fall under the purview of natural weapons).They are treated as natural weapons for, quite literally, every single possible beneficial reason that could ever count for everything -- at least for monks (with the sole exceptions being iteratives and NOT being counted as primary or secondary attacks), since, and I quote, "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."

Obviously, negative effects are exempt from that statement.

[Stella]

If you have naught but your fists, then you don't have a weapon, but your fists themselves can be weapons. In point of fact, an unarmed strike is the weapon you use when unarmed. There is no RAW at all which supports the assertion that a fist is a weapon. This is the start of the line of misinterpretation of RAW which leads to unarmed strikes being weapons. Unarmed strikes are not weapons, by the RAW they are only treated as weapons or considered as weapons.


Good thing unarmed strikes do have a possible proficiency, which according to the mighty table of proficiencies, is simple.
And again, unarmed strike may be considered to be a simple weapon for many purposes within the rules, but that does not make an unarmed strike a weapon, or an attack with a weapon, or an attack with a melee weapon. And only weapons require weapon proficiency. The RAW is quite clear on this.


Your argument at this point basically adds up to, "You don't need unarmed strike proficiency unless you're a monk," which seems somewhat pointless as claims go.
Just as pointless as your claim that my argument only adds up to "You don't need unarmed strike proficiency unless you're a monk." It's quite offensive to see you put quotations around something which I never said and which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


Alternatively, unarmed strikes might not be melee weapons. They might just be weapons of their own category.Ok, you budged. It's a start. Now all you have to do is accept that fact that unarmed strikes are not weapons of any category, as the RAW clearly details.


Reductio ad absurdum arguments kinda stop applying when you enter the hellish nightscape of pure RAW arguments. After all, the core purpose of this discussion is ostensibly to show that monks lack proficiency with unarmed strikes (or the inverse). The entire point is that RAW is dysfunctional. Proving that RAW is crazy dysfunctional doesn't mean much.
But isn't it interesting that there is no absurd argument for disarming an unarmed person meaning you have them in your hand or disarming a lion meaning you've pulled their teeth as long as you don't try to make an unarmed attack a weapon?

I'm not at all trying to prove that RAW is "crazy dysfunctional," what I am proving that your misinterpretation of RAW has other, even more absurd consequences for other places in the RAW. My interpretation includes no such absurdity. Shouldn't that tell you something?


There's no real onus on rules text to be especially meaningful, and a lot of those situations are ones where it's being clarified what type of weapon an unarmed strike is, rather than ones where it's being clarified that unarmed strikes are weapons.
That's quite a convenient position to take: Your RAW citations don't count because they aren't meaningful. Also, you continue to get this wrong: Not "what type of weapon an unarmed strike is", rather "what type of weapon an unarmed strike is consider as or treated as." There is a big difference, one which you continue to ignore. Do you ignore it because it makes it clear that an unarmed strike isn't a weapon in fact but is only treated as one for several purposes under the rules?

And of course I could make the same claim about your own RAW citations not being especially meaningful, if you might make some.


There're a bunch of citations provided throughout a lot of this thread, and notably, I don't think that any of them were the ones you refuted the completeness of.
No, there really weren't. I saw a lot of claims about what the RAW says and means, and plenty which misstate or misinterpret the exact text of the rules, but I didn't see a lot of actual citations from RAW. The only RAW citations I saw were two from you concerning a magic ring that gave natural attack and something about Improved Natural Attack. Neither was relevant, and so I didn't see any need to address them specifically.

The entirely of my post did, however, address the core issue, with a great many RAW citations.


The fact of the matter is that, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon," and that a fist is a natural weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicFang.htm). You haven't disproved any part of that.
And if you would actually cite the RAW instead of quoting it, which invites errors, or linking to it, which invites misinterpretation, you might see for yourself the flaw in your argument without any need for me to point it out to you.

[eggynack]

There is no RAW at all which supports the assertion that a fist is a weapon. This is the start of the line of misinterpretation of RAW which leads to unarmed strikes being weapons. They are not weapons, by the RAW they are only treated as weapons or considered as weapons.
Yes, there is. I've cited the RAW support all over this thread. My last post had a couple of them at the end, there are other spells where it's explicitly stated, and I think Curmudgeon had some reasonable examples awhile back.


And again, unarmed strike may be considered to be a simple weapon for many purposes within the rules, but that does not make an unarmed strike a weapon, or an attack with a weapon, or an attack with a melee weapon. And only weapons require weapon proficiency. The RAW is quite clear on this.
That's a circular argument. You were using the lack of possible proficiency with regards to unarmed strike as evidence that unarmed strikes aren't weapons, and now you're using the idea that unarmed strikes aren't weapons to support that unarmed strikes aren't weapons.


Just as pointless as your claim that my argument only adds up to "You don't need unarmed strike proficiency unless you're a monk." It's quite offensive to see you put quotations around something which I never said and which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Your assertion, based on that citation, seemed to be that unarmed strikes are only weapons under certain circumstances.

Ok, you budged.
Not particularly. That was one or multiple possible counterarguments, rather than something I was claiming as an absolute truth.

I'm not at all trying to prove that RAW is "crazy dysfunctional," what I am proving that your misinterpretation of RAW has other, even more absurd consequences for other places in the RAW. My interpretation includes no such absurdity. Shouldn't that tell you something?
Not really. Some rules have absurd outcomes. That doesn't make them more or less rules.


That's quite a convenient position to take: Your RAW citations don't count because they aren't meaningful. Also, you continue to get this wrong: Not "what type of weapon an unarmed strike is", rather "what type of weapon an unarmed strike is consider as or treated as." There is a big difference, one which you continue to ignore. Do you ignore it because it makes it clear that an unarmed strike isn't a weapon in fact but is only treated as one for several purposes under the rules?
Maybe convenient, but also accurate. Assuming that it's indicated elsewhere that unarmed strikes are weapons, then your citations are pointless. Thus, your quest, as far as proving your side is concerned, is to show that my citations regarding the weapon nature of unarmed strikes are inaccurate somehow.

And of course I could make the same claim about your own RAW citations not being especially meaningful, if you might make some.
I'm not really sure how you're missing the various citations I've made in this thread. They're all over the place. Maybe they're all in the old thread or something.


No, there really weren't. I saw a lot of claims about what the RAW says and means, and plenty which misstate or misinterpret the exact text of the rules, but I didn't see a lot of actual citations from RAW. The only RAW citations I saw were two from you concerning a magic ring that gave natural attack and something about Improved Natural Attack. Neither was relevant, and so I didn't see any need to address them specifically.
The main citation is the one about how unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons. Not, I shall note, always treated as light weapons for some specific purpose, but just treated as light weapons in general. At the same time though, you really have to show why those citations you mentioned are irrelevant, instead of just saying so.

[Gwendol]

This discussion has gone beyond silly.

An unarmed strike is attacking without a weapon. It is not a weapon, even if it appears grouped with other weapons in the weapons table. It is given the light weapon designation for rules reason (finessable, etc) since it can't be cumbersome to wield in any situation (you can't wield an unarmed strike).
Why unarmed strikes are listed with simple weapons I can't say. It doesn't seem to have a real impact on anything. The rules are silent, but it is illogical to assume any humanoid not being proficient with unarmed strikes (you don't need familarity to use your own body). Looking at beasts they are all proficient with the natural weapons listed.

[georgie_leech]

This discussion has gone beyond silly.

An unarmed strike is attacking without a weapon. It is not a weapon, even if it appears grouped with other weapons in the weapons table. It is given the light weapon designation for rules reason (finessable, etc) since it can't be cumbersome to wield in any situation (you can't wield an unarmed strike).
Why unarmed strikes are listed with simple weapons I can't say. It doesn't seem to have a real impact on anything. The rules are silent, but it is illogical to assume any humanoid not being proficient with unarmed strikes (you don't need familarity to use your own body). Looking at beasts they are all proficient with the natural weapons listed.

While illogical, it's unfortunately the case that while Animals are automatically proficient with their Natural weapons (due to one of the Traits of that Type), Humanoids are saddled with "All Simple Weapons, or by Character Class."

Incidentally, I think this is one of the areas where the game uses an implicit definition in one area and a common definition elsewhere. In this case, Unarmed Strike is a Weapon in that it's grouped with all the other non-spells that you use to make attack rolls with; in the blurb for US itself, weapon is being used as "any instrument or device (in other words, something external to the user) for use in attack or defence in combat." By RAW, US is a weapon with special rules that lead to all sorts of almost certainly unintentional inanities like Monks not technically being proficient with their signature feature. Which is odd, given how logical (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?214988-quot-Wait-that-didn-t-work-right-quot-the-Dysfunctional-Rules-Collection) and sensible (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267923-quot-Wait-again-that-didn-t-work-right-quot-the-Dysfunctional-Rules-Collection) the (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?283778-Dysfunctional-Rules-III-100-Rules-Legal-110-Silly) rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?304817-Dysfunctional-Rules-IV-It-s-like-a-sandwich-made-of-RAW-failure!) usually (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333789-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-V-Dysfunctions-All-the-Way-Down) are. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5)

[Gwendol]

As I said, the rules are silent but certainly inconsistent. The US is not a weapon, and not a natural weapon, yet are grouped with both in various places.
In terms of the current discussion, we've reached the end of the road.

[eggynack]

As I said, the rules are silent but certainly inconsistent. The US is not a weapon, and not a natural weapon, yet are grouped with both in various places.
In terms of the current discussion, we've reached the end of the road.
I disagree completely. The game straight out says what an unarmed strike is, not just by association, but also by direct statement. That thing, the thing that an unarmed strike is, is a weapon. You can say that the unarmed strike is only called out as a light weapon for particular reasons, but I don't see any support for that in the text.

[Stella]

I've cited the RAW support all over this thread.
Not really. You've claimed to have RAW support, but all you really cite is your own wording of the RAW. Or your own misinterpretation. Regardless of your error, that doesn't make unarmed strike a weapon.

Here: This (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) is my RAW support for unarmed strike not being a weapon.

That's the equivalent of the RAW citations you have made to support your misinterpretation of the rules.


I'm not really sure how you're missing the various citations I've made in this thread. They're all over the place. Maybe they're all in the old thread or something.
So move them here. They certainly are not in this thread. I looked, why can't you?


The main citation is the one about how unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons."Treated as", as I have said a dozen times or more, does not mean "is." There is no reason to even have text saying something is treated as something else if it is actually that other thing. Come on now, you've budged once already, you've got to grant me this. And once granted, your argument falls apart.

But then you've already taken the position that the rules don't need to be clear in order to be clear. It's a complete fail on your part, but you are welcome to it.

Maybe we should take this one step at a time. It might be more enlightening than your attempts to confuse the issue by semi-quoting or linking without citing unrelated text such as natural weapon.

This is the entire text for Weapon Focus:

Weapon Focus [General]

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.
Prerequisites

Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit

You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special

You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

A fighter may select Weapon Focus as one of his fighter bonus feats. He must have Weapon Focus with a weapon to gain the Weapon Specialization feat for that weapon.

Why do you think that unarmed strike, grapple, and ray spells are listed separately from "one type of weapon"?

Do you think that unarmed strike is a weapon?

Do you think that grapple is a weapon?

Do you think that a ray spell is a weapon?

[Anlashok]

Does discussing the issue in such a malicious tone really help anything?

[Stella]

The game straight out says what an unarmed strike is, not just by association, but also by direct statement. That thing, the thing that an unarmed strike is, is a weapon. You can say that the unarmed strike is only called out as a light weapon for particular reasons, but I don't see any support for that in the text.
The text does not "call out" unarmed strike as a light weapon for any reason. But it does say that unarmed strike is "considered as" or "treated as" a weapon. But not that it is actually a weapon. Per RAW.


Does discussing the issue in such a malicious tone really help anything?
Does asking a few simple to answer questions make me malicious?

Just as the misinterpretation of the RAW does not make unarmed strikes a weapon, your mischaracterization of my "tone" does not make it malicious.

[Vogonjeltz]

I did not, and I would appreciate if you would not blatantly lie about what I said in order to misrepresent it. What I said was:

Rubik, I was analyzing your post, not saying you literally posted the words I used, but expressing what you said in other words.

Here is the side by side comparison:


Uh... Natural weapons are parts of the body,

Which was premise 1: P1) natural weapons are parts of the body


and they are weapons.

Which was premise 2: P2) natural weapons are weapons

And then you finsihed up with:


So saying "parts of the body aren't weapons" is demonstrably false.

Which is the conclusion 1: C1) therefore all parts of the body are weapons.

If parts of the body aren't weapons is false, then all parts of the body must be weapons.

If that wasn't what you intended to convey, it wasn't at all apparent and I want you to know that I in no way deliberately misrepresented anything you wrote.


They are treated as natural weapons for, quite literally, every single possible beneficial reason that could ever count for everything -- at least for monks (with the sole exceptions being iteratives and NOT being counted as primary or secondary attacks), since, and I quote, "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."

Obviously, negative effects are exempt from that statement.

The use of the words "treated as" means they are not the thing. So the specific phrase "treated as natural weapons" means they aren't, in fact, natural weapons.

[georgie_leech]

Which was premise 1: P1) natural weapons are parts of the body



Which was premise 2: P2) natural weapons are weapons

And then you finsihed up with:



Which is the conclusion 1: C1) therefore all parts of the body are weapons.

If parts of the body aren't weapons is false, then all parts of the body must be weapons.

If that wasn't what you intended to convey, it wasn't at all apparent and I want you to know that I in no way deliberately misrepresented anything you wrote.





Not touching the rest of it: the potential of individual parts of the body being weapons does not mean every individual part of the body is always a weapon. He's arguing the former, not the latter.

[Rubik]

Not touching the rest of it: the potential of individual parts of the body being weapons does not mean every individual part of the body is always a weapon. He's arguing the former, not the latter.Exactly.


If parts of the body aren't weapons is false, then all parts of the body must be weapons.This is wrong. I never said, nor did I attempt to convey, that this is the case. It doesn't follow from the premise, and is logically fallacious.


The use of the words "treated as" means they are not the thing. So the specific phrase "treated as natural weapons" means they aren't, in fact, natural weapons.Meaning that any time it's not beneficial to do so, do not treat them as natural weapons. Otherwise, they're indistinguishable from them.

They aren't...unless it's beneficial, in which case, they are.

Does it benefit you to consider your unarmed strike a natural weapon for any specific reason? Then it's a natural weapon, by the rules.

[eggynack]

Not really. You've claimed to have RAW support, but all you really cite is your own wording of the RAW. Or your own misinterpretation. Regardless of your error, that doesn't make unarmed strike a weapon.

Here: This (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) is my RAW support for unarmed strike not being a weapon.

That's the equivalent of the RAW citations you have made to support your misinterpretation of the rules.
If you don't think that my citations are sufficient proof, then you should probably show why. For reference, the relevant citations are mostly within the body of spells, with quotes like the one in magic fang where unarmed strikes are implicitly called natural weapons, and the one in align weapon which does the same thing (neither with something like a "treated" in it), and the other major one is the statement that they're always treated as light weapons. Another major citation is the table for weapon proficiency, which while theoretically capable of being contradicted by text, is never really directly contradicted in that manner.


So move them here. They certainly are not in this thread. I looked, why can't you?
I suppose I just assumed that the movement of information was more comprehensive. In any case, I think you've seen most of the stuff. Now you just have to actually refute it in a meaningful way.


"Treated as", as I have said a dozen times or more, does not mean "is." There is no reason to even have text saying something is treated as something else if it is actually that other thing. Come on now, you've budged once already, you've got to grant me this. And once granted, your argument falls apart.
Treated as means treated as, but you've yet to meaningfully indicate the parameters of when it is "treated as". In particular, the game says that unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons. That means that they're treated as light weapons when determining whether they're finesseable, yes, but it also means that they're treated as light weapons when determining whether they're light weapons for the purposes of being weapons, because that's part of the definition of light weapons. If you don't think it's part of the definition of light weapons, well, that's again a thing you haven't proved.


Maybe we should take this one step at a time. It might be more enlightening than your attempts to confuse the issue by semi-quoting or linking without citing unrelated text such as natural weapon.

Natural weapons are entirely relevant, because natural weapons are weapons.



Why do you think that unarmed strike, grapple, and ray spells are listed separately from "one type of weapon"?
I don't have a particular reason, but then again, I don't need one. Nothing there contradicts other locations that claim unarmed strikes as weapons.


Do you think that unarmed strike is a weapon?

Do you think that grapple is a weapon?

Do you think that a ray spell is a weapon?
Yes, no, and no, because the former is described elsewhere as a weapon, and the latter two aren't really. I mean, rays are weapon-like spells, if you wanna get technical, but that seems besides the point.


The text does not "call out" unarmed strike as a light weapon for any reason. But it does say that unarmed strike is "considered as" or "treated as" a weapon. But not that it is actually a weapon. Per RAW.

If unarmed strikes aren't weapons, but are just always treated as weapons, it doesn't really make much of a difference. If it's treated as a weapon, and it is, then it is such for the purposes of proficiencies. Beyond that, we're really just talking semantics. I mean, they still actually are weapons, because they're referred to as natural weapons all over the place, and natural weapons are weapons, but still kinda unnecessary as arguments go.

[Gwendol]

I disagree completely. The game straight out says what an unarmed strike is, not just by association, but also by direct statement. That thing, the thing that an unarmed strike is, is a weapon. You can say that the unarmed strike is only called out as a light weapon for particular reasons, but I don't see any support for that in the text.

I don't care. US is treated as a light, simple weapon, which in my vocabulary means it's not really a weapon.

[eggynack]

I don't care. US is treated as a light, simple weapon, which in my vocabulary means it's not really a weapon.
I'm not really sure where you're getting that idea. Do you mean specifically the "treated" part? Cause if you do my last argument seems to apply. In particular, if we're just saying that it's treated as a weapon for any and all purposes, including proficiency, then I suppose that's an agreeable outcome. It's an outcome that ignores some of the existing evidence, mostly of a spell nature, but it answers the core question, of whether monks are non-proficient with unarmed strikes (they are).

[Gwendol]

No, it means US is not a weapon and thus rules for proficiency do not apply.

[eggynack]

No, it means US is not a weapon and thus rules for proficiency do not apply.
I think you need to share more of your logic on this one. Even if it's not a weapon, and it is, as long as it's always treated as a weapon, it's treated as a weapon for the purposes of proficiency. Proficiency is a subset of always, after all.

[Gwendol]

What I'm saying is that proficiencies are for weapons. When making an US you are unarmed= not packing. You need no proficiency to make a US, hence, that attack is not listed among the weapons a monk is proficient with.

And we know monks are the poster boys for unarmed attacks.

[eggynack]

What I'm saying is that proficiencies are for weapons. When making an US you are unarmed= not packing. You need no proficiency to make a US, hence, that attack is not listed among the weapons a monk is proficient with.
I get that that's what you're saying. I just don't see any support for the idea. It's like if the text said, "Unarmed strikes are considered weapons for the purposes of weapon proficiencies." It wouldn't matter whether unarmed striker are weapons or not, and it doesn't matter.

[Dalebert]

You need no proficiency to make a US, hence, that attack is not listed among the weapons a monk is proficient with.

You don't need proficiency with ANY weapon to use that weapon. You just suck at it. A wizard sucks in a fist fight because they're one of few classes that don't get proficiency with all simple weapons which unarmed strike is specifically listed as, and that makes sense. They're getting -4 with each attack. I picture the frail, nerdy wizard getting his ass handed to him in a bar brawl.

EDIT: Removed stuph about monks because they seem to have addressed that in their class description.

2nd EDIT: Actually, upon a more careful reading, no they didn't. They goofed up on monks.

[Gwendol]

Everyone suck at fist fighting without IUS.
Since monks can't be non-proficient with US, weapon-less attacks don't require proficiency. Which makes sense since proficiency relates to familiarity with a weapon. Humanoids can be assumed to be familiar with their body.

[Vogonjeltz]

I get that that's what you're saying. I just don't see any support for the idea. It's like if the text said, "Unarmed strikes are considered weapons for the purposes of weapon proficiencies." It wouldn't matter whether unarmed striker are weapons or not, and it doesn't matter.

The game only has proficiencies for weapons.

Unarmed strikes aren't weapons.

The text doesn't say unarmed strikes are weapons. Monks get a specific exemption rule allowing them to benefit from spells that target manufactured or natural weapons, but that has no bearing on unarmed strikes writ large, nor does the exemption even make them weapons.

[eggynack]

The game only has proficiencies for weapons.

Unarmed strikes aren't weapons.
Assuming they aren't, and they are, they're still treated as weapons. If something is treated as a weapon for the purposes of proficiency, then you still need a proficiency.


The text doesn't say unarmed strikes are weapons.
You're ignoring an absolutely massive amount of game words to come to that conclusion.

[Vogonjeltz]

Assuming they aren't, and they are, they're still treated as weapons. If something is treated as a weapon for the purposes of proficiency, then you still need a proficiency.

You're ignoring an absolutely massive amount of game words to come to that conclusion.

It's not an assumption as has been presented multiple times, the text says they aren't weapons. This isn't in dispute.

Secondly, the monk class ability only treats them as manufactured and natural weapons for the purposes of beneficial spells and effects. Proficiency is neither of those things. You don't have a leg to stand on here.

What did you think I ignored? I literally addressed the entire argument.

[OldTrees1]

Everyone suck at fist fighting without IUS.
Since monks can't be non-proficient with US, weapon-less attacks don't require proficiency. Which makes sense since proficiency relates to familiarity with a weapon. Humanoids can be assumed to be familiar with their body.

Only Druids, Monks and Wizards lack proficiency in Simple Weapons. Humanoids are proficient with Simple Weapons via their creature type (unless they take one of those 3 classes)

[Vogonjeltz]

Only Druids, Monks and Wizards lack proficiency in Simple Weapons. Humanoids are proficient with Simple Weapons (unless they take one of those 3 classes)

Humanoids also don't have natural weapons at all. Look at any entry in the monster manual, they have natural weapons listed as an entry on their own without exceptions. Humanoids don't get them.

[eggynack]

It's not an assumption as has been presented multiple times, the text says they aren't weapons. This isn't in dispute.
The text also says they are weapons. In way more places too. And also doesn't particularly say that unarmed strikes themselves aren't weapons.


Secondly, the monk class ability only treats them as manufactured and natural weapons for the purposes of beneficial spells and effects. Proficiency is neither of those things. You don't have a leg to stand on here.
Not really. The spell listings are often completely lacking in qualifiers, the light weapon listing is a "treated" but not specifically for beneficial spells and effects, and the listing on the weapons table seems meaningful, given that it's not really contradicted. So, buncha legs. There are places that state they're treated as weapons for particular purposes, but those are far from the only sources of weapon indication.

[OldTrees1]

Humanoids also don't have natural weapons at all. Look at any entry in the monster manual, they have natural weapons listed as an entry on their own without exceptions. Humanoids don't get them.

Quite unrelated to my post. Creature traits never list natural weapons since natural weapons inevitable vary too much within each creature type.

Edit:
Although several are "Proficient with its natural weapons only"

[Vogonjeltz]

Quite unrelated to my post. Creature traits never list natural weapons since natural weapons inevitable vary too much within each creature type.

