Unarmed Strike Question

[Nashira]

Howdy all,

I'm not looking to throw myself into the ring regarding the monk proficiency debate, I just had a small question related to it.

Is there any other class that is meant to be fighting with unarmed strikes that also does not have unarmed proficiency listed, what about the reverse? If no class actually lists the unarmed proficiency what are the implications?

[Flickerdart]

The implications are that D&D writers don't spend as much time on mechanics as we do.

[Psyren]

Is there any other class that is meant to be fighting with unarmed strikes that also does not have unarmed proficiency listed, what about the reverse?

Battle Dancer is intended to fight unarmed - but unlike monks, they are proficient with simple weapons, and therefore get unarmed strike.


If no class actually lists the unarmed proficiency what are the implications?

That 3.5 was poorly written? :smalltongue:

[Nashira]

Battle Dancer is intended to fight unarmed - but unlike monks, they are proficient with simple weapons, and therefore get unarmed strike.

I should clarify slightly. Is there any class that specifically mentions unarmed strikes in its proficiency list (as in the case of a very restrictive proficiency class)?

[Psyren]

I should clarify slightly. Is there any class that specifically mentions unarmed strikes in its proficiency list (as in the case of a very restrictive proficiency class)?

No, because they're a simple weapon, and everyone gets proficiency with those except the three classes mentioned in the PHB, and one-offs based closely on one of them like the psion.

[Curmudgeon]

I should clarify slightly. Is there any class that specifically mentions unarmed strikes in its proficiency list (as in the case of a very restrictive proficiency class)?
I don't think so, but then I haven't checked every class (over 1,000 of them).

[The Viscount]

No, at least not base classes. The only classes that gain free IUS are monk, battledancer, and shaman. Shaman and battledancer both have all simple weapons. Same goes for the unarmed swordsage ACF.

As for PrCs, I know of none that give improved unarmed strike and give a restrictive weapon proficiency list. WoTC never realized their mistake.

[Curmudgeon]

The only classes that gain free IUS are monk, battledancer, and shaman.
There are more when you include variants and ACFs. For example, the Barbarian with City Brawler ACF