Neither you nor the post you quoted indicated traits. However, seeing as you decided to make something of it, you are incorrect.

I'm looking at the MM now, under each section of "X as characters" you will find the following line in this format "Natural Weapons: # natural weapon type (damage)."

For examples:
Troglodyte, under the line "Troglodytes characters possess the following racial traits." we see: "Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4)."

Elves as another example possess no such traits.

[OldTrees1]

Neither you nor the post you quoted indicated traits. However, seeing as you decided to make something of it, you are incorrect.

I'm looking at the MM now, under each section of "X as characters" you will find the following line in this format "Natural Weapons: # natural weapon type (damage)."

For examples:
Troglodyte, under the line "Troglodytes characters possess the following racial traits." we see: "Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4)."

Elves as another example possess no such traits.

Take the time to comprehend before you try to knee-jerk contradict. If you had, you would have realized I was talking about Humanoids in the general sense rather than Humanoids in the specific sense. Hmm, that must mean I was talking about the Creature Type and thus its traits.

Look at the definition of Humanoid. Under the Humanoid Traits is proficiency with Simple Weapons (or by class).
Then jump to the definition of simple weapons. There it lists all the classes that don't get Simple Weapon Proficiency.
Therefore all Humanoids have simple weapon proficiency naturally, unless all their HD are Druid/Monk/Wizard.

Edit: I just realized your misunderstanding might have reached even further back.
The post I responded to had the following argument:
Premise 1: Humanoids should be familiar with their bodies
Premise 2: If (Unarmed Strikes are Simple Weapons and Humanoids should be familiar with their bodies) then (Humanoids should be proficient with some simple weapons)
Unstated premise 3 needed for validity: Humanoids are not proficient with simple weapons
Conclusion: Therefore Unarmed Strikes are not Simple Weapons

My counter example: Humanoids are naturally proficient with all simple weapons.
This invalidated the argument but does not disprove the conclusion.

[Vogonjeltz]

Take the time to comprehend before you try to knee-jerk contradict.

Look at the definition of Humanoid. Under the Humanoid Traits is proficiency with Simple Weapons (or by class).
Then jump to the definition of simple weapons. There it lists all the classes that don't get Simple Weapon Proficiency.
Therefore all Humanoids have simple weapon proficiency naturally, unless all their HD are Druid/Monk/Wizard.

I wasn't talking about proficiency. I was talking about the actual existence of natural weapons.

Troglodytes have them, Elves don't.
*Bugbear might help draw a clearer distinction seeing as they also are listed with Humanoid HD and possess no natural weapons.
Lizard folk are also automatically proficient with simple weapons, and it lists natural weapons under its traits.

[OldTrees1]

I wasn't talking about proficiency. I was talking about the actual existence of natural weapons.

Troglodytes have them, Elves don't.

No creature type grants a natural weapon. Since I was talking about creature types, either you are off topic, or you are wrong.

Did that make my "Quite unrelated to my post." initial reply clear?

[eggynack]

I wasn't talking about proficiency. I was talking about the actual existence of natural weapons.

Troglodytes have them, Elves don't.
That logic doesn't hold up. That elf warrior actually can just straight up attack with its fists, because he's proficient with them, but it doesn't list that option because the warrior's best combat option is using its weapons. The statblocks have no onus to list every possible way a creature can attack, especially because it's pretty onerous to mention unarmed strikes, proficient or not, in every statblock.

I mean, really, let's turn this around here. Why doesn't elf warrior list unarmed strikes? The elf warrior can absolutely use them, weapons or not, at a decent degree of competence. I don't think that them being or not being weapons has any bearing on them being listed. I can even provide inverse examples, if you like, which would in this case be non-weapons listed under attacks. I don't think that the will-o'-wisp's shock counts as a weapon, for example.

[Vogonjeltz]

That logic doesn't hold up. That elf warrior actually can just straight up attack with its fists, because he's proficient with them, but it doesn't list that option because the warrior's best combat option is using its weapons. The statblocks have no onus to list every possible way a creature can attack, especially because it's pretty onerous to mention unarmed strikes, proficient or not, in every statblock.

I mean, really, let's turn this around here. Why doesn't elf warrior list unarmed strikes? The elf warrior can absolutely use them, weapons or not, at a decent degree of competence. I don't think that them being or not being weapons has any bearing on them being listed. I can even provide inverse examples, if you like, which would in this case be non-weapons listed under attacks. I don't think that the will-o'-wisp's shock counts as a weapon, for example.

Look up the lizard folk, proficient in all simple weapons, still only lists natural weapons. Your argument holds no water.

[Gwendol]

Only Druids, Monks and Wizards lack proficiency in Simple Weapons. Humanoids are proficient with Simple Weapons via their creature type (unless they take one of those 3 classes)

Right. Simple weapons. US isn't a weapon, it's a weaponless attack that provokes an AoO and that deals a pityful amount of NL damage.

[OldTrees1]

Look up the lizard folk, proficient in all simple weapons, still only lists natural weapons. Your argument holds no water.

This counter example holds no water. Inherently inferior options are intentionally not listed. If a creature has a Natural Weapon that is superior to their unarmed strike, they will not list their unarmed strike regardless of if it is a simple weapon or not.

[eggynack]

Look up the lizard folk, proficient in all simple weapons, still only lists natural weapons. Your argument holds no water.
I don't see how that acts against my argument at all. The list of attacks in the stat block isn't necessarily a complete one, and things in it aren't necessarily even weapons. That's the whole point. Really, if we want to get technical here, the reason unarmed strikes wouldn't be listed despite being natural weapons they're proficient in is because natural weapon proficiency is ordinarily indicated directly by stat block, while unarmed strike proficiency can be separately indicated by simple weapon proficiency. Unarmed strikes are exceptions to the ordinary rules for natural weapons in a lot of ways. That doesn't mean that they aren't indicated as natural weapons in the book all over the place.

Edit:
Right. Simple weapons. US isn't a weapon, it's a weaponless attack that provokes an AoO and that deals a pityful amount of NL damage.
Yes, this is the thing you're trying to prove. Now you just have to, y'know, prove it.

[OldTrees1]

Right. Simple weapons. US isn't a weapon, it's a weaponless attack that provokes an AoO and that deals a pityful amount of NL damage.

The post I responded to had the following argument:
Premise 1: Humanoids should be familiar with their bodies
Premise 2: If (Unarmed Strikes are Simple Weapons and Humanoids should be familiar with their bodies) then (Humanoids should be proficient with some simple weapons)
Unstated premise 3 needed for validity: Humanoids are not proficient with simple weapons
Conclusion: Therefore Unarmed Strikes are not Simple Weapons

My counter example: Humanoids are naturally proficient with all simple weapons.
This invalidated the argument but does not disprove the conclusion.

[Vogonjeltz]

This counter example holds no water. Inherently inferior options are intentionally not listed. If a creature has a Natural Weapon that is superior to their unarmed strike, they will not list their unarmed strike regardless of if it is a simple weapon or not.

Not true, entries list all natural weapons in order, primary then secondary. Unarmed strikes aren't listed there precisely because they aren't natural weapons.

[OldTrees1]

Not true, entries list all natural weapons in order, primary then secondary. Unarmed strikes aren't listed there precisely because they aren't natural weapons.

Oh, I mistook your argument for "USs are not Simple Weapons because if they were ...".

If they were natural weapons, then they would need some excuse not to be listed. The only excuse I could think of would be that they body part was doing something else(Ex: 5 specific claw natural weapon options when the monster only has 2 claws*). However that doesn't hold water for unarmed strike. Therefore it is a good example to prove "USs are not natural weapons despite being treated as natural weapons".

Similar to how the weapon table disproves "USs are Light weapons".


*I do not know if an actual example exists. However having only 2 limbs and 3 limb using natural attacks (gained by templates) might exist in the jumble of 3.5.

[eggynack]

If they were natural weapons, then they would need some excuse not to be listed. The only excuse I could think of would be that they body part was doing something else(Ex: 5 specific claw natural weapon options when the monster only has 2 claws*). However that doesn't hold water for unarmed strike. Therefore it is a good example to prove "USs are not natural weapons despite being treated as natural weapons".
I think my argument on this point is a reasonable one. Natural weapons are listed because that indicates proficiency, but unarmed strikes don't have to be listed because they can have their proficiency indicated in another fashion, through simple weapon proficiency.


Similar to how the weapon table disproves "USs are Light weapons".
How's that now?

[Gwendol]

The post I responded to had the following argument:
Premise 1: Humanoids should be familiar with their bodies
Premise 2: If (Unarmed Strikes are Simple Weapons and Humanoids should be familiar with their bodies) then (Humanoids should be proficient with some simple weapons)
Unstated premise 3 needed for validity: Humanoids are not proficient with simple weapons
Conclusion: Therefore Unarmed Strikes are not Simple Weapons

My counter example: Humanoids are naturally proficient with all simple weapons.
This invalidated the argument but does not disprove the conclusion.

I'm not sure I follow you here, but my reasoning is actually very simple.
US is not a weapon, it's a weaponless attack. Therefore proficiency is not necessary, or even possible.
Proof: monks (who are the posterboys for US) have no explicit listing of US proficiency.

[eggynack]

Proof: monks (who are the posterboys for US) have no explicit listing of US proficiency.
That's the opposite of proof, in that the lack of unarmed strike proficiency on monks is ostensibly the whole point of this thread. Your claim is a bit on the insanely circular side, in other words. You really need something outside of this, because this doesn't counteract any of the massive evidence on the other side.

[OldTrees1]

How's that now?

If a weapon is listed on a table and not under the light weapon category, then it is reasonable to assume that it is not a light weapon. (although, as shown elsewhere, it is treated as a light weapon)


I'm not sure I follow you here, but my reasoning is actually very simple.
US is not a weapon, it's a weaponless attack. Therefore proficiency is not necessary, or even possible.
Proof: monks (who are the posterboys for US) have no explicit listing of US proficiency.

This is the post I responded to:

Everyone suck at fist fighting without IUS.
Since monks can't be non-proficient with US, weapon-less attacks don't require proficiency. Which makes sense since proficiency relates to familiarity with a weapon. Humanoids can be assumed to be familiar with their body.
Either you are assuming unarmed strikes are not weapons and/or you are trying to prove they are not weapons. I discounted the possibility of you assuming the controversial point being argued since that would have been begging the question and you are better than that. That moves on to the possibility that you were trying to prove unarmed strikes are not weapons.

Once that is established, your post unfolds as P <- ( Q ^ R ^ S). When I expand those propositions (and add in implied but unstated ones via context) I get the argument summary I posted. The argument summary is refuted with a counter example but its conclusion is not disproved.

Was I too charitable in my assumptions? Were you begging the question? Were you not using implied but unstated necessary premises Or am I just bad at communicating?

[eggynack]

If a weapon is listed on a table and not under the light weapon category, then it is reasonable to assume that it is not a light weapon. (although, as shown elsewhere, it is treated as a light weapon)

That's fair, I suppose, though if we're making use of the weapon table at all, then I'm pretty sure I win immediately. Whether it's a light weapon or not is immaterial at that point, because what it is is a simple weapon, which is obviously the most relevant category for proficiency purposes. And of course, as you note, if it's not a light weapon but just always treated as a light weapon, then that's pretty much the same thing, verging on just straight out the same thing. If you want to have some really fun semantic games, then I could argue that one of the ways in which it's treated as a light weapon is in whether you're supposed to categorize it as a light weapon.

[OldTrees1]

That's fair, I suppose, though if we're making use of the weapon table at all, then I'm pretty sure I win immediately. Whether it's a light weapon or not is immaterial at that point, because what it is is a simple weapon, which is obviously the most relevant category for proficiency purposes. And of course, as you note, if it's not a light weapon but just always treated as a light weapon, then that's pretty much the same thing, verging on just straight out the same thing. If you want to have some really fun semantic games, then I could argue that one of the ways in which it's treated as a light weapon is in whether you're supposed to categorize it as a light weapon.

If you are right(if is a simple weapon), then it is not a light weapon. This means that trying to prove it is a light weapon is not useful to your goal. [Proof by composition]

[eggynack]

If you are right(if is a simple weapon), then it is not a light weapon. This means that trying to prove it is a light weapon is not useful to your goal.
My goal is to show that they're weapons requiring of proficiency, and thus that monks can't make use of them. I don't particularly care which of several valid logical lines I take to reach that point. The other-folk were dismissing the validity of the table, as it's a table, so I was using the line that was a bit less tight in terms of implication, but tighter in terms of RAW-ness. It is possible, incidentally, that unarmed attacks could be a strictly narrower classification than light weapons, and thus a subset of some variety.

[Gwendol]

Sorry, still not quite following.
Yes, my argument rests on the observation that US is not a weapon. It is a weapon-less attack.
Weapon proficiency is for weapons and represents familiarity.
Since US is not a weapon, there is no proficiency to be had.
The monk has no listed US proficiency, yet is inarguably skilled at unarmed combat.

Incidentally, the wizard and druid likewise do not suffer a non-proficiency penalty when/if attacking unarmed. I find the idea of a druid not being able to land a punch, while the cleric can nearly as silly as the monk example.

[eggynack]

Yes, my argument rests on the observation that US is not a weapon. It is a weapon-less attack.
Weapon proficiency is for weapons and represents familiarity.
Since US is not a weapon, there is no proficiency to be had.
That's the thing you have to prove, that it's not a weapon. It's called a weapon all over the place in the book.


The monk has no listed US proficiency, yet is inarguably skilled at unarmed combat.

Incidentally, the wizard and druid likewise do not suffer a non-proficiency penalty when/if attacking unarmed. I find the idea of a druid not being able to land a punch, while the cleric can nearly as silly as the monk example.
See, here you're trying to use common sense, as above. Common sense has no place in RAW. It has a place in RAI, certainly, and maybe even in how you run things, but it's just not an element of the rules.

[OldTrees1]

Sorry, still not quite following.
Yes, my argument rests on the observation that US is not a weapon.

This thread is debating whether unarmed strike is or is not a weapon. Out of respect I assumed you were not merely begging the question(aka basing your argument on the debated claim), this lead to me misinterpreting your post as a more sophisticated argument that coincidentally also happened to be invalid. Apparently you were just begging the question.

Protip: If you base an argument on a premise your audience does not accept, they will ignore your conclusion.

[Gwendol]

No, I don't have to. I'm explaining my line of thought.
The US is not and can't be a weapon, in spite of it's listing under simple weapons. It does not follow the rules for armed attacks.

[Dalebert]

Protip: If you base an argument on a premise your audience does not accept, they will ignore your conclusion.

Can confirm. I'm finding these arguments (or lack thereof) rather unconvincing.

[OldTrees1]

No, I don't have to. I'm explaining my line of thought.
The US is not and can't be a weapon, in spite of it's listing under simple weapons. It does not follow the rules for armed attacks.

Attacking with a Gauntlet is an Unarmed attack. It is also listed as a simple weapon. If unarmed strikes are simple weapons, then the table can be trusted. If the table can be trusted, then the weapon listed in the unarmed section do not need to follow the armed attack rules(just as whips don't have to follow all the reach weapon rules). Thus unarmed strike does not need to follow the rules for armed attacks in order to be a simple weapon.

P->Q
Q->-R
Thus: P->-R
Thus: -R does not imply -P

However this does not prove that it is a simple weapon.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's the opposite of proof, in that the lack of unarmed strike proficiency on monks is ostensibly the whole point of this thread.

No, the point of this thread is to discuss unarmed strikes in general, not even the Monk version in particular.

If you were correct that unarmed strike were a weapon then it would require proficiency.

It also would necessarily follow that the Monk would be taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty for attacks.

Obviously this isn't the case, the monk has no penalty and unarmed strikes aren't weapons.

[geekintheground]

No, the point of this thread is to discuss unarmed strikes in general, not even the Monk version in particular.

If you were correct that unarmed strike were a weapon then it would require proficiency.

It also would necessarily follow that the Monk would be taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty for attacks.

Obviously this isn't the case, the monk has no penalty and unarmed strikes aren't weapons.

how do you know they dont take that non-proficiency penalty? because they dont in your games? that has no baring on RAW. because the example character didnt apply it? we all know how reliable THOSE are.
unarmed strikes are listed on the simple weapon table, and are described in the weapons section. this is enough proof for me. at MOST what can be said is that there is a reading that makes it so they arent weapons (which, unless im mistaking, would make it unique as a weapon that isnt a weapon)

[Vogonjeltz]

how do you know they dont take that non-proficiency penalty? because they dont in your games? that has no baring on RAW. because the example character didnt apply it? we all know how reliable THOSE are.
unarmed strikes are listed on the simple weapon table, and are described in the weapons section. this is enough proof for me. at MOST what can be said is that there is a reading that makes it so they arent weapons (which, unless im mistaking, would make it unique as a weapon that isnt a weapon)

How do I know? Great question.

Open the Premium PHB and flip to page 41.

First full sentence on that page, which is describing the attack bonus of a 6th level monk using flurry of blows. No penalty there.

That's rules as written, final authority in the game.

[Curmudgeon]

First full sentence on that page, which is describing the attack bonus of a 6th level monk using flurry of blows. No penalty there.

That's rules as written, final authority in the game.
Well, except for that being an example, rather than RAW.

[Gwendol]

Attacking with a Gauntlet is an Unarmed attack. It is also listed as a simple weapon. If unarmed strikes are simple weapons, then the table can be trusted. If the table can be trusted, then the weapon listed in the unarmed section do not need to follow the armed attack rules(just as whips don't have to follow all the reach weapon rules). Thus unarmed strike does not need to follow the rules for armed attacks in order to be a simple weapon.

P->Q
Q->-R
Thus: P->-R
Thus: -R does not imply -P

However this does not prove that it is a simple weapon.

Gauntlets aren't weapons either (they're pieces of armor). Spiked gauntlets are.

The US, by definition, isn't a weapon, and thus doesn't require simple weapon proficiency. Accepting that invalidates nothing and removes the monk simple weapon dysfunction.

[eggynack]

No, the point of this thread is to discuss unarmed strikes in general, not even the Monk version in particular.

I don't think you're particularly correct about that one. This whole thing started based on two separate arguments rooted in monks, rather than anything so general as unarmed strikes.


Obviously this isn't the case, the monk has no penalty and unarmed strikes aren't weapons.
Again, yes, that is the thing that you're trying and failing to prove.

How do I know? Great question.

Open the Premium PHB and flip to page 41.

First full sentence on that page, which is describing the attack bonus of a 6th level monk using flurry of blows. No penalty there.

That's rules as written, final authority in the game.
As Curmudgeon notes, examples aren't really RAW. If you want me to find you a list of silly discrepancies between stat-blocks and rules, I suppose I could do so. A quick Google search should do you well on that count though.

[OldTrees1]

Gauntlets aren't weapons either (they're pieces of armor). Spiked gauntlets are.

The US, by definition, isn't a weapon, and thus doesn't require simple weapon proficiency. Accepting that invalidates nothing and removes the monk simple weapon dysfunction.

Gwendol, what is the conclusion I am arguing for? I know it is rare to encounter someone that is not committing the Fallacy Fallacy, but please give me the respect of noticing I am not arguing Vogon's or Eggy's positions.

You have been wielding your self consistent position as if it were evidence against Eggy's position. My position has been trying to keep you all honest. In your case by pointing out that your self consistent position does not make the opposition any less self consistent. Therefore your attempt at persuasion has been invalid. I have been giving you constructive criticism on your argumentation technique.

[georgie_leech]

Gauntlets aren't weapons either (they're pieces of armor). Spiked gauntlets are.

The US, by definition, isn't a weapon, and thus doesn't require simple weapon proficiency. Accepting that invalidates nothing and removes the monk simple weapon dysfunction.

Accepting that Focused Lexicon should make it harder for creatures of a given type to resist your Utterances also removes the dysfunction of taking a feat to make your character worse at something. Alas, RAW and Rules As They Were Obviously Meant To Be can be two very different things. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that Monks were supposed to be non-proficient with US.

[eggynack]

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that Monks were supposed to be non-proficient with US.
Indeed. Way I figure it, anyone with enough rules knowledge to know that monks lack unarmed strike proficiency also has enough rules knowledge to know that monks need the buff and many buffs more. You're not going to find too many people saying, "Thank god monks lack unarmed strike proficiency, cause it stops them from breaking the game in two with their mighty flurry of blows, backed up by the power of VoP," in other words.

[Gwendol]

Gwendol, what is the conclusion I am arguing for? I know it is rare to encounter someone that is not committing the Fallacy Fallacy, but please give me the respect of noticing I am not arguing Vogon's or Eggy's positions.

You have been wielding your self consistent position as if it were evidence against Eggy's position. My position has been trying to keep you all honest. In your case by pointing out that your self consistent position does not make the opposition any less self consistent. Therefore your attempt at persuasion has been invalid. I have been giving you constructive criticism on your argumentation technique.

Ah, finally got it.

One thing to note is that I don't really try to persuade anyone as I'm experienced enough to know that "winning" an internet debate is a losing proposition.
I don't expect my opponents to change their opinion, and as I've noted above the listing of US under simple weapons is difficult to understand (to put it mildly).
In fact, one could argue that the grouping of US with simple weapons in the table is erronous.

[OldTrees1]

Ah, finally got it.

In fact, one could argue that the grouping of US with simple weapons in the table is erroneous.

Honestly, there are so many ways we could categorize this as erroneous. All of them exclude unarmed strike non proficiency from RAI(with the exception of Druid and Wizard in some of the ways). Too bad the internet seems to prefer debating RAW. :smallbiggrin:

Have a good night! :smallcool:

[eggynack]

One thing to note is that I don't really try to persuade anyone as I'm experienced enough to know that "winning" an internet debate is a losing proposition.
I don't expect my opponents to change their opinion, and as I've noted above the listing of US under simple weapons is difficult to understand (to put it mildly).
I dunno. I think I've done reasonably on both ends of that, both as someone managing to convince people, and as someone who someone managed to convince of stuff. Seems kinda unlikely in this case though, as the evidence for unarmed strikes as weapons seems pretty overwhelming to me, compared to a bunch of relatively circumstantial and non-definitive stuff on the other side. It's a vaguely possible thing, if something really strong pops up, but it would be difficult to overcome something like, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."

[georgie_leech]

I dunno. I think I've done reasonably on both ends of that, both as someone managing to convince people, and as someone who someone managed to convince of stuff. Seems kinda unlikely in this case though, as the evidence for unarmed strikes as weapons seems pretty overwhelming to me, compared to a bunch of relatively circumstantial and non-definitive stuff on the other side. It's a vaguely possible thing, if something really strong pops up, but it would be difficult to overcome something like, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."

I've always viewed internet arguments as trying to convince a theoretical uninformed third party, even if convincing the other side is unlikely. After all, I once learned the power of Druids by reading other people trying to argue with you, rather than any direct attempt to convince me. :smallwink:

[Gwendol]

Seems kinda unlikely in this case though, as the evidence for unarmed strikes as weapons seems pretty overwhelming to me, compared to a bunch of relatively circumstantial and non-definitive stuff on the other side."

Key word is "to me". You're kind of a lost cause already :-).

[eggynack]

I've always viewed internet arguments as trying to convince a theoretical uninformed third party, even if convincing the other side is unlikely. After all, I once learned the power of Druids by reading other people trying to argue with you, rather than any direct attempt to convince me. :smallwink:
Yeah, I think that's a lot of it. I know I've engaged in at least a few arguments under the assumption that the main person on the other side would never agree with me in a million years, just because of how they conduct themselves, and did so largely with the underlying idea of persuading an audience. It's an especially true in something like the old Pickford arguments, spreading for infinite pages and never reaching a point where he'd agree. The best case scenario would be one where he'd just slink off into the sunset under the weight of overwhelming evidence.

There might also be that element there of seeing if I can convince myself. As in, actually testing these reasonably rooted ideas in my head against other folks, and seeing how that plays out. Less of a thing when we're talking about basic RAW, and more of a thing when I'm trying to prove that VoP is just universally worse than not-VoP on a druid for example. It seems like a good and wholesome position to take, but I've always gotta hold out hope that someone will prove me utterly wrong, and that we'll learn something cool in the process.

Edit:
Key word is "to me". You're kind of a lost cause already :-).
Well, that's why you'd try to poke holes in the overwhelming nature of the evidence, if you wanted to find victory in this one. You'd probably need to show that "always treated" really only means always treated as applies to a particular element of the game, just as a start. Not easy, but y'know, that's why I said it was overwhelming. You'd probably also want to find a better way to counter the spell and table evidence, because the current specific rather than general and table rather than text stance seems a bit limited with your lack of a solid text or general.

[Stella]

Well, that's why you'd try to poke holes in the overwhelming nature of the evidence, if you wanted to find victory in this one.
Those holes have been well and thoroughly poked, you just don't want to accept it.

Every time you post some snip of text that has the words "considered as" or "treated as" you're just continuing to repeat over and over the same error of concluding that something which is like something else in one or several regards makes it that thing in fact and in every regard. It does not, and you should be able to grasp that the very text you keep posting is contradicting your position.

And when it is demonstrated to you how horribly your conclusion that US is a weapon interacts with things like Disarm, your "defense" is to call the RAW absurd, rather than to reexamine your false premise which lead to the absurdity in the first place. The RAW on this subject is only as absurd as you made it.

It's like the anti-scientific method at work, and if scientists operated as you do, refusing to revise an incorrect premise which lead them to an absurd conclusion, mankind might not even have written the books we're now arguing about.

[OldTrees1]

@Stella and eggy
You are mirrors of each other. This is fairly obvious to anyone not neck deep in the argumentation. Both of you are so rooted in your positions that you have little ability to understand the other position. As a result you see the argument in black and white with you being "overwhelmingly" right.

So far neither position has been threatened with any evidence. The closest you have gotten is:
1) Pointing out a self consistent alternative
2) Point out fallacies in the other sides arguments

This is like you are all saying:
P ^ Q -> R
~Q
Therefore ~R [Note this is an invalid conclusion]

Only people buried so deep in the argumentation would consider that "thoroughly disproving" the other side.

[eggynack]

Every time you post some snip of text that has the words "considered as" or "treated as" you're just continuing to repeat over and over the same error of concluding that something which is like something else in one or several regards makes it that thing in fact and in every regard. It does not, and you should be able to grasp that the very text you keep posting is contradicting your position.
If "Always treated as" isn't sufficient, then provide a frigging reason why it isn't. Just saying that it's not just isn't sufficient here, because if light weapons are necessarily weapons, and it looks a whole lot like they are, then always treated is sufficient because they would be always treated including as applies to being weapons, and they would be always treated as weapons including as applies to proficiency. If that's wrong, then explain or prove why it's wrong. If I'm repeating an error, then show it is an error. Just saying that it's an error repeatedly is utterly meaningless.


And when it is demonstrated to you how horribly your conclusion that US is a weapon interacts with things like Disarm, your "defense" is to call the RAW absurd, rather than to reexamine your false premise which lead to the absurdity in the first place. The RAW on this subject is only as absurd as you made it.

It's like the anti-scientific method at work, and if scientists operated as you do, refusing to revise an incorrect premise which lead them to an absurd conclusion, mankind might not even have written the books we're now arguing about.
D&D isn't reality. In reality, when an argument leads to an absurd conclusion, then you can often say, "This conclusion conflicts with reality as I understand it, and is thus almost certainly wrong." In D&D-land, we can make no such assessments of how reality is, or should be. We can only say, "Huh, the designers sure screwed up on that one." In other words, you can't really rely on reductio ad absurdum when my very premise is that the game is absurd.

Also, natural weapons are even more incontrovertibly weapons, and as you noted awhile back, this argument would work just as well on them as it would on unarmed strikes. The possibility of this absurd conclusion is thus ingrained in the game regardless of this argument's end-point.

@Oldtrees: I disagree. At this point, it looks like Stella's entire position is to just keep calling my evidence insufficient with no actual provided argument whatsoever. You can't just say, "This argument doesn't work." You have to prove it. As is, I don't think she's provided any such proof, and it feels like she's ignored a whole lot of evidence completely. Without addressing more than these tiny parts of the entire evidence pool, it's impossible for me to conclude that her argument is consistent with the game's rules. Also, I think you have an and there where you want an or. As is, not Q definitely does imply not R.

[OldTrees1]

@Oldtrees: I disagree. At this point, it looks like Stella's entire position is to just keep calling my evidence insufficient with no actual provided argument whatsoever. You can't just say, "This argument doesn't work." You have to prove it. As is, I don't think she's provided any such proof, and it feels like she's ignored a whole lot of evidence completely. Without addressing more than these tiny parts of the entire evidence pool, it's impossible for me to conclude that her argument is consistent with the game's rules. Also, I think you have an and there where you want an or. As is, not Q definitely does imply not R.
~Q definitely does not imply ~R. See rows 1 & 2.
In row 2 we have ~p, q and p->q all being true statements.

pqp->q
001
011
100
111

So when Stella refutes your arguments[~Q] (by pointing out "treated as" is not equivalent to "is a"), she does not disprove your conclusion[~R] despite invalidating your argument.

[eggynack]

~Q definitely does not imply ~R. See rows 1 & 2.

pqp->q
001
011
100
111

Yeah, that's off of p or q. You've got p and q there. Actually, it looks like you want if p then q, which is just totally different from the symbol you have there. Really, point is that I'm not sure what you want to have, but what your initial statement is was "If P and Q, then R", which means that disproving one or the other would lead to disproving the conclusion. Not sure how your conditional column factors in, cause it didn't show up in the original statement at all, but things are as they are.

In any case, she hasn't really proved that "treated as" is not functionally identical to "is a" in this situation. Probably a thing she should do. And yes, discrediting that individual premise wouldn't be sufficient to discredit the entire argument. The truth of any of my premises would be sufficient to prove my argument (mostly the table and spells would be remaining), so she'd presumably have to discredit all of that. There's a lot of work left to do on the other side, is what I'm saying, and none of it is being done. My evidence is overwhelming, because there are piles of absolute statements on my side, and very little has had any sort of threat to its accuracy.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, that's off of p or q. You've got p and q there. Actually, it looks like you want if p then q, which is just totally different from the symbol you have there. Really, point is that I'm not sure what you want to have, but what your initial statement is was "If P and Q, then R", which means that disproving one or the other would lead to disproving the conclusion. Not sure how your conditional column factors in, cause it didn't show up in the original statement at all, but things are as they are.

"p -> q" is the symbol for "If p, then q". This statement has the property that disproving the hypothesis(p) does not disprove the conclusion(q). [Source: Formal Logic, see previous post for a truth table proof]
Now if we substitute
p: P ^ Q (P and Q)
q: R
Then we get (P ^ Q) -> R
So proving ~Q, and thus proving ~(P ^ Q), does not prove ~R.

[eggynack]

What? If you have a logical statement that holds, and you show false the antecedents, then that necessarily shows false the consequent. That's what your table says too. If P is true and Q is false, then the whole thing, P->Q is false.

[OldTrees1]

What? If you have a logical statement that holds, and you show false the antecedents, then that necessarily shows false the consequent. That's what your table says too. If P is true and Q is false, then the whole thing, P->Q is false.

"If p then q" means "either ~p or q". This includes the case "p is false and q is true". Proving the antecedent(p) to be false has no claim over if the consequent(q) is true or false.
See Inverse Error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent) for more detail.

The only time p->q is false is when p is true and q is false. But we were talking about when q is true/false given p->q. Examining both cases where p is false, we can see q can be either true or false when p is false. Thus denying the antecedent(p) does not show the consequent(q) to be false.

Or in other words:
p -> q is not equivalent to ~p -> ~q.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well, except for that being an example, rather than RAW.

Mmmm no. It's written within the rules, so it's definitely the rules as written.

Now, there's no reason it can't also be an example. Nothing exists to prohibit that.

[eggynack]

Or in other words:
p -> q is not equivalent to ~p -> ~q.
Right, head mixed up on this for some reason. Not really sure how it applies here though. I mean, if my premise holds up, that unarmed strikes are treated as a weapon for proficiency purposes, then it seems like that's just all of it right there.

[OldTrees1]

Right, head mixed up on this for some reason. Not really sure how it applies here though. I mean, if my premise holds up, that unarmed strikes are treated as a weapon for proficiency purposes, then it seems like that's just all of it right there.

Well here is how it fits in.
Both sides have premises about how the game works(P), and they have arguments(Q) that lead to their conclusion(R). [ (P^Q)->R ]
However the other side points out flaws in the arguments(~Q).
Then the other side concludes the conclusion is false (~R).

Thus the whole situation can be summed up as the following Invalid argument.

(P^Q)->R
~Q
Thus ~R [<- Invalid due to the Inverse Error]

Both sides are presenting invalid arguments(~Q) and then falling for the Inverse Error(~Q->~R) when addressing the opposition. This is why I call you and Stella mirrors of each other. Both of you are doing this to each other and can't see it because you are too close to the argument. (I stopped reading Vogon but I expect the same is happening there).

Edit: Unless I am giving you too much credit and you were begging the question. You were not assuming your conclusion are a premise right?

[eggynack]

Well here is how it fits in.
Both sides have premises about how the game works(P), and they have arguments(Q) that lead to their conclusion(R). [ (P^Q)->R ]
However the other side points out flaws in the arguments(~Q).
Then the other side concludes the conclusion is false (~R).

Thus the whole situation can be summed up as the following Invalid argument.

(P^Q)->R
~Q
Thus ~R [<- Invalid due to the Inverse Error]

Both sides are presenting invalid arguments(~Q) and then falling for the Inverse Error(~Q->~R) when addressing the opposition. This is why I call you and Stella mirrors of each other. Both of you are doing this to each other and can't see it because you are too close to the argument. (I stopped reading Vogon but I expect the same is happening there).

The issue is that she hasn't disproved my premise though. See, disproving my premise wouldn't necessarily disprove my conclusion, but it would at least make room for her own conclusion. As long as my premise stands though, I'm, y'know, right. Disproving my premise isn't sufficient, but it's absolutely necessary. Simultaneously, Stella's evidence, a bunch of citations showing partial truth of unarmed strikes as weapons, and other citations leading to perfectly standard D&D absurdities, don't really lead decisively to her truth.

[Gwendol]

Edit:
Well, that's why you'd try to poke holes in the overwhelming nature of the evidence, if you wanted to find victory in this one. You'd probably need to show that "always treated" really only means always treated as applies to a particular element of the game, just as a start. Not easy, but y'know, that's why I said it was overwhelming. You'd probably also want to find a better way to counter the spell and table evidence, because the current specific rather than general and table rather than text stance seems a bit limited with your lack of a solid text or general.

Actually, that's not hard to do, and Oldtrees already did a few pages back.
An US is not a light weapon, even if it is treated as one. Look at the weapons table under the list of light simple weapons: you don't find the US there. Instead it is listed under " unarmed attacks" (note: not "weapons").
Therefore, we can conclude that "treated as" does not equal "is".

[eggynack]

Actually, that's not hard to do, and Oldtrees already did a few pages back.
An US is not a light weapon, even if it is treated as one. Look at the weapons table under the list of light simple weapons: you don't find the US there. Instead it is listed under " unarmed attacks" (note: not "weapons").
Therefore, we can conclude that "treated as" does not equal "is".
First, I don't see much evidence, at least currently, that something listed under unarmed strike cannot also be a light weapon. Second, as I've noted, if we're using the table as evidence, then the table indicates a need for proficiency, so that's just the end of it. You can't just selectively use the table whenever it's convenient to you. Third, and here's the important one, it doesn't actually matter whether unarmed strikes actually are weapons, or specifically light weapons. As long as they're weapons in every situation that exists, including proficiency, that's really all I care about. I think I mentioned that awhile back, that I would find "Always treated as weapons no matter what, in all situations," to be an acceptable conclusion.

[Gwendol]

Oh come on: I provided your quote.

US is actually not a weapon but an unarmed attack, that shares a few common traits with weapons. However, it's listing under simple weapons makes it hard for me to push my point much further.

[eggynack]

Oh come on: I provided your quote.

US is actually not a weapon but an unarmed attack, that shares a few common traits with weapons. However, it's listing under simple weapons makes it hard for me to push my point much further.
Yeah, my quote said that you'd have to show that treated as doesn't apply to proficiency here. I am in tune with my past self, and you've yet to prove what I said you should. In other words, you'd have to show that one of their common traits with weapons is not proficiency. The post you made didn't prove that.

[Gwendol]

Not quite: proficiencies relate to weapons, specifically simple and martial weapons.
The US is however not listed under a "weapons" heading, but as an unarmed attack. Therefore, I claim that there is no proficiency to be had with US.
You know all this of course and don't see it the same way. Not much to do about it I'm afraid.

[eggynack]

Not quite: proficiencies relate to weapons, specifically simple and martial weapons.
The US is however not listed under a "weapons" heading, but as an unarmed attack. Therefore, I claim that there is no proficiency to be had with US.
You know all this of course and don't see it the same way. Not much to do about it I'm afraid.
All things that are weapons, and thus all things that are treated as weapons, require proficiency. It's the thing that sets the basic requirement. Once you have that, that's when you determine the type of proficiency required, determined by the table, which in this case would be simple. I can vaguely see where you're pulling your argument from, but I don't see much evidence that something labeled an "unarmed attack" on that table cannot be a weapon. Or rather, it would maybe make a decent argument in the absence of other information, if all we had to go on was a proficiency table with unarmed strike listed as an unarmed attack rather than a weapon, but there is a lot of evidence that points to these things being weapons, or at least universally treated as weapons.

[Stella]

In any case, she hasn't really proved that "treated as" is not functionally identical to "is a" in this situation. Probably a thing she should do.
This isn't something that I need to do. The language used in the RAW does it for me.

Let me use your own "marbles" analogy to illustrate my point.


It's like, all of your quotes are saying, "This bag contains at least three marbles," and mine are saying, "This bag contains five marbles." The former does not in any way preclude the possibility of the latter.

You have misstated the issue. The RAW keeps saying over and over and over "these three marbles are almost identical to those five marbles." Which you then take as evidence of absolute equality, which is a mistaken conclusion on your part.

It's you who need to prove that the three marbles are the exact same thing as the five marbles, which will be impossible for you to do since the rules repeat over and over and over that they are not the exact same thing.

You have an interesting version of intellectual dishonesty going on. When I point out that Weapon Focus lists unarmed strike, grapple, and ray attacks separately from anything that is a weapon, you decide that you don't need to address why that is. You just reiterate your claim that unarmed strike is a weapon. You don't get to ignore evidence which is inconvenient to your position. Here we have a clear separation of lists in the RAW: All things which are weapons, and three things which are not. Unarmed strike is not a weapon, per the RAW.

[eggynack]

You have misstated the issue. The RAW keeps saying over and over and over "these three marbles are almost identical to those five marbles." Which you then take as evidence of absolute equality, which is a mistaken conclusion on your part.
Even if they're not the same thing, as before, you've yet to prove how they're not the exact same thing. The game says that unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons, and lets say that doesn't mean that they are light weapons. So, are they not identical in terms of proficiency? I don't think you can prove that at all, and I think I can prove the inverse, given the use of the term "always", and the unarmed strike's listing as a simple weapon.


It's you who need to prove that the three marbles are the exact same thing as the five marbles, which will be impossible for you to do since the rules repeat over and over and over that they are not the exact same thing.

The rules don't really say that at all. What they do indicate, in your posts, is an equivalence in some situations, while my citations do in fact indicate equivalence in all situations. You're the one acting like these half weapon citations are my evidence, when they're just not. Seriously, I don't think you've even started to refute my spell citations at all, or even really tried to prove a narrower scope for the light weapon majig. You should probably try to do that, at some point.


You have an interesting version of intellectual dishonesty going on. When I point out that Weapon Focus lists unarmed strike, grapple, and ray attacks separately from anything that is a weapon, you decide that you don't need to address why that is. You just reiterate your claim that unarmed strike is a weapon. You don't get to ignore evidence which is inconvenient to your position. Here we have a clear separation of lists in the RAW: All things which are weapons, and three things which are not. Unarmed strike is not a weapon, per the RAW.
It's not really intellectual dishonesty. I see the argument you're making, but it is significantly less strong. In particular, you're pointing to a line that would be kinda weird under my interpretation. I'm pointing to a line that would make absolutely zero sense, and would completely contradict with, your interpretation. Them listing these things separately is evidence, pointing vaguely towards your end condition, but it's not absolute proof at all.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well here is how it fits in.
Both sides have premises about how the game works(P), and they have arguments(Q) that lead to their conclusion(R). [ (P^Q)->R ]
However the other side points out flaws in the arguments(~Q).
Then the other side concludes the conclusion is false (~R).

Thus the whole situation can be summed up as the following Invalid argument.

(P^Q)->R
~Q
Thus ~R [<- Invalid due to the Inverse Error]

Both sides are presenting invalid arguments(~Q) and then falling for the Inverse Error(~Q->~R) when addressing the opposition. This is why I call you and Stella mirrors of each other. Both of you are doing this to each other and can't see it because you are too close to the argument. (I stopped reading Vogon but I expect the same is happening there).

Edit: Unless I am giving you too much credit and you were begging the question. You were not assuming your conclusion are a premise right?

In case you read this, that's not what I'm doing. The least you could do is not perpetuate some bias against my posts for new readers.

[Brookshw]

you're pointing to a line that would be kinda weird under my interpretation Eh? What does that matter?

I still don't much care about pages of an argument based on denying the antecedent but they do nothing to convince me of the legitimacy of your position.
you've yet to prove how they're not the exact same thing What exactly are you asking here? You need Stella to prove how a cat isn't a desk? Do you ever use Daemon? No matter how many times I mount an ISO image and my comp treats it as if there's a CD in the computer, there's no CD. Something that's virtual (since you've been harking on this repeatedly as if it were evidence) is something virtual. It's not the same thing at all.


while my citations do in fact indicate equivalence in all situations. Er......

Again, as an outside observer with no real interest in the debate I don't see the arguments you're presenting as particularly powerful, ultimately Stella has presented quite a bit more evidence as far as I can see, and evidence that strikes me as far stronger.

[eggynack]

Eh? What does that matter?

I still don't much care about pages of an argument based on denying the antecedent but they do nothing to convince me of the legitimacy of your position.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. Her citations don't actually say, "Unarmed strikes aren't weapons." They just vaguely nod in that direction.


What exactly are you asking here? You need Stella to prove how a cat isn't a desk? Do you ever use Daemon? No matter how many times I mount an ISO image and my comp treats it as if there's a CD in the computer, there's no CD. Something that's virtual (since you've been harking on this repeatedly as if it were evidence) is something virtual. It's not the same thing at all.

Don't really know how many ways I can explain this, but I'll give it another shot. Presumably, under her argument, unarmed strikes act differently under the rules than weapons do in a certain set of ways. They act as weapons with this spell, and with that feat, and in this third context over here. What I'm asking for her to prove is that they don't act like weapons relative to proficiency, given both the fact that they're explicitly always treated as light weapons (she would have to prove the outer bounds on what "treated" can mean in this context), and the fact that they're listed under simple weapons on the weapon table. Seems reasonable enough to me.


Er......

Again, as an outside observer with no real interest in the debate I don't see the arguments you're presenting as particularly powerful, ultimately Stella has presented quite a bit more evidence as far as I can see, and evidence that strikes me as far stronger.
The game straight out says that unarmed strikes are weapons in several (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alignWeapon.htm) different (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons ) places (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions). Just straight up "this thing is that" equivalence. I don't know how much stronger evidence can get.

[OldTrees1]

In case you read this, that's not what I'm doing. The least you could do is not perpetuate some bias against my posts for new readers.

Sorry, you are correct.

I went back and checked the last few pages. Unlike the average poster in this thread, you have being using "I believe my position ^ My position is self consistent ^ Here is evidence against your arguments -> Your argument is invalid". Your argumentation style does not allow you to conclude your position is RAW, but you have not used that as a conclusion. This is an improvement from the last time I analysed your argumentation style. I am sorry from my presumption.

[Vogonjeltz]

Sorry, you are correct.

I went back and checked the last few pages. Unlike the average poster in this thread, you have being using "I believe my position ^ My position is self consistent ^ Here is evidence against your arguments -> Your argument is invalid". Your argumentation style does not allow you to conclude your position is RAW, but you have not used that as a conclusion. This is an improvement from the last time I analysed your argumentation style. I am sorry from my presumption.

Apology accepted, I think.

I don't know if anyone here can be said not to believe their own arguments (unless of course they are arguing disingenuously, but to what end?), but yes, my position maintains internally consistent logic using the rules as written.

I think that basing my argument entirely off the text of the primary rule book makes it exactly rules as written, but I would be open to hearing a compelling case for why it isn't so.

[eggynack]

I think that basing my argument entirely off the text of the primary rule book makes it exactly rules as written, but I would be open to hearing a compelling case for why it isn't so.
Well, that's easy enough. The other text, cited by me, is also in a primary rule book, in more places, and in my opinion, less ambiguous. I gotta admit though, I do kinda like the "Not a weapon, except treated as a weapon in every possible respect," model. Has a nice symmetry with the way 1d2 crusaders work, and it acts as a nifty compromise, reasonably explaining away the glossary thing (You're not using a weapon. You're just using something that does everything a weapon does unless stated otherwise in a particular fashion). It's not a position that especially fits with the spell citations, and things of that ilk, but it fits with just about everything else.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well, that's easy enough. The other text, cited by me, is also in a primary rule book, in more places, and in my opinion, less ambiguous. I gotta admit though, I do kinda like the "Not a weapon, except treated as a weapon in every possible respect," model. Has a nice symmetry with the way 1d2 crusaders work, and it acts as a nifty compromise, reasonably explaining away the glossary thing (You're not using a weapon. You're just using something that does everything a weapon does unless stated otherwise in a particular fashion). It's not a position that especially fits with the spell citations, and things of that ilk, but it fits with just about everything else.

I neither directed that at you, nor did it apply to what I said.

[eggynack]

I neither directed that at you, nor did it apply to what I said.
Fair enough, I suppose. I must admit to being a bit confused by the whole argumentation style not allowing you to conclude your position as RAW thing that he mentioned.

[OldTrees1]

I think that basing my argument entirely off the text of the primary rule book makes it exactly rules as written, but I would be open to hearing a compelling case for why it isn't so.

Oh, that isn't the point of potential error. Your use of text from the primary source is obviously valid. The point of potential error is that several of those sections have been read multiple ways. Obviously each reader is only seeing one interpretation (otherwise the argument would have ended).

Given your interpretation you can create a self consistent argument to reach your position. However your interpretation is not a given. This is different from begging the question because your interpretation is not the same thing as your position. However it suffers similarly weak persuasive power when others do not share your interpretation.

Now it is default human internet behavior to respond "I disagree with your interpretation, thus I disproved your conclusion[Inverse Error], thus I proved my conclusion[Sometimes erroneous]". This is why I defaulted to expecting this from posters in this thread. However you surprised me by stopping before the Inverse Error and instead going "I disagree with your interpretation, my interpretation leads to this other conclusion". While this is a much weaker claim that the default, it is actually valid unlike the default.

Summary: An argument based only on the text is probably valid. An argument based on a debated interpretation(<-point of weakness) of the text is probably less valid and certainly less persuasive.

[Stella]

It's not really intellectual dishonesty. I see the argument you're making, but it is significantly less strong. In particular, you're pointing to a line that would be kinda weird under my interpretation.
Yeah, it really is. Whenever you're confronted with a straight up example from the RAW where US is listed separately from all things weapons, you retreat into either ignoring the citation, or now calling it "weird", whatever value that label is supposed to have with the RAW. It's not "weird", it's simple English language with an easy to understand meaning.


The game straight out says that unarmed strikes are weapons in several (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alignWeapon.htm) different (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons ) places (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions). Just straight up "this thing is that" equivalence. I don't know how much stronger evidence can get.
No, the rules do not do this thing which you keep asserting. You could find a reference which did not include the text "considered as" or "treated as", for a start, which your first two references plainly do.

And as for Align Weapon? Let's actually quote this, since you're fond of just linking things which conveniently leaves the text you believe supports your position out of the thread where it can be easily debated.

Align Weapon
Transmutation [see text]
Level: Clr 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Weapon touched or fifty projectiles (all of which must be in contact with each other at the time of casting)
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)

Align weapon makes a weapon good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, as you choose. A weapon that is aligned can bypass the damage reduction of certain creatures. This spell has no effect on a weapon that already has an alignment.

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.

When you make a weapon good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, align weapon is a good, evil, lawful, or chaotic spell, respectively.
I'm going to assume that the text you're interested in is this:

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.
That text relies upon this rule:

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.
Here again we have "treated as", and this text makes any description of US as a natural weapon under spells or effects subordinate to the "treated as" text in the monk class feature describing exactly how you may apply spells and effect to the monk's unarmed strikes. You can't cast Align Weapon on a natural weapon, and therefore you also can't cast it on a monk using the "treated as" clause in the monk class feature. This is all just a real, simple reading of the RAW.


I'm not really sure what you mean here. Her citations don't actually say, "Unarmed strikes aren't weapons." They just vaguely nod in that direction.
There you go again. The plain language indicates a difference. You just chose to label it "weird" or disregard it entirely. Or you decide that 3/5 = 1.

Tell you what, you give me 1 million dollars, and I'll give you back 3/5 million dollars. We're all equal, right? Because according to you, the fact that 3/5 million dollars is just as good as 1 million dollars in a lot of cases makes it the exact same thing. When I'm buying a $40,000 car, having 3/5 million dollars is just as good as having 1 million dollars. But they aren't even close to being the same thing. But since you insist upon their equivalence, let's make this exchange. I'm happy to do this as many times as you like until you come to understand that there is indeed a difference.

I'm done with this thread*. As OldTrees has pointed out, you'll never agree to discard your misinterpretation of the RAW even when that error causes all kinds of other RAW issues. That alone should be enough for you to reconsider, but your retreat is "RAW is absurd", instead of the correct response which would be to take another hard look at your false premises.

Unarmed strike isn't a weapon, and therefore not only does it not require weapon proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, but it would be an error by RAW to even take unarmed strike as a weapon proficiency.


* And please, don't even think about describing me as "slinking off" the way you did earlier in this thread when describing your other rules debate partners. I have no knowledge of those debates, but given your debate tactics here I would be happy to hazard a guess that they became just as tired of beating a dead horse with you just as I have.

[Dalebert]

I started to say it's too bad you folks don't play Pathfinder because this thread could have been a lot shorter and then link this--

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/strike-unarmed


An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

But then I realized that the 3.5 SRD says the exact same thing verbatim (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons ) and this has already been pointed out earlier in the thread. I've been trying to follow the debate but you guys lost me somewhere in your walls of text. What's ambiguous at all about this statement?

[eggynack]

Yeah, it really is. Whenever you're confronted with a straight up example from the RAW where US is listed separately from all things weapons, you retreat into either ignoring the citation, or now calling it "weird", whatever value that label is supposed to have with the RAW. It's not "weird", it's simple English language with an easy to understand meaning.
The issue with your citation is that it's absolutely possible that they'd list unarmed strike, which is a weapon, separate from other weapons. It's a weird decision to make, which is why I called it weird, but what it's not is impossible.



No, the rules do not do this thing which you keep asserting. You could find a reference which did not include the text "considered as" or "treated as", for a start, which your first two references plainly do.
And what I keep asking you to do is to specifically define the issue with the fact that those phrases are used. Just because the game says treated as with reference to them being light weapons, that doesn't necessarily mean that you don't need proficiency.


And as for Align Weapon? Let's actually quote this, since you're fond of just linking things which conveniently leaves the text you believe supports your position out of the thread where it can be easily debated.
I suppose I just thought it was reasonably clear, given that the relevant rules text there only takes up three lines. If you really wanted me to provide a specific quote, you could have just asked in a polite manner. For example, "Which specific part of that spell indicates that unarmed strikes are natural weapons."

I'm going to assume that the text you're interested in is this:
It is indeed.

That text relies upon this rule:
It obviously does not. Non-monks have unarmed strikes too, after all, and they also fall prey to that clause of align weapon. You'd probably have to find some quote that indicates that sort of thing relative to all unarmed strikes to make this claim.


Here again we have "treated as", and this text makes any description of US as a natural weapon under spells or effects subordinate to the "treated as" text in the monk class feature describing exactly how you may apply spells and effect to the monk's unarmed strikes. You can't cast Align Weapon on a natural weapon, and therefore you also can't cast it on a monk using the "treated as" clause in the monk class feature. This is all just a real, simple reading of the RAW.
The spell doesn't say that unarmed strikes are treated as natural weapons for the purposes of this spell. It just says that they're natural weapons, straight out. If they wanted to indicate what you're indicating, they could have done so.


There you go again. The plain language indicates a difference. You just chose to label it "weird" or disregard it entirely. Or you decide that 3/5 = 1.
This is very simple. Yes, the plain language indicates a difference. However, what it does not do is necessitate a difference. My claim is that my citations do necessitate them being the same, at least for the purposes of proficiency (and also for all other purposes unless stated otherwise, if you want to get technical).


I'm done with this thread*. As OldTrees has pointed out, you'll never agree to discard your misinterpretation of the RAW even when that error causes all kinds of other RAW issues. That alone should be enough for you to reconsider, but your retreat is "RAW is absurd", instead of the correct response which would be to take another hard look at your false premises.
It's entirely your prerogative to leave if you wish to, though I think that we're at least getting somewhere now that you're actually providing some argument for the inaccuracy of my citations. At the same time though, my retreat isn't RAW is absurd. That's my frigging premise, or perhaps my intended conclusion. The whole point of this is to show that monks, the masters of weaponless combat, and kings of the unarmed strike, take a penalty when fighting without weapons. We're talking silly RAW issues right at the outset of my argument. Extra silly RAW issues obviously aren't going to frighten me away as a result.


Unarmed strike isn't a weapon, and therefore not only does it not require weapon proficiency to avoid a non-proficiency penalty, but it would be an error by RAW to even take unarmed strike as a weapon proficiency.
As always, that is indeed what you'd be trying to prove if you continued to argue.


* And please, don't even think about describing me as "slinking off" the way you did earlier in this thread when describing your other rules debate partners. I have no knowledge of those debates, but given your debate tactics here I would be happy to hazard a guess that they became just as tired of beating a dead horse with you just as I have.
You can see the sort of argument I'm describing over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?284357-how-i-broke-the-wizard-and-became-the-most-powerful-person-in-the-party/page5) if you'd like. Just absolutely massive piles of evidence in every direction pouring out against Pickford's position. This argument is less like that, though I do think I have pretty stable RAW ground for this one.

Incidentally, what do you think of the, "Not a weapon but always treated as one for all purposes" model. I think it fits in pretty well with most of the problems you've cited with the version where they're just always a weapon. As an example of how that would play out: Why is the unarmed strike listed separately in weapon focus? Because it's not a weapon. Why do you need proficiency to wield it?

[georgie_leech]

I started to say it's too bad you folks don't play Pathfinder because this thread could have been a lot shorter and then link this--

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/strike-unarmed



But then I realized that the 3.5 SRD says the exact same thing verbatim (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons ) and this has already been pointed out earlier in the thread. I've been trying to follow the debate but you guys lost me somewhere in your walls of text. What's ambiguous at all about this statement?

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-28947-let-me-explain-no-there-is-too-gxhB.gif

The one side is arguing what you say, the other that "considered" implies that it isn't actually a light weapon, otherwise it would just say "is a light weapon." The first side is pointing out that that would include non-proficiency penalties. There's a third side critiquing both sides' argumentative technique and logical processes.

[Dalebert]

The one side is arguing what you say, the other that "considered" implies that it isn't actually a light weapon, otherwise it would just say "is a light weapon." The first side is pointing out that that would include non-proficiency penalties. There's a third side critiquing both sides' argumentative technique and logical processes.

Oh... so my previous conclusion that this thread ain't going anywhere anytime soon remains sound. In that case...
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/gorilla-walking-away-gif.gif

[Vogonjeltz]

Oh, that isn't the point of potential error. Your use of text from the primary source is obviously valid. The point of potential error is that several of those sections have been read multiple ways. Obviously each reader is only seeing one interpretation (otherwise the argument would have ended).

Given your interpretation you can create a self consistent argument to reach your position. However your interpretation is not a given. This is different from begging the question because your interpretation is not the same thing as your position. However it suffers similarly weak persuasive power when others do not share your interpretation.

Now it is default human internet behavior to respond "I disagree with your interpretation, thus I disproved your conclusion[Inverse Error], thus I proved my conclusion[Sometimes erroneous]". This is why I defaulted to expecting this from posters in this thread. However you surprised me by stopping before the Inverse Error and instead going "I disagree with your interpretation, my interpretation leads to this other conclusion". While this is a much weaker claim that the default, it is actually valid unlike the default.

Summary: An argument based only on the text is probably valid. An argument based on a debated interpretation(<-point of weakness) of the text is probably less valid and certainly less persuasive.

Am I then to simply accept that all readings are equally valid by virtue of being debated?

Or to put it another way: I don't think eggynacks side of the argument holds any merit, how am I supposed to show this if it is considered of equal status just because it's another reading?

[georgie_leech]

Am I then to simply accept that all readings are equally valid by virtue of being debated?

Or to put it another way: I don't think eggynacks side of the argument holds any merit, how am I supposed to show this if it is considered of equal status just because it's another reading?

To put it another way, your presenting the quote as evidence is failing because the both of you are interpreting it in different ways. Him quoting it at you is unlikely to move you, and you quoting it at him is unlikely to move him. We've already established what your position is. There's no confusion about that, so repeating it is unlikely to get the debate anywhere. Perhaps you could find support for the idea that US being treated as a Light weapon but not actually being a weapon means it doesn't require proficiency? In other words, finding evidence that "always treated as a light weapon" excludes being treated so for the purposes of proficiency? Off the top of my head, Monsters that, due to typing, would lack proficiency with US that nevertheless are shown to be using it would be evidence; not concrete, but evidence nonetheless (Monks, being the subject at the heart of debate, can't be used as evidence either way). On the flip side, Monsters (again, those that would normally lack the proficiency) that have something like "Simple Weapon Proficiency (Unarmed Strike)" would be evidence that it is treated as a weapon for proficiency.

[OldTrees1]

Am I then to simply accept that all readings are equally valid by virtue of being debated?

Or to put it another way: I don't think eggynacks side of the argument holds any merit, how am I supposed to show this if it is considered of equal status just because it's another reading?

Well there are objective measurements that could disqualify a reading from being a valid reading.
a) It is self inconsistent. (Very rare to see one of these. Basically p ^ ~p)
b) It is not using meanings that are common to the game or common to the language the game is written in. (" 'treated as' <=> 'is a' " might be considered such but it is not crucial to eggy's position)

However proving a position isn't RAW is not the only way of proving a position doesn't have merit. Although this forum doesn't seem to agree with me on this.

One method would be to show both positions are equally RAW, but your position is more RAI than the other position.

However, in general, when something is ambiguous enough that it can validly be seen 2+ ways, there is no honest way to settle the argument without recognizing both. This can be hard because debaters are the the last people to recognize the situation because they become too buried in their positions.

[Vogonjeltz]

To put it another way, your presenting the quote as evidence is failing because the both of you are interpreting it in different ways. Him quoting it at you is unlikely to move you, and you quoting it at him is unlikely to move him. We've already established what your position is. There's no confusion about that, so repeating it is unlikely to get the debate anywhere. Perhaps you could find support for the idea that US being treated as a Light weapon but not actually being a weapon means it doesn't require proficiency? In other words, finding evidence that "always treated as a light weapon" excludes being treated so for the purposes of proficiency? Off the top of my head, Monsters that, due to typing, would lack proficiency with US that nevertheless are shown to be using it would be evidence; not concrete, but evidence nonetheless (Monks, being the subject at the heart of debate, can't be used as evidence either way). On the flip side, Monsters (again, those that would normally lack the proficiency) that have something like "Simple Weapon Proficiency (Unarmed Strike)" would be evidence that it is treated as a weapon for proficiency.

Well, I'd come to the same conclusion myself about swaying, however, there is this regarding proficiency:
"These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon’s use (simple, martial, or exotic),"

I'm positing if it isn't a weapon (simple, martial, exotic) then it can't require weapon proficiency. By being a non weapon, proficiency is a moot question as the penalty is only said to apply to using a weapon without being proficient.

So as a logic proposition:
If and only if A and not B then C
Not A, therefore not C.

Where A = thing is a weapon
B = no weapon proficiency
C = take -4 penalty.


Well there are objective measurements that could disqualify a reading from being a valid reading.
a) It is self inconsistent. (Very rare to see one of these. Basically p ^ ~p)
b) It is not using meanings that are common to the game or common to the language the game is written in. (" 'treated as' <=> 'is a' " might be considered such but it is not crucial to eggy's position)

However proving a position isn't RAW is not the only way of proving a position doesn't have merit. Although this forum doesn't seem to agree with me on this.

One method would be to show both positions are equally RAW, but your position is more RAI than the other position.

However, in general, when something is ambiguous enough that it can validly be seen 2+ ways, there is no honest way to settle the argument without recognizing both. This can be hard because debaters are the the last people to recognize the situation because they become too buried in their positions.

I think even eggynack agreed that it's rules as intended, he said he was arguing that as written there's a dysfunction, not that it's meant to be. I was arguing there is no dysfunction as written. Anyway, I agree with Stella, this isn't going anywhere.

[georgie_leech]

However, in general, when something is ambiguous enough that it can validly be seen 2+ ways, there is no honest way to settle the argument without recognizing both. This can be hard because debaters are the the last people to recognize the situation because they become too buried in their positions.

Proper debaters should strive for being able to see all sides to fully understand their own position, but we all know how well that works out in real life. :smallamused:

[eggynack]

Well, I'd come to the same conclusion myself about swaying, however, there is this regarding proficiency:
"These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon’s use (simple, martial, or exotic),"
Here's my question then. Why is an unarmed strike not treated as a weapon for the purposes of that line? It is a place where something could be theoretically treated as a weapon (imagine the line, "Treat an unarmed strike as a simple weapon for the purposes of requiring proficiency), and the book says that unarmed strikes should always be treated as a weapon, so it seems logical that the game does treat the unarmed strike as a weapon for the purposes of proficiency. After all, that theoretical quote is self-evidently a subset of "always".


So as a logic proposition:
If and only if A and not B then C
Not A, therefore not C.

Where A = thing is a weapon
B = no weapon proficiency
C = take -4 penalty.
So, to put it another way, this logical line is wrong, because A is a false premise. After all, I think that you would agree that the existence of a line such as the one I listed, that unarmed strikes should be treated as a weapon for the purposes of proficiencies, would theoretically lead to C. My current argument (which may take a stronger form in certain cases, particularly dependent on acceptance of various spell evidence) is that such a line as the one I listed does in fact exist, as it is a subset of an existing line.

[georgie_leech]

Come to think of it, is there anywhere that has an example of a Wizard using an Unarmed Strike? They are in the same boat as Monk in that they don't have automatic proficiency; however, they have less of an image as fighting unarmed. If they could use unarmed strike without non-proficiency penalties, it would be evidence in favour of US not requiring proficiency.

[eggynack]

Come to think of it, is there anywhere that has an example of a Wizard using an Unarmed Strike? They are in the same boat as Monk in that they don't have automatic proficiency; however, they have less of an image as fighting unarmed. If they could use unarmed strike without non-proficiency penalties, it would be evidence in favour of US not requiring proficiency.
That it would be, though I think we're still in that same odd example space we were in before. After all, if examples and stat-blocks had the authority to determine RAW and contradict actual rules text, then things would get contradictory in a hurry. Incidentally, it would be nice to see a quote of the monk example that was provided awhile back. Don't really have access to premium whatevers, if that's the only source, and if it's not the only source, then a different citation is probably necessary.

[georgie_leech]

That it would be, though I think we're still in that same odd example space we were in before. After all, if examples and stat-blocks had the authority to determine RAW and contradict actual rules text, then things would get contradictory in a hurry. Incidentally, it would be nice to see a quote of the monk example that was provided awhile back. Don't really have access to premium whatevers, if that's the only source, and if it's not the only source, then a different citation is probably necessary.

Mm, it's not ironclad in either direction. However, in a circumstance like this where multiple readings are plausible (if not likely) it at least points in the right direction. Specifically, if Wizards get a penalty when attacking using US, it's likelier that the designers intended US to require proficiency and Wizards lack it as a deliberate choice (Monks less so); If they don't, it's likelier that US doesn't require proficiency to use. Neither would be proof by any means, but it at least changes the balance of probabilities.

[eggynack]

Neither would be proof by any means, but it at least changes the balance of probabilities.
The tricky thing with probabilities is that I don't think that anyone's put up much of a serious refutation to the main thrust of my argument in awhile. There was a bit going on awhile back, but it died down pretty quickly after I provided reasonable evidence for light weapons necessarily being weapons. As much as I like little pieces of evidence that point in the direction of a major point, it seems a bit pointless until such an attack is made in a major way, because if my argument holds up to scrutiny, then that's just the end of it.

Way I figure it, it'd probably either attack from the angle of, "Light weapons aren't necessarily weapons," or, "Treated as light weapons only points towards the light aspect rather than the weapon aspect." Either path would be pretty difficult, but it's not implausible that one of them could work. I don't really know how such an argument would be put together offhand, so it could prove pretty interesting. Might necessitate a retreat to one of my more tenuous evidence chunks. But, y'know, now I'm making plans around arguments that don't even currently exist, so I should probably stop doing that, because it's weird.

[OldTrees1]

Way I figure it, it'd probably either attack from the angle of, "Light weapons aren't necessarily weapons," or, "Treated as light weapons only points towards the light aspect rather than the weapon aspect." Either path would be pretty difficult, but it's not implausible that one of them could work. I don't really know how such an argument would be put together offhand, so it could prove pretty interesting. Might necessitate a retreat to one of my more tenuous evidence chunks. But, y'know, now I'm making plans around arguments that don't even currently exist, so I should probably stop doing that, because it's weird.

Actually it would be phrased: " 'Treated as a light weapon'(treated as having the light trait and working with anything that works with a light weapon) does not imply 'treated as a weapon'(weapons have more traits than mere handedness)."

However this argument has already been presented.

[georgie_leech]

The tricky thing with probabilities is that I don't think that anyone's put up much of a serious refutation to the main thrust of my argument in awhile. There was a bit going on awhile back, but it died down pretty quickly after I provided reasonable evidence for light weapons necessarily being weapons. As much as I like little pieces of evidence that point in the direction of a major point, it seems a bit pointless until such an attack is made in a major way, because if my argument holds up to scrutiny, then that's just the end of it.

Way I figure it, it'd probably either attack from the angle of, "Light weapons aren't necessarily weapons," or, "Treated as light weapons only points towards the light aspect rather than the weapon aspect." Either path would be pretty difficult, but it's not implausible that one of them could work. I don't really know how such an argument would be put together offhand, so it could prove pretty interesting. Might necessitate a retreat to one of my more tenuous evidence chunks. But, y'know, now I'm making plans around arguments that don't even currently exist, so I should probably stop doing that, because it's weird.

Actually, that's more or less how proper experimentation works: Have a theory, work out what sort of data you should get, see if you can get that data. When you do, see if you can figure out what would make it potentially not work, then try and do that.

For the record, I'm more or less of the position that US isn't technically a weapon in the sense of an outside device used to attack, but it is a thing you can make attack rolls with and is treated as such in every possible way, including for the purposes of proficiency. I know what evidence convinces me of this ("always treated as a light weapon;" it's place on the weapon's table when it could easily have been kept separate), and conversely, I also know what evidence would cause me to adjust my beliefs (official rules text of a creatures other than a monk not taking proficiency penalties when they don't have proficiency), or even discard it altogether (unlikely, as that would only be direct text saying something like "US is not a weapon" or "there is no non-proficiency penalty for US"). I've not managed to find such, so my confidence in my position is relatively high, but it's always possible someone more versed in the rules could come along and find evidence for the other side; I recognise that this interpretation is not the only valid RAW reading.

[OldTrees1]

Actually, that's more or less how proper experimentation works: Have a theory, work out what sort of data you should get, see if you can get that data. When you do, see if you can figure out what would make it potentially not work, then try and do that.

Correction: Experimentation is honestly trying to disprove yourthe theory and failing. So you would be looking for data you should not get if youthe theory were correct.

It looks like you knew this but I wanted to make it clear for others reading.

Edit: Corrected by George_leech

[georgie_leech]

Correction: Experimentation is honestly trying to disprove your theory and failing. So you would be looking for data you should not get if you the theory were correct.

Slightly pedantic quibble because it's fully possible to test a theory you yourself don't believe is true, assuming it is well formulated.

[OldTrees1]

Slightly pedantic quibble because it's fully possible to test a theory you yourself don't believe is true, assuming it is well formulated.

Thank you for the correction. I think it is a important note and not pedantic quibbling. Especially in the current context.

[Gwendol]

The tricky thing with probabilities is that I don't think that anyone's put up much of a serious refutation to the main thrust of my argument in awhile. There was a bit going on awhile back, but it died down pretty quickly after I provided reasonable evidence for light weapons necessarily being weapons. As much as I like little pieces of evidence that point in the direction of a major point, it seems a bit pointless until such an attack is made in a major way, because if my argument holds up to scrutiny, then that's just the end of it.

Way I figure it, it'd probably either attack from the angle of, "Light weapons aren't necessarily weapons," or, "Treated as light weapons only points towards the light aspect rather than the weapon aspect." Either path would be pretty difficult, but it's not implausible that one of them could work. I don't really know how such an argument would be put together offhand, so it could prove pretty interesting. Might necessitate a retreat to one of my more tenuous evidence chunks. But, y'know, now I'm making plans around arguments that don't even currently exist, so I should probably stop doing that, because it's weird.

What is the main thrust of your argument then? At this point in time, I might add. You have argued that US is really a natural weapon (based on spell descriptions), which would invalidate most of the rules surrounding US. Is that still the case?
Right now it seems to hinge on the idea that "considered as a light weapon" has ill-defined boundaries wrt proficiencies (I'm assuming Simple Weapon proficiency?). There is no proficiency for light weapons, only Simple, Martial and Exotic. US is grouped with Simple Weapons in the weapons table, but under a separate heading called Unarmed Attacks. What then is an Unarmed Attack? The glossary says:

unarmed attack

A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.

Source: PHB

And, specifically regarding unarmed strikes:

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.

Source: PHB

So, the character is attacking without weapons. What are proficiencies needed for?

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

Proficiencies are needed for the use of weapons. The US is not a weapon, it's a melee attack made with no weapon, thus proficiencies do not apply.


As for the spell descriptions, you only need to look up the IUS description under the Monk class entry:

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.
The spells you quoted are those that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons, hence the apparant rules dysfunction of the classification of the US as a natural weapon (since it does not appear in the explanation of natural weapons, and the stark rules differences regarding the two). Thus, in the context of the application of those spells, US and natural weapons (or manufactured weapons) are synonymous.

Edit: And as I've noted previously, wizards and druids can "safely" punch someone without incuring a non-proficiency penalty also. This is in no way limited to monks.

[Tryxx]

This thread has totally borked my understanding of Unarmed Strikes.

From what I understand, the two main to arguments are:

a) Unarmed Strikes are always treated as light weapons. The underlying point being that they're not really weapons, and thus don't require any proficiency. Feats like Weapon Specialization, which specifically call out unarmed strike seem to support this argument.

b) Unarmed Strikes are always treated as light weapons. The underlying point here being that always includes needing proficiency with an Unarmed Attack.

What confuses me is that I don't understand why either of these arguments point to the Magic Fang or Align Weapon spells. Those spells refer to Unarmed Strike as a natural weapon. I don't know of any PC, NPC, or Monster that has an Unarmed Attack listed as a primary attack, and it would seem to me the -5 penalty for a secondary attack is worse than -4 for non-profiency. How do these spells and the natural weapon verbiage support either argument? (I assume it's just an SRD editing error by linking the natural weapon text to the natural weapon special ability entry; after all, I highly doubt anyone plays devils as Vulnerable to Cold like the SRD suggests.)

[eggynack]

What is the main thrust of your argument then? At this point in time, I might add. You have argued that US is really a natural weapon (based on spell descriptions), which would invalidate most of the rules surrounding US. Is that still the case?
Not at the moment. I might pursue that line more at some point, but I'm currently going with the treated angle, which I think holds more consistent with the rest of the game, as you will presumably see below when I use that premise on your arguments.


Right now it seems to hinge on the idea that "considered as a light weapon" has ill-defined boundaries wrt proficiencies (I'm assuming Simple Weapon proficiency?). There is no proficiency for light weapons, only Simple, Martial and Exotic. US is grouped with Simple Weapons in the weapons table, but under a separate heading called Unarmed Attacks.
There is, in fact, proficiency for light weapons. Perhaps not directly, but as I've shown elsewhere in this thread, included in the definition for light weapons is the fact that they're necessarily weapons, and as you've shown below, included in the definition of weapons is that you need proficiency. Once we've established that we're treating this thing as a weapon, that's when we look to the table to determine what sort of proficiency is necessary.


What then is an Unarmed Attack? The glossary says:


And, specifically regarding unarmed strikes:


So, the character is attacking without weapons. What are proficiencies needed for?
Here's the place where my initial premise in this post comes into play. In particular, you're not attacking with a weapon, fitting in with the glossary definition (though I still hold that the definition is on the ambiguous side), but you are attacking with something which is treated as a weapon, which requires proficiency.


Proficiencies are needed for the use of weapons. The US is not a weapon, it's a melee attack made with no weapon, thus proficiencies do not apply.
As I noted in my argument against Vogongeltz, this logical line doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The basic gist is that not only weapons, but also things treated as weapons with reference to proficiency, require proficiency to use. As an unarmed strike is treated as a weapon always, and as proficiency is a subset of always, proficiencies absolutely do apply.


As for the spell descriptions, you only need to look up the IUS description under the Monk class entry:

The spells you quoted are those that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons, hence the apparant rules dysfunction of the classification of the US as a natural weapon (since it does not appear in the explanation of natural weapons, and the stark rules differences regarding the two). Thus, in the context of the application of those spells, US and natural weapons (or manufactured weapons) are synonymous.
And as I noted in my argument against Stella, this claim just doesn't work at all. The line from align weapon applies not only to monk unarmed strikes, but also to unarmed strikes made by anyone else. Thus, you really need some broader citation, like, "Unarmed strikes are always treated..." not attached to monks. Your argument doesn't even necessarily hold solid if you find such a line, as align weapon says that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, rather than that they're treated as natural weapons, but it would at least provide a reasonable justification for the line from a RAW perspective.


Edit: And as I've noted previously, wizards and druids can "safely" punch someone without incuring a non-proficiency penalty also. This is in no way limited to monks.
I'm aware that that would be the major ramification if your claim held up, yes.

Edit:

What confuses me is that I don't understand why either of these arguments point to the Magic Fang or Align Weapon spells. Those spells refer to Unarmed Strike as a natural weapon. I don't know of any PC, NPC, or Monster that has an Unarmed Attack listed as a primary attack, and it would seem to me the -5 penalty for a secondary attack is worse than -4 for non-profiency. How do these spells and the natural weapon verbiage support either argument? (I assume it's just an SRD editing error by linking the natural weapon text to the natural weapon special ability entry; after all, I highly doubt anyone plays devils as Vulnerable to Cold like the SRD suggests.)
It's a bit disconnected from the main argument being pursued actually, particularly as the logic holding would necessarily lead to the victory of monk sadness. As for your subsequent statement, unarmed strikes appear to work differently from other natural weapons, in that they operate under the standard iterative system rather than the primary/secondary system, so a monk using them, assuming they're natural weapons, would incur only the non-proficiency penalty unless they're also using other natural weapons as primary weapons. As for the SRD thing, no, those quotes are all right there in the book. I just cite the SRD because it makes both the creation of citations and the reading of them significantly easier.

[Tryxx]

Edit:
It's a bit disconnected from the main argument being pursued actually, particularly as the logic holding would necessarily lead to the victory of monk sadness. As for your subsequent statement, unarmed strikes appear to work differently from other natural weapons, in that they operate under the standard iterative system rather than the primary/secondary system, so a monk using them, assuming they're natural weapons, would incur only the non-proficiency penalty unless they're also using other natural weapons as primary weapons. As for the SRD thing, no, those quotes are all right there in the book. I just cite the SRD because it makes both the creation of citations and the reading of them significantly easier.

Makes sense to me.

As far as the SRD thing, I was only referring to the links in the spell description. Like Align Weapon's: "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons), such as an unarmed strike (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#unarmedStrike)." I feel like the link to the full entry of Natural Weapons is confusing and something of a dysfunction since they're treated so differently. Just like any Devil's special qualities listed in the SRD - as their Immunity to Fire and Poison points to fire immunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fireImmunity) - and I highly doubt anyone plays a Pit Fiend as Vulnerable to Cold.

[Gwendol]

Well, for one Unarmed Strikes are not listed among Natural Weapons, except for the Monk IUS which is spelled out as being equivalent to an US in that specific situation (certain spell effects). If you can find another situation (barring spells that enhance or improve natural weapons) where Natural weapons=Unarmed strikes you have a case.

For example, US and NW not being the same rhyme well with this explanation of the amulet of might fists:

Amulet of Mighty Fists

This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

As for light weapons. You would indeed require proficiency if wielding a weapon. You're not in this case so the point is moot.
The full quote is:
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 know the US can be used together with weapon finesse. In what other instances do we consider light weapons? They can be used in a grapple. They can be used as an off-hand weapon without extra penalty. You can't wield a light weapon 2-handed (not applicaple in the case of US, but added for completeness). And some other details.
Nowhere does the question of proficiency come up as a consideration, meaning that a designation of "light" has no impact on proficiency. That is instead regulated by the simple-martial-exotic classification.

However, only weapons require proficiency, and as has been shown before, US is not a weapon, it's an unarmed attack. There are other attacks that don't require proficiencies, and that are "unarmed", so it's not like there is no precedence: tripping, bull-rushing, grappling, for example. Same goes for spell attacks: they don't require proficiency (except for specific cases in which the spell grants proficiency).

[georgie_leech]

However, only weapons require proficiency, and as has been shown before, US is not a weapon, it's an unarmed attack. There are other attacks that don't require proficiencies, and that are "unarmed", so it's not like there is no precedence: tripping, bull-rushing, grappling, for example.

Do we have evidence that this is the case (for classes other than the Monk)? It's a logical consequence of your theory, and an additional place to find evidence, but until then it's another piece of theory only. Note that such non-proficiency penalties would apply only to the attack part and not the check itself, so creatures that do any of the above through some other means (like wolves getting a free trip attempt on any bite attack) would bypass such rules.


Same goes for spell attacks: they don't require proficiency (except for specific cases in which the spell grants proficiency).

Conversely, do we have text suggesting spells are always treated as weapons? Without that text there's no reason to consider them requiring proficiency at all, so they're not the same class of thing.

[Gwendol]

What do you mean? Proficiencies are in relation to weapons, not attacks.

Edit: spells? Oh, sorry. I am talking about touch spells and other spells requiring an attack roll.

[georgie_leech]

What do you mean? Proficiencies are in relation to weapons, not attacks.

Edit: spells? Oh, sorry. I am talking about touch spells and other spells requiring an attack roll.

Right, and we're told that US is "always treated as a light weapon." If this is incorrect, or rather, if this excludes being treated as a weapon for the purpose of proficiency, we should be able to find examples of things using US that don't have the Simple Weapon proficiency (because if it did need proficiency, the table indicates that's the sort that would be needed) nevertheless doing so without penalty. Monks aren't evidence here, since the observation that Monks might not be proficient is what got us into this mess.

In contrast, we are never told spells are always treated as weapons, so we have no reason to imagine they require proficiency. US requiring proficiency doesn't imply spells involving touch attacks do as well, barring the obvious case of delivering said spells through US.

[Gwendol]

How did you go from light weapon to simple weapon?

[eggynack]

Well, for one Unarmed Strikes are not listed among Natural Weapons, except for the Monk IUS which is spelled out as being equivalent to an US in that specific situation (certain spell effects). If you can find another situation (barring spells that enhance or improve natural weapons) where Natural weapons=Unarmed strikes you have a case.
I think I have a case already, actually. The spells indicate weaponhood in all cases, and you have no evidence to limit down the parameters specifically to acting within spells without using that monk citation, at least currently.


As for light weapons. You would indeed require proficiency if wielding a weapon. You're not in this case so the point is moot.
My point is that that claim is self contradictory. Light weapons are necessarily weapons, and things treated as light weapons are thus treated as weapons for this purpose.


The full quote is:
There is no full quote, or more accurately, the line that I was specifically quoting has no such expansion. In particular, I was quoting the PHB page 113, where it says, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon," with no modifiers.


So we know the US can be used together with weapon finesse. In what other instances do we consider light weapons? They can be used in a grapple. They can be used as an off-hand weapon without extra penalty. You can't wield a light weapon 2-handed (not applicaple in the case of US, but added for completeness). And some other details.
Nowhere does the question of proficiency come up as a consideration, meaning that a designation of "light" has no impact on proficiency. That is instead regulated by the simple-martial-exotic classification.
Proficiency doesn't come directly from being (treated as) a light weapon, but indirectly from the fact that light weapons are necessarily weapons. Over and over again, through the entire definition of light weapon, this is a thing that is indicated. A light weapon is a weapon with certain qualities. It cannot be a different thing with certain qualities.


However, only weapons require proficiency, and as has been shown before, US is not a weapon, it's an unarmed attack. There are other attacks that don't require proficiencies, and that are "unarmed", so it's not like there is no precedence: tripping, bull-rushing, grappling, for example. Same goes for spell attacks: they don't require proficiency (except for specific cases in which the spell grants proficiency).
Those things are different. Unarmed strike has specific places in text which say that you should always treat them as weapons. Combat maneuvers and spells, even weapon-like spells, have no such text.

[georgie_leech]

How did you go from light weapon to simple weapon?

Because if it is treated as a weapon for proficiency, it would need a proficiency class. Based on where it is on the Weapons table, that would be Simple. We have no other evidence at all as to what type would be needed; we have no evidence suggesting Martial or Exotic.

[OldTrees1]

How did you go from light weapon to simple weapon?

If US is treated as a light weapon instead of treated as a light weapon, then it would have a type of proficiency it is treated as needing. Via the table we can see the type of proficiency needed, if needed, would have to be Simple Weapon Proficiency. Thus any evidence for US being treated as a simple weapon is evidence of it being treated as a light weapon over it being treated as a light weapon.

[Gwendol]

Because if it is treated as a weapon for proficiency, it would need a proficiency class. Based on where it is on the Weapons table, that would be Simple. We have no other evidence at all as to what type would be needed; we have no evidence suggesting Martial or Exotic.

It is found in the weapons table yes, but not under a weapons heading. Nor is it ever described as being a weapon. It is grouped under the heading unarmed attacks. The glossary defines this as attacking without a weapon. Proficiency is required for weapons.
Whatever you believe "treated as a light weapon" means you need to show that US is a weapon to claim proficiency is needed.

I'm done here.

[eggynack]

It is found in the weapons table yes, but not under a weapons heading. Nor is it ever described as being a weapon. It is grouped under the heading unarmed attacks. The glossary defines this as attacking without a weapon. Proficiency is required for weapons.
Whatever you believe "treated as a light weapon" means you need to show that US is a weapon to claim proficiency is needed.
He's not using the table to indicate that unarmed strike is a weapon. He's just using it to give it a proficiency category once it's already established as a weapon, or something otherwise to be treated as a weapon. The fact that unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons, by my argument, indicates that proficiency is necessary, because as I've mentioned, proficiency is necessary for not only weapons, but also for things that are to be treated as weapons relative to proficiency. If you think that's an incorrect thing, you should probably provide an argument for that perspective instead of just continually insisting on your correctness.

[Gwendol]

How is that then? Can you give an example that supports your position?

There are after all weapons in the game that don't require proficiency.

[eggynack]

How is that then? Can you give an example that supports your position?
An example of what? The book says that weapons require proficiency. Thus, things treated as weapons require proficiency. Unless a weapon specifically says it doesn't require proficiency, and unarmed strikes absolutely do not say that, then the weapon requires proficiency.


There are after all weapons in the game that don't require proficiency.
Which ones are those? I saw you listing some attacks before, but attacks are not necessarily weapons.

[Vogonjeltz]

How did you go from light weapon to simple weapon?

The world will never know. (Tootsie roll pops?)


Because if it is treated as a weapon for proficiency,

Please quote the rules text from the PHB, DMG, or even the MM saying unarmed strikes are treated as weapons for purposes of proficiency. If you can do that, I for one will gladly concede the point.

Otherwise, nothing you or eggynack have said contradicts the rules on page 314 of the PHB.


An example of what? The book says that weapons require proficiency. Thus, things treated as weapons require proficiency. Unless a weapon specifically says it doesn't require proficiency, and unarmed strikes absolutely do not say that, then the weapon requires proficiency.

Your chain of reasoning breaks down at step 1: The book says that weapons require proficiency.

This isn't actually what the book says. Here's what it says: "Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon's use (simple, martial, or exotic)"

So, to be a weapon, for purposes of proficiency, requires that it be categorized a Simple Weapon, Martial Weapon, or Exotic Weapon.

This renders your last statement (Unless a weapon specifically says it doesn't require profiency...) false. It must be shown that whatever you're proposing is a weapon is actually categorized as a Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapon. Otherwise, there's no such thing as profiency, and no requirement for it. The onus is on you to prove the simple/martial/exotic weapon attribute exists for unarmed strikes.

[eggynack]

Your chain of reasoning breaks down at step 1: The book says that weapons require proficiency.

This isn't actually what the book says. Here's what it says: "Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon's use (simple, martial, or exotic)"
Those two statements seem functionally equivalent to me. Weapons, meaning all weapons, are sorted into those categories, presumably unless specifically stated otherwise. Specific does trump general, after all.


So, to be a weapon, for purposes of proficiency, requires that it be categorized a Simple Weapon, Martial Weapon, or Exotic Weapon.
And unarmed strikes are categorized. As a simple weapon. There's a table right there. I mean, really, next thing you're going to tell me is that guisarmes don't require proficiency. There's nothing that indicates which category they fit into after all.


This renders your last statement (Unless a weapon specifically says it doesn't require profiency...) false. It must be shown that whatever you're proposing is a weapon is actually categorized as a Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapon. Otherwise, there's no such thing as profiency, and no requirement for it. The onus is on you to prove the simple/martial/exotic weapon attribute exists for unarmed strikes.
So, yeah. I think I'm past this objection. It's a weapon that's fully categorized, or at least it's a fully categorized thing that's treated as a weapon.

[Vogonjeltz]

Those two statements seem functionally equivalent to me. Weapons, meaning all weapons, are sorted into those categories, presumably unless specifically stated otherwise. Specific does trump general, after all.

The difference you claim to not see is that you were saying the quality of being a weapon requires some proficiency, whereas the text only indicates that proficiency is required if the weapon is categorized as one of those three things (which does not include the light weapon category).



And unarmed strikes are categorized. As a simple weapon. There's a table right there. I mean, really, next thing you're going to tell me is that guisarmes don't require proficiency. There's nothing that indicates which category they fit into after all.


As everyone knows, tables are trumped by text, always.

The text on page 341 overrules your interpretation of what the table is saying by simply and clearly declaring them non weapons. This means it doesn't fall in any of the three limited categories that pertain to proficiency.



So, yeah. I think I'm past this objection. It's a weapon that's fully categorized, or at least it's a fully categorized thing that's treated as a weapon.

No, you still have to prove its a weapon per the text, which you've consistently failed to do.

[eggynack]

The difference you claim to not see is that you were saying the quality of being a weapon requires some proficiency, whereas the text only indicates that proficiency is required if the weapon is categorized as one of those three things (which does not include the light weapon category).
And unarmed strike is categorized as one of those three things, particularly a simple weapon.


As everyone knows, tables are trumped by text, always.

The text on page 341 overrules your interpretation of what the table is saying by simply and clearly declaring them non weapons. This means it doesn't fall in any of the three limited categories that pertain to proficiency.
Even if they're not weapons, they're still treated as weapons according to the text. That means they can fit into a category of proficiency. And the category is written right there on the table. I'm not currently using the table to establish the unarmed strike's nature as a weapon. I'm only using it to establish categorization once the thing is already being treated as a weapon, which is perfectly fair. If you want to attack the definition as weapon, then the citation to poke at is right there on page 113.


No, you still have to prove its a weapon per the text, which you've consistently failed to do.
I've provided a perfectly reasonable argument for your perusal. You just seem to be steadfastly ignoring it.

[Vogonjeltz]

And unarmed strike is categorized as one of those three things, particularly a simple weapon.

Even if they're not weapons, they're still treated as weapons according to the text.

As I said before, prove it in the text. You pointed to the table and we know that's overruled by the text on 341 of the text that specifies unarmed strikes aren't weapons.



That means they can fit into a category of proficiency. And the category is written right there on the table. I'm not currently using the table to establish the unarmed strike's nature as a weapon. I'm only using it to establish categorization once the thing is already being treated as a weapon, which is perfectly fair. If you want to attack the definition as weapon, then the citation to poke at is right there on page 113.

Again, table overruled by text, there's nothing more to be said regarding the table, the text has primacy.

You've still never established that unarmed strikes are treated as weapons for any of the categories besides encumbrance, and that category is entirely unrelated to proficiency.

It would be fair to use the table if the text didn't exist outright saying unarmed strikes aren't weapons, and if you had also shown text proving they were weapons. Instead you pointed to text on 113 saying that it is treated as such (important phrasing, because it's not actually) for a narrow circumstance of encumbrance and then said that applies to all other circumstances (absent any proof in the text that proficiency or size apply to it).



I've provided a perfectly reasonable argument for your perusal. You just seem to be steadfastly ignoring it.

Your argument would be reasonable if it didn't contain the leaps in logic I've just explained, rather patiently, just as Gwendol and Stella did before. I made certain to address every aspect of your post, so if you think something was passed over please say it. The argument you made was pretty simplistic if utterly flawed, so I'm sure I didn't miss anything.

[eggynack]

As I said before, prove it in the text. You pointed to the table and we know that's overruled by the text on 341 of the text that specifies unarmed strikes aren't weapons.
Which one? The table's categorization absolutely isn't overridden, because even if unarmed strikes aren't weapons on the basis of that text, which I still think is ambiguous, they can still be treated as weapons, and things that are treated as weapons can have proficiency.


Again, table overruled by text, there's nothing more to be said regarding the table, the text has primacy.
And the text says that unarmed strikes are treated as weapons.

You've still never established that unarmed strikes are treated as weapons for any of the categories besides encumbrance, and that category is entirely unrelated to proficiency.
The game does not say that unarmed strikes are only treated as light weapons for the purposes of encumbrance. It says always, and part of the definition of light weapon is that the relevant game object is a weapon.


It would be fair to use the table if the text didn't exist outright saying unarmed strikes aren't weapons, and if you had also shown text proving they were weapons. Instead you pointed to text on 113 saying that it is treated as such (important phrasing, because it's not actually) for a narrow circumstance of encumbrance and then said that applies to all other circumstances (absent any proof in the text that proficiency or size apply to it).
See, the important thing here is where you say that that line only applies to a narrow circumstance. That's the thing I disagree with, and it's the thing you have to prove. The proof is right there in the word always. Always means always, not just for encumbrance, and part of light weapons is that they're weapons.

[Vogonjeltz]

Which one?

What is this referring to? I read the bit you quote immediately before saying this, and your question doesn't make any sense.


The table's categorization absolutely isn't overridden, because even if unarmed strikes aren't weapons on the basis of that text, which I still think is ambiguous, they can still be treated as weapons, and things that are treated as weapons can have proficiency.

1) Primacy, text overrules table, always, no exceptions.
2) the text is unambiguous, it literally says they aren't weapons. The word ambiguous means two or more meanings, there isn't a second meaning.
3) The text still doesn't say they're treated as weapons, it says they're considered to have a particular trait that weapons also have. This makes all the difference.



And the text says that unarmed strikes are treated as weapons.


No, it says they are treated as "light weapons", which is a category of encumbrance. That says absolutely nothing at all about them being weapons.


The game does not say that unarmed strikes are only treated as light weapons for the purposes of encumbrance. It says always, and part of the definition of light weapon is that the relevant game object is a weapon.

The term light weapon only refers to encumbrance, and the use of the word treated is plain indication they aren't actually weapons.


See, the important thing here is where you say that that line only applies to a narrow circumstance. That's the thing I disagree with, and it's the thing you have to prove. The proof is right there in the word always. Always means always, not just for encumbrance, and part of light weapons is that they're weapons.

In the phrase "is always considered a light weapon" the word "Always" only answers the question of when.

"Considered" is the action, which means that the reader should treat an unarmed strike as having the property that follows

And lastly "a light weapon" is the just what it says it is in the rules, the encumbrance.

Nothing else can be inferred. No where does it say "always a weapon", which is what you seem to be implying, but it doesn't say that. Anywhere. Instead it only says "always considered a light weapon".

[eggynack]

What is this referring to? I read the bit you quote immediately before saying this, and your question doesn't make any sense.
I think it was referring to which thing I was supposed to prove, and there was some sort of second thing to theoretically prove. Lost track at this point though. As long as I argued against the thing I was supposed to argue against there, then things are probably fine.


1) Primacy, text overrules table, always, no exceptions.
Assuming that the light weapon line means what I've implied, and I'll argue it does later, it doesn't matter what overrules what, because there's nothing to override. Unarmed strikes aren't weapons, if you're correct, but they are treated as weapons, which means that they can hang out on the proficiency table just fine. Really, the table is irrelevant in the current argument until I've already proved the thing is treated as a weapon, so I don't know why you keep coming back to it.


2) the text is unambiguous, it literally says they aren't weapons. The word ambiguous means two or more meanings, there isn't a second meaning.
Pretty sure I've gone over alternate meanings several times in this thread, and others have too.

3) The text still doesn't say they're treated as weapons, it says they're considered to have a particular trait that weapons also have. This makes all the difference.
This I'll evaluate below, when it comes up again.


In the phrase "is always considered a light weapon" the word "Always" only answers the question of when.
Sure.

"Considered" is the action, which means that the reader should treat an unarmed strike as having the property that follows.
Still on the same page.

And lastly "a light weapon" is the just what it says it is in the rules, the encumbrance.
And no. No to this. Light weapon doesn't only indicate encumbrance, or the capacity to use weapon finesse, or whatever other qualities you'd want to ascribe to it. It also indicates that a thing is a weapon. We can look right to the definition of weapon weights for proof. Specifically, to quote page 113, "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. Not an unarmed attack, and not some arbitrary second thing, but a weapon. If a thing is a light weapon, then that thing is a weapon, so if a thing is treated as a light weapon, then that thing is treated as a weapon. Also, gotta say, it is right there in the name.

[Vogonjeltz]

I think it was referring to which thing I was supposed to prove, and there was some sort of second thing to theoretically prove. Lost track at this point though. As long as I argued against the thing I was supposed to argue against there, then things are probably fine.

Don't worry, I kept track by going and checking.

This is what you said, and which I asked you to prove -> "And unarmed strike is categorized as one of those three things, particularly a simple weapon."


Assuming that the light weapon line means what I've implied, and I'll argue it does later, it doesn't matter what overrules what, because there's nothing to override.

An unwarranted assumption, as already shown. So you're still on the hook for showing textual proof that unarmed strikes are treated as weapons for the purposes of proficiency.


Unarmed strikes aren't weapons, if you're correct, but they are treated as weapons, which means that they can hang out on the proficiency table just fine.

No, they are only considered light weapons, you're continuing to overextend what can be said, and I cannot fathom why.


Really, the table is irrelevant in the current argument until I've already proved the thing is treated as a weapon, so I don't know why you keep coming back to it.

Great, so prove the thing is treated as a weapon for the purposes of weapon proficiency without referring to the table. Also please show specifically what weapon category it falls under in the text: simple, martial, or exotic.


Pretty sure I've gone over alternate meanings several times in this thread, and others have too.

Name the post, or give the exact quote. I don't remember this ever happening as regards the text from 341.


This I'll evaluate below, when it comes up again.

Sure.

Still on the same page.

And no. No to this. Light weapon doesn't only indicate encumbrance, or the capacity to use weapon finesse, or whatever other qualities you'd want to ascribe to it. It also indicates that a thing is a weapon. We can look right to the definition of weapon weights for proof. Specifically, to quote page 113, "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. Not an unarmed attack, and not some arbitrary second thing, but a weapon. If a thing is a light weapon, then that thing is a weapon, so if a thing is treated as a light weapon, then that thing is treated as a weapon. Also, gotta say, it is right there in the name.

I see the problem now. You're focused on the wrong thing as it pertains to the meaning of the term "light weapon".

Imagine we're talking about properties of wine. In that context, we would write that property X is the measure of how Adjective a wine is. See, we are talking about wine specifically right? Now what if we ascribe a wine trait to a non wine thing? Say cheese always has property X. Would we ever say that because property X has been defined as a wine trait, ascribing it to cheese suddenly makes the cheese a wine? Heck no!

The same thing is occurring here, the non weapon is having a weapon property applied. That doesn't make it a weapon, nor does it give it the other properties of weapons.

*112 indicates it is the term for encumbrance, that's the important bit, not that it's normally something for weapons (the specific exception granted for unarmed strikes is also on 113)

[eggynack]

I see the problem now. You're focused on the wrong thing as it pertains to the meaning of the term "light weapon".

Imagine we're talking about properties of wine. In that context, we would write that property X is the measure of how Adjective a wine is. See, we are talking about wine specifically right? Now what if we ascribe a wine trait to a non wine thing? Say cheese always has property X. Would we ever say that because property X has been defined as a wine trait, ascribing it to cheese suddenly makes the cheese a wine? Heck no!

The same thing is occurring here, the non weapon is having a weapon property applied. That doesn't make it a weapon, nor does it give it the other properties of weapons.

*112 indicates it is the term for encumbrance, that's the important bit, not that it's normally something for weapons (the specific exception granted for unarmed strikes is also on 113)
I think this is the only relevant thing to respond to, apart from maybe searching through old posts for particular arguments at some point. Anyway, it really depends on what "property X" is. If property X includes in its definition that it is necessarily a wine, as is true of light weapon, then yes, that thing that is to be treated as something with property X is to be treated as a wine.

For example, let's say that property X is "white wine". We are to always treat this cheese as white wine, a thing which has a lot of qualities particular to that subset of wine, but also the quality of being wine. We could ascribe to that cheese all of the qualities that are necessarily true of wine, or we could treat the cheese although it had those qualities. Is that a weird thing to do? Yeah, but I'm not the one who decided to always treat cheese as white wine.

The thing you're missing is that fact, that being a weapon is intrinsically a property of a light weapon. It's a thing present on the page I noted, and it's a thing implicit on the page you noted. Because, just looking at it, those are several interlocking categories of weapons. It's not directly stated, but the implied noun where it says, "its relative encumbrance" is "The weapon's", made clear by the context of how each of the other categories are phrased. I don't need to default to the page you're using, because the game including this in the definition of light weapons once is enough, but I can default to your page and still have that part of the definition.

[Thiyr]

1) Primacy, text overrules table, always, no exceptions.
2) the text is unambiguous, it literally says they aren't weapons. The word ambiguous means two or more meanings, there isn't a second meaning.
3) The text still doesn't say they're treated as weapons, it says they're considered to have a particular trait that weapons also have. This makes all the difference.


I'd actually like to point some things out about point 2.

First, it actually highlights an issue with glossary references. Unarmed Strike, as presented here, is actually rather poorly defined. Not ambiguous, but just a poor definition given. One has to make an unarmed attack with an unarmed strike (which makes sense given how the rules are set up (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#meleeAttacks)). But an unarmed strike, by that definition, is "A successful blow...from a character attacking without weapons". This is somewhat troublesome, as, in order to make an attack with an unarmed strike, you are making an attack with a successful attack. Not only is that kinda tautological (I'm making an attack. With what? An attack, of course!), but it means your attacks always have to hit. Otherwise you're not making an attack with an unarmed strike. I don't even know what you'd be doing at that point. (Note, you need to be making an unarmed strike before attack rolls are made. See the above link, specifically the parts about dealing nonlethal vs lethal damage and the attack roll penalty involved therein).

Second, it's actually quite ambiguous by your definition, as a matter of necessity. Looking at unarmed attack, it says "A melee attack made with no weapon in hand". This could mean attacking without a weapon. Oddly, it could alsomean attacking with a mouthpick weapon, a stump knife, or a boot knife, none of which are weapons in hand, even if they are weapons. Unarmed strike says "A successful blow...from a character attacking without weapons". Now, obviously it could mean somebody attacking without weapons at all. But note the single letter I bolded there. Weapons is plural there. If I've only got a greatsword on me, and that's all I'm attacking with, I'm not attacking with weapons. I'm attacking with a weapon, singular. At that point, I hit that defining trait of an unarmed strike, as I'm attacking without weapons. I'm just attacking with a weapon.


Now, both these points lead me to something that I find is a good rule of thumb, not just in d&d, but in life in general. The glossary is basically as useful as Wikipedia is. If you need a real quick reference for something, it can be handy, but if you're looking at something in-depth, it should never be your final stop, 'cause usually its oversimplified and can frequently have errors. A similar example would be the list of spells present before the full spell rule text. Each spell level for a given class is a glossary of its own for spells in a given book (per the OED, "An alphabetical list of words relating to a specific subject, text, or dialect, with explanations; a brief dictionary"). They're not a table, but they're also entirely overridden by the full-form of spells when there is a discrepancy (for instance, if you have an original printing of SpC, Thunderhead is incorrectly listed as doing 1d6 damage per bolt, but the full text shows 1 damage). The short form, then, isn't definitive, as it is trumped by the full-form presented elsewhere, even if the full-form is a table (for instance, the spell Interfaith Blessing, out of CChamp. Shortform says "Subjects gain combat benefits based on their individual deities", but the longform has a table which gives a bonus even if you don't have a deity. While there's a contradiction there, obviously longform takes precedence. Same is relevant for the glossary proper.

That said, nothing to add on the subject of which side I feel is correct. Just had some pedantism to get out of the system and some issues with the validity of the glossary as a source. Carry on :P.

[georgie_leech]

Please quote the rules text from the PHB, DMG, or even the MM saying unarmed strikes are treated as weapons for purposes of proficiency. If you can do that, I for one will gladly concede the point.



"Unarmed Strikes are always treated as light weapons." "Always." As in "in all ways," or "for all purposes." One of the characteristic properties of Weapons in D&D is that you can be proficient or not proficient in them. Ergo, Something that is treated as a light weapon in all ways would also be treated as such for the purposes of proficiency. Do you have rules text suggesting that being treated as a weapon excludes proficiency? If so that would clear a lot up.

[Gwendol]

It is actually the other way around. A light weapon designation carries a meaning entirely separate from proficiency. Furthermore, proficiencies only deal with simple, martial, and exotic weapons.
This means that a being a light weapon tells nothing of what kind of proficiency is needed to wield it (if any).
Splash weapons, for example, don't require proficiency to use. Are they light or 1-handed? I actually don't know, but in relation to proficiencies that doesn't matter since the designations are there to cover different sets of rules.

I maintain that including a proficiency requirement for something that is treated as a light weapon is made up, since that designation has nothing to do with the proficiency.
For thrown weapons shurikens and darts are treated as light weapons (since that designation is reserved for melee weapons). Their proficiencies are however different and can't be derived from being treated as a light weapon.
You can also look at the shield bash attack. Used this way the shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon (thus indicating the proficiency needed). Note that the word used is "is a martial weapon", not treated as.
When it comes to designating how hard it is to hit something with the shield, a heavy shield is treated as a 1-handed weapon, while a light shield is treated as a light weapon.

Thus we find that treating something as a light weapon is not sufficient for proficiency requirements. Proficiencies are spelled out.

[georgie_leech]

It is actually the other way around. A light weapon designation carries a meaning entirely separate from proficiency. Furthermore, proficiencies only deal with simple, martial, and exotic weapons.
This means that a being a light weapon tells nothing of what kind of proficiency is needed to wield it (if any).
Splash weapons, for example, don't require proficiency to use. Are they light or 1-handed? I actually don't know, but in relation to proficiencies that doesn't matter since the designations are there to cover different sets of rules.

I maintain that including a proficiency requirement for something that is treated as a light weapon is made up, since that designation has nothing to do with the proficiency.
For thrown weapons shurikens and darts are treated as light weapons (since that designation is reserved for melee weapons). Their proficiencies are however different and can't be derived from being treated as a light weapon.
You can also look at the shield bash attack. Used this way the shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon (thus indicating the proficiency needed). Note that the word used is "is a martial weapon", not treated as.
When it comes to designating how hard it is to hit something with the shield, a heavy shield is treated as a 1-handed weapon, while a light shield is treated as a light weapon.

Thus we find that treating something as a light weapon is not sufficient for proficiency requirements. Proficiencies are spelled out.

Which is why I said the table is what gave the proficiency requirement. The reading I'm referencing is that US is always treated as a light weapon. I believe that includes for the purpose of proficiency, since there's nothing excluding that, and proficiency is a limited set of qualities that would fall under the "subset" of always, or "in all ways." Since this in itself doesn't say what sort of proficiency it would have, I look to the Weapon Table, which groups it under Simple Weapons.

In other words, if US is treated as a weapon of any sort, the Table suggests it would require Simple Weapon Proficiency. Do you have evidence that suggests "always treated as a light weapon" would exclude the normal requirement for light weapons to require proficiency? To be clear, not a logical argument (outside of formal logic) that it doesn't, but actual rules text saying or suggesting it doesn't? That will change my position somewhat.

[Gwendol]

I'm sorry, I don't follow?

I just gave a few examples showing that "treated as a light weapon" never has a bearing on the proficiency. In every single case proficiency is being spelled out. Unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks, and are listed as such in the table you mention.
Why would US be different?

I find it somewhat insulting that you completely disregard what I write (say) and just keep re-hashing an old argument. I've shown that there are weapons for which proficiency is not needed. I have shown that "treated as a light weapon" does not imply proficiency and that in the case of shields (not weapons, but can be used as one) martial weapon proficiency is being specifically called out. Thus, drawing the conclusion that treated as a light weapon also include proficiency requirement is false.
If you have any objection that statement, please say so (and include a valid counter-example).

[OldTrees1]

Which is why I said the table is what gave the proficiency requirement. The reading I'm referencing is that US is always treated as a light weapon. I believe that includes for the purpose of proficiency, since there's nothing excluding that, and proficiency is a limited set of qualities that would fall under the "subset" of always, or "in all ways." Since this in itself doesn't say what sort of proficiency it would have, I look to the Weapon Table, which groups it under Simple Weapons.

In other words, if US is treated as a weapon of any sort, the Table suggests it would require Simple Weapon Proficiency. Do you have evidence that suggests "always treated as a light weapon" would exclude the normal requirement for light weapons to require proficiency? To be clear, not a logical argument (outside of formal logic) that it doesn't, but actual rules text saying or suggesting it doesn't? That will change my position somewhat.

There is no such thing as Light Weapon Proficiency(Kukri). Kukris are always* light weapons but that is not why they require proficiency. They require proficiency because they are Martial* Weapons.
*exceptions exist

Now I agree that the table is evidence of Unarmed Strikes requiring proficiency, but we cannot jump from the "being treated as if it has the Light property" to "requires Simple/Martial/Exotic proficiency".

Now there was a quote presented earlier that said Unarmed Strikes are attacking without weapons. I don't think this means weapons in the same way proficiency refers to weapons. However it is the quote that is the root of most of the anti-proficiency argument.

[eggynack]

Splash weapons, for example, don't require proficiency to use. Are they light or 1-handed? I actually don't know, but in relation to proficiencies that doesn't matter since the designations are there to cover different sets of rules.
This doesn't work as an example, as splash weapons have an explicit rule that states that they lack proficiency requirements. If you can find me a place in the text where unarmed strikes have such a rule, then that'll obviously end the argument right there.


For thrown weapons shurikens and darts are treated as light weapons (since that designation is reserved for melee weapons). Their proficiencies are however different and can't be derived from being treated as a light weapon.
You can't derive the type of proficiency from their nature as light weapons, true, but once you know that they're light weapons, then you know for a fact that they require proficiency unless stated otherwise, because light weapons are weapons, and because weapons require proficiency.

You can also look at the shield bash attack. Used this way the shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon (thus indicating the proficiency needed). Note that the word used is "is a martial weapon", not treated as.
When it comes to designating how hard it is to hit something with the shield, a heavy shield is treated as a 1-handed weapon, while a light shield is treated as a light weapon.
Just because one weapon follows this format, that doesn't provide an onus for everything to do so. Really, I'm not sure how you get from these quotes to the idea that light weapons don't indicate a need for proficiency. The game should and could have been more explicit about how unarmed strikes work, and they were more explicit about other things. That doesn't mean that light weapon does not imply proficiency.


There is no such thing as Light Weapon Proficiency(Kukri). Kukris are always* light weapons but that is not why they require proficiency. They require proficiency because they are Martial* Weapons.
Of course it being a light weapon doesn't indicate the type of proficiency required. All it does is indicate that proficiency is needed. Because light weapons are weapons.


Now I agree that the table is evidence of Unarmed Strikes requiring proficiency, but we cannot jump from the "being treated as if it has the Light property" to "requires Simple/Martial/Exotic proficiency".
Yes, we can. The "light property", as you put it, is a thing definitionally exclusive to weapons. If you think that that's untrue, then prove it, because I've provided some reasonable evidence that it's an accurate thing.

Now there was a quote presented earlier that said Unarmed Strikes are attacking without weapons. I don't think this means weapons in the same way proficiency refers to weapons. However it is the quote that is the root of most of the anti-proficiency argument.
I'm aware that it is, but it's also somewhat meaningless against my current logical line. Even if unarmed strikes aren't a weapon, they can still be treated as a weapon, and things that are treated as a weapon can still have proficiency.

[OldTrees1]

Of course it being a light weapon doesn't indicate the type of proficiency required. All it does is indicate that proficiency is needed. Because light weapons are weapons.

Yes, we can. The "light property", as you put it, is a thing definitionally exclusive to weapons. If you think that that's untrue, then prove it, because I've provided some reasonable evidence that it's an accurate thing.

I'm aware that it is, but it's also somewhat meaningless against my current logical line. Even if unarmed strikes aren't a weapon, they can still be treated as a weapon, and things that are treated as a weapon can still have proficiency.

eggy, while I may agree with your conclusion, I cannot respect your circular reasoning. You continue to beg the question. Perhaps this is because you are blind to your own premises or perhaps it is because you do not respect the discussion. Either way, I cannot respect your circular reasoning. Especially since this seems atypical of you given past threads.

[eggynack]

eggy, while I may agree with your conclusion, I cannot respect your circular reasoning. You continue to beg the question. Perhaps this is because you are blind to your own premises or perhaps it is because you do not respect the discussion. Either way, I cannot respect your circular reasoning. Especially since this seems atypical of you given past threads.
I'm not really sure what part of my reasoning is currently circular. I suppose I can set this up in a more linear way, if that helps.


All weapons, unless stated otherwise, require proficiency, as indicated by the definition for proficiency as an interlocking set of categories that contain all weapons.

All light weapons are weapons, as indicated in several places attached to the definition of weapon weight (particularly the fact that it's repeatedly and explicitly noted to be a quality exclusive of weapons).

Unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons.

As all light weapons are weapons, as noted above, you thus always treat unarmed strikes as weapons.

As all weapons require proficiency unless stated otherwise, and as unarmed strikes do not say otherwise, unarmed strikes require proficiency.

After all that is done, and all of that has been established, you then check the weapon table to determine what proficiency unarmed strikes require, and said proficiency is simple.


That's pretty much it in its entirety. I don't see how any step relies on a line later in the logical chain, and that includes the underlying evidence. That aspect of it is relatively self contained, after all, with the claim about proficiency only relying on the big paragraph under weapon categories on page 112, and maybe the part about a character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficiency, and the claim about light weapons relying on that selfsame paragraph, or on the later section directly about those categories, depending on how you want to go about it. Again, completely linear. If there's something circular or unproved in one of those premises, it'd be nice to know what it is.

[georgie_leech]

There is no such thing as Light Weapon Proficiency(Kukri). Kukris are always* light weapons but that is not why they require proficiency. They require proficiency because they are Martial* Weapons.
*exceptions exist


Now I agree that the table is evidence of Unarmed Strikes requiring proficiency, but we cannot jump from the "being treated as if it has the Light property" to "requires Simple/Martial/Exotic proficiency".

Right; I'm reading the sentence as "treated as a weapon (and thus requiring proficiency) with the Light property," as oppose to "having the Light property that certain weapons have."


Now there was a quote presented earlier that said Unarmed Strikes are attacking without weapons. I don't think this means weapons in the same way proficiency refers to weapons. However it is the quote that is the root of most of the anti-proficiency argument.

This is one of the times where I think WotC could have used a thesaurus. In the glossary text I believe they're referring to "weapons" in the sense of "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat," (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weapon) heavily implying that an external object of some sort is being used. However, I don't think that's the definition used elsewhere, as it requires that an entire class of weapon be stapled on as being included by fiat. If, however, the rest of the text is using "anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim," "weapons" becomes a descriptor of any non-spell that can be used to make an attack roll. Under this definition, weapons can include a creatures anatomy in the form of claws or teeth. In particular, Slams (or Slaps) are explicitly striking a foe with an appendage; that is, using an arm or leg to hit the opponent. From this, we can see that what the game treats as weapons need not be external. Indeed, they don't even have to be explicitly for combat, as Slam shows.

Under the definition of US use excluding all weapons, can Vampires make unarmed attacks? Their Slam indicates their arms and legs are Natural Weapons; must a Vampire Monk become a master of head butts and body checks?

In short, I believe the glossary text as unclear as evidence due to ambiguous wording; that it is using a different definition of weapon than that used elsewhere. Do we have any examples of a creature that wouldn't be proficient in US using them in a way that we can see it doesn't get a non-proficiency penalty? In my view a Monk lacking such proficiency is an error, not a deliberate design choice, but other creatures that lack such a proficiency not being penalised as such would be a strong indication that no proficiency is needed.

[Gwendol]

Eggy, I believe it was you who said that all weapons require proficiency (if not maybe someone else?), I just wanted to show that statement not to be true for all cases.

Regarding the rest of your post, I added the shield example because a light shield is also not a weapon that is treated like a light weapon. In this case however proficiency is needed (it's not an unarmed attack) and so in case you shield bash the shield is a martial weapon. That proficiency is explicitly stated (thus not relying on the reader looking up shields in a table).
Going back to the US, it's not a weapon, it is treated as a light weapon, and it does not require proficiency (weaponless attack). Consequently, there is no mention of proficiency in the description of US.

[Gwendol]

You still fail to show an example where something is treated as a light weapon also assumes proficiency.
I have provided an example to counter that claim (shields).

[Gwendol]

Georgie, slams are natural weapons. Entirely different beast: natural weapon proficiency is automatic if the creature has a natural weapon.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not really sure what part of my reasoning is currently circular. I suppose I can set this up in a more linear way, if that helps.


All weapons, unless stated otherwise, require proficiency, as indicated by the definition for proficiency as an interlocking set of categories that contain all weapons.

All light weapons are weapons, as indicated in several places attached to the definition of weapon weight (particularly the fact that it's repeatedly and explicitly noted to be a quality exclusive of weapons).

Unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons.

As all light weapons are weapons, as noted above, you thus always treat unarmed strikes as weapons.

As all weapons require proficiency unless stated otherwise, and as unarmed strikes do not say otherwise, unarmed strikes require proficiency.

After all that is done, and all of that has been established, you then check the weapon table to determine what proficiency unarmed strikes require, and said proficiency is simple.


P2 (as you are using it in P2+P3->P4) is much more complex than you give it credit for. You are claiming that everything with the Light property is a weapon that requires proficiency as a direct consequence of it having the Light property.
P2 is also the conclusion you are arguing for since your conclusion is trying to show there is not a counterexample to P2.
Aka: P2 -> ~(~P2)

[eggynack]

Eggy, I believe it was you who said that all weapons require proficiency (if not maybe someone else?), I just wanted to show that statement not to be true for all cases.
Indeed, though it actually kinda helps my point. After all, if the game is capable of saying that a weapon doesn't need proficiency, then why didn't it do so for unarmed strikes? It's almost the exact inverse of your shield argument.


Regarding the rest of your post, I added the shield example because a light shield is also not a weapon that is treated like a light weapon. In this case however proficiency is needed (it's not an unarmed attack) and so in case you shield bash the shield is a martial weapon. That proficiency is explicitly stated (thus not relying on the reader looking up shields in a table).
Your shield example indicates only that the game can explicitly state that something is a weapon requiring a certain proficiency, and even if the game did not, then the proficiency would still be required. After all, the thing is defined as a weapon here, and it does have a spot on the table.


Going back to the US, it's not a weapon, it is treated as a light weapon, and it does not require proficiency (weaponless attack). Consequently, there is no mention of proficiency in the description of US.
You haven't really proved any of this at all. You're saying it, certainly, and there's vague evidence in its direction, but the logical argument I've provided holds up regardless of how the game decides to explain things in certain places. These chunks of circumstantial evidence are certainly nice to talk about, but unless you poke holes in the fundamental definitions I'm using, it's all a bit pointless.


You still fail to show an example where something is treated as a light weapon also assumes proficiency.
You actually did that for us, assuming your shield example works for your claim. After all, if being a ranged weapon (roughly equivalent to a light weapon for this purpose, as we're still hanging out in the same general categorical argument) doesn't imply proficiency requirements, then why did splash weapons need to explicitly state that proficiency isn't required? By your logic, the game could just have splash weapons listed as ranged, and then not put them down on the proficiency table, and not list a proficiency category in the text.

Edit:
P2 (as you are using it in P2+P3->P4) is much more complex than you give it credit for. You are claiming that everything with the Light property is a weapon that requires proficiency as a direct consequence of it having the Light property.
P2 is also the conclusion you are arguing for since your conclusion is trying to show there is not a counterexample to P2.
Aka: P2 -> ~(~P2)
P2 is a conclusion I'm arguing for on the basis of certain pieces of evidence, but it doesn't in any way rely on future premises, or indeed any of the other pieces of my argument. As I pointed out in the big paragraph in that post, the evidence for light weapons necessarily being weapons is all in the books, generally disconnected from the rest of my claims. If you have reason to think that my argument for that, that light weapons are necessarily weapons, is not sufficient for proof, then say what about it is insufficient. I agree that that point is the corner stone of my argument, and that the following statements are mostly just tying in "always treated as" to the preceding statements, but I don't see any way in which any of the argument is circular.

[OldTrees1]

Edit:
P2 is a conclusion I'm arguing for on the basis of certain pieces of evidence, but it doesn't in any way rely on future premises, or indeed any of the other pieces of my argument. As I pointed out in the big paragraph in that post, the evidence for light weapons necessarily being weapons is all in the books, generally disconnected from the rest of my claims. If you have reason to think that my argument for that, that light weapons are necessarily weapons, is not sufficient for proof, then say what about it is insufficient. I agree that that point is the corner stone of my argument, and that the following statements are mostly just tying in "always treated as" to the preceding statements, but I don't see any way in which any of the argument is circular.

Perhaps if I simplify my explanation:
Do the people that disagree with you, agree with this: "everything with the Light property is a weapon that requires proficiency as a direct consequence of it having the Light property"? No.
Are you trying to convince them of it? Yes.
Did you use it as a premise in your argument to convince them of it? Yes.

[dextercorvia]

I'm going to let you finish, but I thought this might help.

I'm not going to get involved in the is it or is it not a weapon thing. Looking through the evidence I think different designers had different ideas about this and rather than settle it they just took out any concrete reference to their actual opinions.

I believe the following answers the question, "Does an unarmed strike require proficiency?"



Unarmed Attacks

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

<snip> A bunch of stuff but nothing about proficiency.

Source: Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack)


A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
Source: Combat Modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#weaponArmorAndShieldProficienc y)

So, we have a statement of the ways that an unarmed strike is not like attacking with a melee weapon, and none of those exceptions are not being penalized for non-proficiency.

[eggynack]

Perhaps if I simplify my explanation:
Do the people that disagree with you, agree with this: "everything with the Light property is a weapon that requires proficiency as a direct consequence of it having the Light property"? No.
Are you trying to convince them of it? Yes.
Did you use it as a premise in your argument to convince them of it? Yes.
Sure. It's a thing that I think is true, and it's one of my premises, though not an absolutely proved one by some people's standards. However, the answer to that isn't to call me wrong, but to frigging prove me wrong. All of my evidence is right out there in the open, within the space of two pages. If I'm somehow drawing the wrong conclusion here, the idea that weaponness is explicitly a property of the light weapon trait, then tell me how. There's nothing circular here. Just a thing I have evidence for, which other people think is wrong, but which no one has particularly proved wrong. As I think I stated awhile back, this would indeed be a good angle to take down my argument. Not easy to pull off though.

Edit: @dextercorvia: Ooh, hadn't thought of the possibility of that list as an exclusive one. That could work out reasonably, though proving said exclusivity probably comes down to a tricky semantic argument. The text does say, "Much like attacking with a melee weapon," after all, which implies the theoretical possibility of other differences.

[OldTrees1]

Sure. It's a thing that I think is true, and it's one of my premises, though not an absolutely proved one my some people's standards. However, the answer to that isn't to call me wrong, but to frigging prove me wrong. All of my evidence is right out there in the open, within the space of two pages. If I'm somehow drawing the wrong conclusion here, the idea that weaponness is explicitly a property of the light weapon trait, then tell me how. There's nothing circular here. Just a thing I have evidence for, which other people think is wrong, but which no one has particularly proved wrong. As I think I stated awhile back, this would indeed be a good angle to take down my argument. Not easy to pull off though.

It is your premise, it is your responsibility to prove it. The potential counterexample people have mentioned is unarmed strikes.

Your response has been:
Your premise -> Unarmed Strike is not a counter example -> Your premise -> Unarmed Strike is not a counter example -> Your premise -> ...

Regardless of whether I think Unarmed Strike is or is not a counter example, I cannot respect this circular logic.

@dextercorvia
Thanks.

[eggynack]

It is your premise, it is your responsibility to prove it. The potential counterexample people have mentioned is unarmed strikes.
I did prove it, with those two text citations. Those citations, to my knowledge, are holding up just fine. If they're not, then the onus is on you, or perhaps on someone else who seeks to prove me wrong, to show why they're not.


Your response has been:
Your premise -> Unarmed Strike is not a counter example -> Your premise -> Unarmed Strike is not a counter example -> Your premise -> ...

Regardless of whether I think Unarmed Strike is or is not a counter example, I cannot respect this circular logic.
I'm not really sure how I've been using the idea that unarmed strikes are treated weapons to support my premises, and I still can't see any evidence of circular logic. The logic I'm using is all right there in that post. If the way I presented that logical line came across as circular, well, I apologize for that, but it certainly wasn't intentional. If there's something circular to the logical line, then I very much do not see it, because no claim there relies on something that is in turn dependent on the claim.

[Gwendol]

Your shield example indicates only that the game can explicitly state that something is a weapon requiring a certain proficiency, and even if the game did not, then the proficiency would still be required. After all, the thing is defined as a weapon here, and it does have a spot on the table.


You haven't really proved any of this at all. You're saying it, certainly, and there's vague evidence in its direction, but the logical argument I've provided holds up regardless of how the game decides to explain things in certain places. These chunks of circumstantial evidence are certainly nice to talk about, but unless you poke holes in the fundamental definitions I'm using, it's all a bit pointless.


You actually did that for us, assuming your shield example works for your claim. After all, if being a ranged weapon (roughly equivalent to a light weapon for this purpose, as we're still hanging out in the same general categorical argument) doesn't imply proficiency requirements, then why did splash weapons need to explicitly state that proficiency isn't required? By your logic, the game could just have splash weapons listed as ranged, and then not put them down on the proficiency table, and not list a proficiency category in the text.


The shield slam is different from the unarmed attack in that it uses an impediment. I'm not sure a shield wielder is considered armed, but I would rule it that way at least. I have shown that in another case of something being treated as a light (or 1-handed) weapon the needed proficiency is spelled out. More so, while the light shield is "treated as" a light weapon, it is a martial weapon (when used to bash).
As an aside one can note that clerics can't shield bash without taking a non-proficiency penalty.

Looking at the US example we see that it is treated as a light weapon, but there is no mention of proficiency. If the US was a weapon, we can assume that a proficiency is needed, and based on the shield bash example, the required proficiency would be spelled out. However, we know that proficiencies are needed for weapon attacks, and the US by definition is an attack without weapons, which therefore does not require proficiency.

"Being a ranged weapon" =/=" treated as a light weapon". Bad example.

You still need to explain how you go from treated as or count as a light weapon (light weapon being an in-game term related to how easy a melee weapon is to wield) to require a weapon proficiency. The authors have included a few illustrative examples of how to treat the US (or shield bash) as light weapons, and none of them include proficiency.

[Ivanhoe]

This is a very interesting thread - and quite useful for me, since I plan to play a monk some time but the potential DM has said that he is inclined to see monks as not proficient with unarmed strike by the RAW (probably to rule it not like this anyhow, but still, it would somehow spoil the fun of playing this class, like someone making fun of you playing a barbarian and maintaining they could never keep up a rage since that requires concentration, or that it takes a standard action to activated since no free action activation is mentioned).

From what I've read I feel that Stella, Vogonjeltz and Gwendol have the more convincing side of the argument. In particular I'm not quite sure what to make of the idea that "treated like..." or "is considered as" ist seen the same in the rules as "this is a...".

For instance, in the monk description the following wording is also used (emphasis mine): "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.

So, by eggynack's reading this would mean that a monk's unarmaed strike is always a manufactured weapon (when it is positive for the monk), and thus meaning that the monk could get all usual weapon enhancements like flame/frost/speed, for instance - however, it is considered everywhere as far as I know that you need a masterwork weapon in general for such things.

Also, the unarmed strike entry says: "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 the first part provides that odd thing called unarmed strike with a certain game mechanics property, and then an explanation what it means. It will also mean things like penalties for two-weapon-fighting. But the need of a weapon proficiency is not keyed to a light weapon at all, nowhere.

Am I overlooking something?

[eggynack]

The shield slam is different from the unarmed attack in that it uses an impediment. I'm not sure a shield wielder is considered armed, but I would rule it that way at least. I have shown that in another case of something being treated as a light (or 1-handed) weapon the needed proficiency is spelled out. More so, while the light shield is "treated as" a light weapon, it is a martial weapon (when used to bash).
As an aside one can note that clerics can't shield bash without taking a non-proficiency penalty.

Looking at the US example we see that it is treated as a light weapon, but there is no mention of proficiency. If the US was a weapon, we can assume that a proficiency is needed, and based on the shield bash example, the required proficiency would be spelled out. However, we know that proficiencies are needed for weapon attacks, and the US by definition is an attack without weapons, which therefore does not require proficiency.
The shield slam only indicates that the proficiency could be spelled out, not that the proficiency would be spelled out, or must be spelled out. Nowhere does shield bash say, "Also, if we ever have a non-weapon or occasional weapon require proficiency again, it'll say so in this fashion." And, as I've said so many times, a thing doesn't need to actually be a weapon to require proficiency. It need only be treated as a weapon for the purposes of proficiency.


"Being a ranged weapon" =/=" treated as a light weapon". Bad example.
They're pretty similar. In particular, do you have any evidence that a ranged weapon is necessarily a weapon, in excess of the amount of evidence that exists for light weapons? If light weapons aren't necessarily weapons, as you contend, then I posit that ranged weapons aren't necessarily weapons, and thus would not need to be mentioned as lacking a proficiency requirement.


You still need to explain how you go from treated as or count as a light weapon (light weapon being an in-game term related to how easy a melee weapon is to wield) to require a weapon proficiency. The authors have included a few illustrative examples of how to treat the US (or shield bash) as light weapons, and none of them include proficiency.
My logical line on this point has been laid out in whole already. It does not use or rely on examples whatsoever, and instead relies on plain old fashioned deductive reasoning. I don't need examples, is the thing. There could be hundreds of cases that work just like shield bashes do, with proficiency being explicitly spelled out, and I would still be correct as long as my logic holds up.


From what I've read I feel that Stella, Vogonjeltz and Gwendol have the more convincing side of the argument. In particular I'm not quite sure what to make of the idea that "treated like..." or "is considered as" ist seen the same in the rules as "this is a...".
The two don't mean exactly the same thing, but the meanings are close enough. "Treated like a weapon" means that you're supposed to treat the thing like a weapon within the parameters that are subsequently laid out. I don't think anyone's really disputing that.

For instance, in the monk description the following wording is also used (emphasis mine): "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.

So, by eggynack's reading this would mean that a monk's unarmaed strike is always a manufactured weapon (when it is positive for the monk), and thus meaning that the monk could get all usual weapon enhancements like flame/frost/speed, for instance - however, it is considered everywhere as far as I know that you need a masterwork weapon in general for such things.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as those things for those purposes. Masterwork weapons are a different thing, which unarmed strikes aren't considered for the purposes of spells and effects. Thus, you can't directly enchant unarmed strikes, just as you wouldn't be able to enchant a standard greatsword. At the same time, were unarmed strikes masterwork, then yes, you would probably be able to enchant them.


Also, the unarmed strike entry says: "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 the first part provides that odd thing called unarmed strike with a certain game mechanics property, and then an explanation what it means. It will also mean things like penalties for two-weapon-fighting.
The quote occurs elsewhere, particularly page 112, without context or modifier. Additionally, the line after "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon," does not set the absolute limits to how broad that consideration goes.


But the need of a weapon proficiency is not keyed to a light weapon at all, nowhere.
It's not keyed directly to light weapons, no. However. part of the definition of light weapon is that the object is, indeed, a weapon, and it can be shown elsewhere that all weapons require proficiency, at least in the general case. Thus, all light weapons require proficiency in that selfsame general case, and the same applies to things always treated as light weapons.

[Ivanhoe]

hrm. No, this does not convince me, eggynack. In my view you are trying to interpret a certain reading into the rules, but in an inconsistent way to fit your opinion. A light weapon is a particular attribute of some weapons (that can also be categorised in other ways, such as simple, martial, exotic, or one-handed, two-handed or missile) that is important for some rules mechanisms. But nowhere is it said that unarmed strike is a light weapon, only that is considered always as such a weapon (and then examples are given everwhere where the "light weapon" category matters - but there is no "light weapon proficiency").

And: the RAI certainly seem to be that the monk as the big unarmed fighting master receives no penalty for fighting. So, even if there are two RAW interpretations around, why pick and defend the one that is apparently absurd?

For my part, I am glad that so many text passages have been found and shown in this thread that the simple solution to the problem is: since unarmed strikes are no weapon, but considered for many, clearly defined, (but not all!) rules purposes as weapons, no weapon proficiency is needed for them.

[Brookshw]

snip

No, don't do it man! Engaging will just draw you in, state the opinion and leave!!!

Also I find it comical this thread has persisted so long after the parent died off.

[Ivanhoe]

No, don't do it man! Engaging will just draw you in, state the opinion and leave!!!

Also I find it comical this thread has persisted so long after the parent died off.

...must...use...unarmed...powers...to escape ...:smallcool:

[eggynack]

hrm. No, this does not convince me, eggynack. In my view you are trying to interpret a certain reading into the rules, but in an inconsistent way to fit your opinion. A light weapon is a particular attribute of some weapons (that can also be categorised in other ways, such as simple, martial, exotic, or one-handed, two-handed or missile) that is important for some rules mechanisms. But nowhere is it said that unarmed strike is a light weapon, only that is considered always as such a weapon (and then examples are given everwhere where the "light weapon" category matters - but there is no "light weapon proficiency").
Light weapon isn't just some attribute of weapons. It's an attribute that can only be had by weapons. I'm not jumping straight from treated as a light weapon to treated as requiring proficiency, but from treated as a light weapon to treated as a weapon, and from there to treated as requiring proficiency, because it is a general trait of weapons that they require proficiency. As for the idea that always treated as a light weapon and is a light weapon are different for this purpose, I see no evidence of that. If there is some thing essentially true of light weapons, then that thing must be true of a thing always treated as a light weapon, because the game says always. The only list of qualities that exists is by no means exclusive, and it's not even attached to every mention of unarmed strikes always being considered light weapons.


And: the RAI certainly seem to be that the monk as the big unarmed fighting master receives no penalty for fighting. So, even if there are two RAW interpretations around, why pick and defend the one that is apparently absurd?
I pick the one that I think reflects the text. I absolutely agree that monks weren't likely intended to be non-proficient with their main method of attack, but it is my stance that that is the only correct way to read things.


For my part, I am glad that so many text passages have been found and shown in this thread that the simple solution to the problem is: since unarmed strikes are no weapon, but considered for many, clearly defined, (but not all!) rules purposes as weapons, no weapon proficiency is needed for them.
And the fact of the matter is, unarmed strikes aren't only considered a weapon for some clearly defined purposes. It's considered a weapon always, because light weapons are weapons always (unless specifically said otherwise).

In any case, this back and forth is a bit pointless. My entire logical line is broken down completely in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18158067&postcount=214). If you can find any evidence that said logic doesn't hold, then you can provide it, but out of the things you've mentioned, I haven't seen a particular noted flaw in the logic or premises. It seems like your claim rests on the idea that the second premise is wrong, that light weapons aren't necessarily weapons, but again, I see no evidence of that, and there is clear evidence pointing the other way.

[Gwendol]

The logic is flawed: you put equality between "treated as" and "is", when for something to require proficiency it has to be a simple, martial, etc weapon. No matter just how much you treat the US as a light weapon, it will never "be" a weapon.

Ivanhoe: glad to hear that! Now it feels like this hasn't been a complete excersise in futility.

[eggynack]

The logic is flawed: you put equality between "treated as" and "is", when for something to require proficiency it has to be a simple, martial, etc weapon. No matter just how much you treat the US as a light weapon, it will never "be" a weapon.
No, for something to require proficiency it has to either be one of those weapon types, or be treated as one of those weapon types for the purposes of proficiency. Are you really saying that, if the game said, "Unarmed strikes are to be treated as simple weapons for the purposes of proficiency," that you'd say, "Nope, not a weapon, so it doesn't work,"? Just seems like a pretty ridiculous assertion.

Really, what do you see as the functional difference between "treated as" and "is"? If something's supposed to be treated as a weapon in a particular circumstance, then you treat it that way in that particular circumstance. If that particular circumstance is always, then that's when you treat it in that fashion. And finally, if light weapons always require proficiency unless stated otherwise, and from what I can see they do, and if unarmed strikes are always to be treated as light weapons without any qualifier, and they are, then unarmed strikes are supposed to be treated as a thing which requires proficiency, which means that you need proficiency.

[Gwendol]

No, for something to require proficiency it has to either be one of those weapon types, or be treated as one of those weapon types for the purposes of proficiency.

Do you have proof for the bolded part? Please let me know when you find it.


Are you really saying that, if the game said, "Unarmed strikes are to be treated as simple weapons for the purposes of proficiency," that you'd say, "Nope, not a weapon, so it doesn't work,"? Just seems like a pretty ridiculous assertion.
The games doesn't say any of that and neither am I, so don't try and make up arguments I have never made myself.


Really, what do you see as the functional difference between "treated as" and "is"? If something's supposed to be treated as a weapon in a particular circumstance, then you treat it that way in that particular circumstance. If that particular circumstance is always, then that's when you treat it in that fashion. And finally, if light weapons always require proficiency unless stated otherwise, and from what I can see they do, and if unarmed strikes are always to be treated as light weapons without any qualifier, and they are, then unarmed strikes are supposed to be treated as a thing which requires proficiency, which means that you need proficiency.



I have found the following types of weapons relating to weapon proficiencies: simple, martial, exotic, natural, improvised. In all cases something "is" one of those, not "treated as" or any other similar meaning.

For all practical purposes though, I consider your cause lost and your line of reasoning broken in this case.

[eggynack]

The games doesn't say any of that and neither am I, so don't try and make up arguments I have never made myself.
It seems to be a thing you keep saying. If you don't think that something must absolutely be a weapon in order to have proficiency, then you should probably stop saying that that's the case.


Do you have proof for the bolded part? Please let me know when you find it.
Which bolded part? If you mean the one from the first quote, then it seems like you already ceded that point, as you said you aren't making the argument I claimed you were making.

I have found the following types of weapons relating to weapon proficiencies: simple, martial, exotic, natural, improvised. In all cases something "is" one of those, not "treated as" or any other similar meaning.
Indeed, unarmed strikes are unique in terms of how they are defined. It's all cases but that one, really, though I'm certainly not using that itself as an example to prove my point. Not much we can do about that, and it doesn't mean that unarmed strikes don't work that way. As for the categories of proficiency you've cited, they are indeed correct. Once unarmed strikes are established as a thing treated as weapons, we must go to the proficiency table to find where they fit in to this vast weapon tapestry. They are, it turns out simple weapons, or at least things to be treated as simple weapons if you prefer.


For all practical purposes though, I consider your cause lost and your line of reasoning broken in this case.
It's your prerogative to think so. I can say the same of yours, however. You've consistently failed to mount a solid argument against the logic I've presented. You just keep citing examples, and those are rather pointless in the face of basic deductive reasoning. If the rules say that unarmed strikes require proficiency, even in a ridiculously roundabout way, it doesn't matter in the least how other things are given that status.

Edit: And, y'know, if you do want proof on the thing you bolded, we must only look to the definition of treated. In this context, it means, "To regard or consider in a specified way, and deal with accordingly." We are thus to regard this theoretical weapon as a martial weapon, for the sake of example, and deal with it as if it were such. In the same fashion, we must regard unarmed strikes as a light weapon, in all cases and situations, and deal with it in that fashion. The "always" there makes the considered virtually equivalent to an "is", as the specified way is to act in this manner all the time.

[Gwendol]

I've edited my last post for your convenience. Please come back when you have found an example of something being treated as a weapon type to include proficiency.

If you start bringing the dictionary to the debate, it's a good sign you've lost it.

[eggynack]

I've edited my last post for your convenience. Please come back when you have found an example of something being treated as a weapon type to include proficiency.

If you start bringing the dictionary to the debate, it's a good sign you've lost it.
I neither have nor need an example. Were something treated as a martial weapon, it would require martial weapon proficiency. I'm not exactly sure when that became a controversial claim.

Really, if you want to talk reasonable analogs for this situation from my perspective, I would think less wine and cheese and more letters and numbers. In particular, let's say that a majig of some kind said, "Always treat 'a' as an integer." Yes, you would give it all of those integer qualities, like that it can be either positive or negative, or that it can be expressed without fractions or decimal points, but you would also give it all of those number qualities, like just general qualities of numbers. This is because integer contains the fact that the object is a number in its definition. The same general logical line applies in the same fashion to light weapons and weapons.

Edit: Also, seriously, the part that you're bolding and making an argument about is functionally identical to the part which you say you're perfectly fine with. One part is just stated in the form of a theoretical quote from a theoretical part of the book, which apparently makes things totally agreeable.

[Gwendol]

I neither have nor need an example. Were something treated as a martial weapon, it would require martial weapon proficiency. I'm not exactly sure when that became a controversial claim.


Let me stop you right there. That's not what the rules say; When something is a martial weapon, it requires martial weapon proficiency.

[eggynack]

Let me stop you right there. That's not what the rules say; When something is a martial weapon, it requires martial weapon proficiency.
You can think that, but that's not the way the words in question work. If something is to always be treated as a martial weapon, then that means it's treated as such for the purposes of proficiency, because that's one of the cases where it could be treated in that way, and the game says always. That's just what treated, and by extension, always treated, means. This word means a thing, and it doesn't seem like anything close to what you think it means.

Edit: Just checked, and it looks like every relevant definition supports what I'm saying.

[georgie_leech]

Let me stop you right there. That's not what the rules say; When something is a martial weapon, it requires martial weapon proficiency.

What makes it so that proficiency is excluded from the ways in which US is treated as a weapon?

[Gwendol]

Because there is nothing in the game that is treated as a (light) weapon (alone) that requires proficiency. It has to be a simple, martial, natural, or improvised weapon. The distinction is of course not only semantic, since in the rules they do make a distinction between the categories (which Eggy, and you, seem to ignore). To re-iterate:

Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories.

These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon’s use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon’s usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large).

There is to my knowledge not a single example of a weapon treated as say, a martial weapon (the shield providing a counter example). However, several different examples exist of things being treated as light or one-handed weapons, and in none of those cases is proficiency implied from that statement.

[eggynack]

Because there is nothing in the game that is treated as a (light) weapon (alone) that requires proficiency. It has to be a simple, martial, natural, or improvised weapon. The distinction is of course not only semantic, since in the rules they do make a distinction between the categories (which Eggy, and you, seem to ignore). To re-iterate:
Again, there doesn't have to be a second case. As long as the logic flows in this one case, it flows fine in this one case. I don't need precedent or examples for a deductive argument. It's pretty much the exact thing I don't need, practically by definition. Other weapons don't indicate that something being treated as a light weapon. The game itself indicates that, through the rules.

Also, as always, unarmed strikes do in fact have a place in that set of interlocking categories once they're established as something treated as a weapon, and that thing is a simple weapon. Something need only be a light weapon in all situations to require proficiency, and that thing's status as one of those types of weapons you mentioned indicates the type of proficiency required. Ultimately, it's not the fact that a weapon is simple that makes it need proficiency. It's the fact that the weapon is a weapon, and that's a thing indicated by your quote. Weapons are all grouped into these interlocking categories, after all, one of whom is proficiency, so just as being a weapon is part of the general definition of a simple weapon, so too is fitting into one of those proficiency categories a part of the general definition of a weapon.


There is to my knowledge not a single example of a weapon treated as say, a martial weapon (the shield providing a counter example). However, several different examples exist of things being treated as light or one-handed weapons, and in none of those cases is proficiency implied from that statement.
And you're just wrong. If my logic holds, and I don't think you've pointed out a single actual way in which it doesn't, then if a weapon is always treated as a light weapon, and lacks something saying otherwise, then proficiency is in fact implied. If the weapon is explicitly only treated as a light weapon with reference to certain things, then it doesn't need proficiency.

[Gwendol]

Yeah, whatever.

[eggynack]

Yeah, whatever.
Nifty, I suppose. It's important to note, I think, that it probably is theoretically possible to provide a proof by counterexample that hurts my logic. For example, I'm pretty sure that a light weapon (or other weapon weight, or a thing always treated as of that weapon weight) that unambiguously does not require proficiency, and that never states that lack of proficiency (as that would just be specific overrides general), would work, though it's hard to imagine something fitting all of those parameters, even in the abstract. One could still probably argue that the theory weapon is in error, or that it doesn't fit within those parameters even if it seems to do so, but it'd make things a lot harder.

[Vogonjeltz]

I think this is the only relevant thing to respond to, apart from maybe searching through old posts for particular arguments at some point.

If you want to concede every other point, given that you demurred on addressing them, I'm ok with that.


Anyway, it really depends on what "property X" is. If property X includes in its definition that it is necessarily a wine, as is true of light weapon, then yes, that thing that is to be treated as something with property X is to be treated as a wine.

The point I made was that if the property X is one originally specific to wines, then any definition of property X will naturally refer to wines.
That doesn't then mean that giving property X to a non-wine makes it a wine because the original definition happened to be specific to wines.


For example, let's say that property X is "white wine". We are to always treat this cheese as white wine, a thing which has a lot of qualities particular to that subset of wine, but also the quality of being wine. We could ascribe to that cheese all of the qualities that are necessarily true of wine, or we could treat the cheese although it had those qualities. Is that a weird thing to do? Yeah, but I'm not the one who decided to always treat cheese as white wine.

White wine isn't a property, it's a specific object. A property would be a something about white wines: flavor, color, etc...


The thing you're missing is that fact, that being a weapon is intrinsically a property of a light weapon. It's a thing present on the page I noted, and it's a thing implicit on the page you noted. Because, just looking at it, those are several interlocking categories of weapons. It's not directly stated, but the implied noun where it says, "its relative encumbrance" is "The weapon's", made clear by the context of how each of the other categories are phrased. I don't need to default to the page you're using, because the game including this in the definition of light weapons once is enough, but I can default to your page and still have that part of the definition.

This is in reverse. Encumbrance is a thing all weapons have, not weapons is a thing all encumbrance has. Weapons are the object, Encumbrance the property of that object. Assigning a property to another type of object says nothing at all about changing the object, or about changing any other property of that object.

I fully agree that Encumbrance is typically a weapon property. Where we diverge is that I don't concur that granting a property of one type of object to another intrinsically makes the latter object into the former. Giving cheese a characteristics of wines (or vice verse) does not transmute them into the other. So a wine that tastes like cheese isn't cheese, and a cheese that tastes like wine isn't a wine, even though they might be treated like the other for the purposes of taste.


"Unarmed Strikes are always treated as light weapons." "Always." As in "in all ways," or "for all purposes." One of the characteristic properties of Weapons in D&D is that you can be proficient or not proficient in them. Ergo, Something that is treated as a light weapon in all ways would also be treated as such for the purposes of proficiency. Do you have rules text suggesting that being treated as a weapon excludes proficiency? If so that would clear a lot up.

Uh, no. Those are homophones (words that are pronounced the same way but differ in meaning, and may differ in spelling). Always refers to times: at all times; on all occasions. It does not mean in all ways or for all purposes.

I haven't even looked for text suggested that something treated as a weapon for purposes of proficiency gets excluded, but that also isn't the case for Unarmed Strikes. Those are only considered light weapons, which isn't the same thing at all.


In other words, if US is treated as a weapon of any sort, the Table suggests it would require Simple Weapon Proficiency.

It's not, so it doesn't matter.


This doesn't work as an example, as splash weapons have an explicit rule that states that they lack proficiency requirements. If you can find me a place in the text where unarmed strikes have such a rule, then that'll obviously end the argument right there.

splash weapons are also, unlike unarmed strikes, weapons. So there's actually cause to say they don't require proficiency. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense to say that something that isn't a weapon doesn't require proficiency.


You can't derive the type of proficiency from their nature as light weapons, true, but once you know that they're light weapons, then you know for a fact that they require proficiency unless stated otherwise, because light weapons are weapons, and because weapons require proficiency.

Just because one weapon follows this format, that doesn't provide an onus for everything to do so. Really, I'm not sure how you get from these quotes to the idea that light weapons don't indicate a need for proficiency. The game should and could have been more explicit about how unarmed strikes work, and they were more explicit about other things. That doesn't mean that light weapon does not imply proficiency.


No, you only know they have a particular encumbrance, that says nothing about them being weapons.

With the Shuriken, the game also grants a limited subset of treated as:
"Although they are thrown weapons, shuriken are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them, crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them and what happens to them after they are thrown."

Actually, this phrasing happens alot in that section, here's a large list, the contents of which indicate the opposite of what you've said about being treated as for one purpose automatically conferring all other purposes:

And the Shortbow, Composite:
"For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite shortbow is treated as if it were a shortbow."

And the Arrows:
"An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2)."

And Bolts:
"A crossbow bolt used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (crit ×2)."

Gauntlets:
"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."

Gauntles, Spiked:
"An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack."

Longbow, Composite:
"For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite longbow is treated as if it were a longbow."

Unarmed Strike:
"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."

Urgrosh, Dwarven:
"Dwarves treat dwarven urgroshes as martial weapons."

Waraxe, Dwarven:
"A dwarven waraxe is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand."

Hammer, Gnome Hooked:
"Gnomes treat gnome hooked hammers as martial weapons."

Whip:
"The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes)."



Of course it being a light weapon doesn't indicate the type of proficiency required. All it does is indicate that proficiency is needed. Because light weapons are weapons.

Yes, we can. The "light property", as you put it, is a thing definitionally exclusive to weapons. If you think that that's untrue, then prove it, because I've provided some reasonable evidence that it's an accurate thing.

I'm aware that it is, but it's also somewhat meaningless against my current logical line. Even if unarmed strikes aren't a weapon, they can still be treated as a weapon, and things that are treated as a weapon can still have proficiency.

I've responded to the proposition that "light weapon" = "weapon" up top of this post, so no need to repeat. (I didn't want you to think I skipped over anything).


Right; I'm reading the sentence as "treated as a weapon (and thus requiring proficiency) with the Light property," as oppose to "having the Light property that certain weapons have."

One problem with reading it that way is that "light weapon" is a defined term in the game. It's even in the glossary that way.

Another is that compound words have different meanings than non-compound words, the sum of the whole is greater than the parts.


This is one of the times where I think WotC could have used a thesaurus. In the glossary text I believe they're referring to "weapons" in the sense of "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat," heavily implying that an external object of some sort is being used. However, I don't think that's the definition used elsewhere, as it requires that an entire class of weapon be stapled on as being included by fiat. If, however, the rest of the text is using "anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim," "weapons" becomes a descriptor of any non-spell that can be used to make an attack roll. Under this definition, weapons can include a creatures anatomy in the form of claws or teeth. In particular, Slams (or Slaps) are explicitly striking a foe with an appendage; that is, using an arm or leg to hit the opponent. From this, we can see that what the game treats as weapons need not be external. Indeed, they don't even have to be explicitly for combat, as Slam shows.

Under the definition of US use excluding all weapons, can Vampires make unarmed attacks? Their Slam indicates their arms and legs are Natural Weapons; must a Vampire Monk become a master of head butts and body checks?

In short, I believe the glossary text as unclear as evidence due to ambiguous wording; that it is using a different definition of weapon than that used elsewhere. Do we have any examples of a creature that wouldn't be proficient in US using them in a way that we can see it doesn't get a non-proficiency penalty? In my view a Monk lacking such proficiency is an error, not a deliberate design choice, but other creatures that lack such a proficiency not being penalised as such would be a strong indication that no proficiency is needed.

There are two categories of weapons.
If it's not part of a creature it's considered a manufactured weapon (this includes 'found' objects like logs or rocks).
Natural weapons are weapons that are part of a creature. This includes slams.

Unarmed Strikes are non-weapon attacks and fall under neither category.

Because most of the rules of combat refer to properties of a weapon in some way this could be a serious problem for how to handle unarmed strikes, except the rules also go to great length to explain exactly how things work differently for the unarmed strike in various situations. (some in the spoiler)


Multiple times in the Disarm description.
"As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand."

"The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. (An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.)"

"Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed. If you attempted the disarm action unarmed, you now have the weapon. If you were armed, the defender’s weapon is on the ground in the defender’s square."

"You can use a disarm action to snatch an item worn by the target. If you want to have the item in your hand, the disarm must be made as an unarmed attack."



You actually did that for us, assuming your shield example works for your claim. After all, if being a ranged weapon (roughly equivalent to a light weapon for this purpose, as we're still hanging out in the same general categorical argument) doesn't imply proficiency requirements, then why did splash weapons need to explicitly state that proficiency isn't required? By your logic, the game could just have splash weapons listed as ranged, and then not put them down on the proficiency table, and not list a proficiency category in the text.

Ranged weapon is not equivalent to light weapon. One is a type of weapon (ranged vs melee) the other is a designation (light weapon, one-handed weapon, two-handed weapon).
I don't think there was a line of argument that weapons don't need proficiency (unless exempted, as Splash weapons are). Only that Unarmed Strikes aren't weapons.
Splash Weapons are weapons, so it's it's necessary to point out that they don't need proficiency.


I'm going to let you finish, but I thought this might help.


So, we have a statement of the ways that an unarmed strike is not like attacking with a melee weapon, and none of those exceptions are not being penalized for non-proficiency.

Yo Dextercorvia, Ima let you finish, but you left out the best counterevidence ever from those same chapters:
"Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures"

You also left out what's actually being compared in the Attack subsection of Standard Actions:
"Melee Attacks

With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

Unarmed Attacks

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

Attacks of Opportunity

Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks

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.

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

Unarmed Strike Damage

An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

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."

Having all the information reveals that they're comparing how the attacks are made, which doesn't even begin to include training topically. Meaning, you're off topic. This does provide excellent evidence that they're not weapons even though they count as light weapons, thank you.

Oh, hey, it also says that if you have the Improved Unarmed Strike means you don't take a penalty on the attack roll when dealing lethal damage.


Am I overlooking something?

No. The crux of the argument at this point is that eggynack is saying the term "light weapon" = "weapon", and going from there.

Oh and thank you for the compliment.


In any case, this back and forth is a bit pointless. My entire logical line is broken down completely in this post. If you can find any evidence that said logic doesn't hold, then you can provide it, but out of the things you've mentioned, I haven't seen a particular noted flaw in the logic or premises.

Second bullet from that post:
"•All light weapons are weapons, as indicated in several places attached to the definition of weapon weight (particularly the fact that it's repeatedly and explicitly noted to be a quality exclusive of weapons)."

That's is where it breaks. Encumbrance does not necessitate Weapon. Yes, it is most certainly a trait of some weapons, but it doesn't force it.

All manufactured melee weapons have encumbrance, but not all encumbrance having things are manufactured melee weapons. (The universe of encumbrance having things is different than the universe of weapon things)


And you're just wrong. If my logic holds, and I don't think you've pointed out a single actual way in which it doesn't, then if a weapon is always treated as a light weapon, and lacks something saying otherwise, then proficiency is in fact implied. If the weapon is explicitly only treated as a light weapon with reference to certain things, then it doesn't need proficiency.

The operative phrase is bolded. Your logic does not hold.

[eggynack]

If you want to concede every other point, given that you demurred on addressing them, I'm ok with that.
Pretty sure I addressed everything that's relevant to the argument. It was mostly arguments premised on my being incorrect about that one thing, if I'm not mistaken.


The point I made was that if the property X is one originally specific to wines, then any definition of property X will naturally refer to wines.
That doesn't then mean that giving property X to a non-wine makes it a wine because the original definition happened to be specific to wines.
Property X isn't just specific to wines. That would be different, and would indicate that this is a thing usually exclusive to this one type of thing, until now. Property X in this case is definitionally wine. If a thing has property X, then that thing is a wine, because part of being property X is being wine.


This is in reverse. Encumbrance is a thing all weapons have, not weapons is a thing all encumbrance has. Weapons are the object, Encumbrance the property of that object. Assigning a property to another type of object says nothing at all about changing the object, or about changing any other property of that object.
It's bidirectional, as part of the definition of this form of encumbrance is that it's a thing only used with weapons. All weapons have an encumbrance, and all things with this form of encumbrance are definitionally weapons. We can look right at the book to see that that's the case. After all, "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat." It cannot therefore be a designation of how much effort it takes to wield a non-weapon in combat.


I fully agree that Encumbrance is typically a weapon property. Where we diverge is that I don't concur that granting a property of one type of object to another intrinsically makes the latter object into the former. Giving cheese a characteristics of wines (or vice verse) does not transmute them into the other. So a wine that tastes like cheese isn't cheese, and a cheese that tastes like wine isn't a wine, even though they might be treated like the other for the purposes of taste.
The difference is, something that tastes like wine isn't definitionally wine, while something that is a light weapon is definitionally a light weapon.



Uh, no. Those are homophones (words that are pronounced the same way but differ in meaning, and may differ in spelling). Always refers to times: at all times; on all occasions. It does not mean in all ways or for all purposes.
That's really a distinction without a difference. If you're playing a game, and you say, "Hey, this time right now, when asking about proficiency, should I treat this thing as a light weapon?" then the game says, "Well, now is a time, and an occasion, and always means all times and occasions, so yeah, obviously."


It's not, so it doesn't matter.
Well yes, that's what you're attempting to argue. Until you've actually proved it, you should probably take statements of that form from the position of, "Assuming that's the case."


splash weapons are also, unlike unarmed strikes, weapons. So there's actually cause to say they don't require proficiency. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense to say that something that isn't a weapon doesn't require proficiency.

Yes it does. In particular, it does make sense to say that if the thing is always treated as a weapon.


No, you only know they have a particular encumbrance, that says nothing about them being weapons.
Again, the definition of light weapon makes that absolutely not the case.


With the Shuriken, the game also grants a limited subset of treated as:
"Although they are thrown weapons, shuriken are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them, crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them and what happens to them after they are thrown."

Actually, this phrasing happens alot in that section, here's a large list, the contents of which indicate the opposite of what you've said about being treated as for one purpose automatically conferring all other purposes:

And the Shortbow, Composite:
"For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite shortbow is treated as if it were a shortbow."

And the Arrows:
"An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2)."

And Bolts:
"A crossbow bolt used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (crit ×2)."

Gauntlets:
"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."

Gauntles, Spiked:
"An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack."

Longbow, Composite:
"For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite longbow is treated as if it were a longbow."

Unarmed Strike:
"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."

Urgrosh, Dwarven:
"Dwarves treat dwarven urgroshes as martial weapons."

Waraxe, Dwarven:
"A dwarven waraxe is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand."

Hammer, Gnome Hooked:
"Gnomes treat gnome hooked hammers as martial weapons."

Whip:
"The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes)."

I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to take from these quotes. Some of these uses are pretty close to universal, and others aren't. I don't think it really proves anything of any sort, though it's certainly a nifty list of things.



I've responded to the proposition that "light weapon" = "weapon" up top of this post, so no need to repeat. (I didn't want you to think I skipped over anything).
Same in your direction, but obviously in the inverse fashion.



One problem with reading it that way is that "light weapon" is a defined term in the game. It's even in the glossary that way.
Light weapon is indeed in the glossary. It too includes the fact that light weapons are necessarily weapons. In particular, "A weapon suitable for use in the wielder’s off hand, such as a dagger." So, thanks for the bonus citation supporting my point, I suppose.


Another is that compound words have different meanings than non-compound words, the sum of the whole is greater than the parts.
Sometimes, but here the non-compound word is used within the definition.



Ranged weapon is not equivalent to light weapon. One is a type of weapon (ranged vs melee) the other is a designation (light weapon, one-handed weapon, two-handed weapon).
They are both types of weapons There is no more evidence for the idea that ranged weapons are necessarily weapons than there is for the idea that light weapons are necessarily weapons, and there may even be less. After all, it looks like the definitions under ranged weapons includes just about entirely compound words, which as you note could have their own meaning. It seems evident that they're either both types of weapons or both designations, and it looks like they're both types of weapons.


I don't think there was a line of argument that weapons don't need proficiency (unless exempted, as Splash weapons are). Only that Unarmed Strikes aren't weapons.
I think Gwendol was making some form of argument along the former lines, though I still can't tell for sure.

Splash Weapons are weapons, so it's it's necessary to point out that they don't need proficiency.
I agree. Likewise, unarmed strikes are treated as weapons, so it's necessary to point out that they don't need proficiency.


Second bullet from that post:
"•All light weapons are weapons, as indicated in several places attached to the definition of weapon weight (particularly the fact that it's repeatedly and explicitly noted to be a quality exclusive of weapons)."

That's is where it breaks. Encumbrance does not necessitate Weapon. Yes, it is most certainly a trait of some weapons, but it doesn't force it.
I agree that this is the place where the argument I'm constructing is either made or broken. Everything else seems a bit extraneous, to be honest. As is, my argument seems pretty solid. You're saying that encumbrance does not necessitate weapon, but the game says the exact opposite over and over again. Anything called a light weapon, or always treated as a light weapon, immediately takes a look at the glossary definition for light weapon, and sees that it is indeed a weapon. It's right in the first two words.

[Gwendol]

I think Gwendol was making some form of argument along the former lines, though I still can't tell for sure.


Eggy, this is the second time you invent things I haven't said in this thread. Don't let it be a third.

You asked for examples of weapons not needing proficiency after claiming all weapons need them. I provided the example, that's all.

I see you still can't make the difference between "treated as" and "is".

[OldTrees1]

Eggy, this is the second time you invent things I haven't said in this thread. Don't let it be a third.

You asked for examples of weapons not needing proficiency after claiming all weapons need them. I provided the example, that's all.

I see you still can't make the difference between "treated as" and "is".

Gwendol, drop it. Eggy has been presented with all the evidence of invalidity he would need. At this point, your best move is to disengage.

[eggynack]

Eggy, this is the second time you invent things I haven't said in this thread. Don't let it be a third.
Honestly seems like you keep vacillating on this one. I say that you're saying this thing in one fashion, and you insist that you're not, and then I assume that you agree with a functionally equivalent thing, and you start arguing with it. Kinda weird stuff.


I see you still can't make the difference between "treated as" and "is".
Indeed I can not, at least in this instance. If there's any difference at all in this case, it's that treated as doesn't conflict with any reading of the glossary entry for unarmed strikes.


Gwendol, drop it. Eggy has been presented with all the evidence of invalidity he would need. At this point, your best move is to disengage.
It seems likely that I have been presented with all of the evidence of invalidity that exists. Doesn't seem anywhere close to proof of said invalidity though. Really, most of this edge stuff is rather pointless. It nearly entirely comes down to whether definitions for light weapon provided in the book are sufficient to show that light weapons are necessarily weapons. I've presented my case in what I believe to be a reasonable fashion, and I don't think the existing rebuttal is nearly enough to break that case, or even really harm it significantly. The game just straight up says that light weapons are weapons, after all. In at least three separate instances too.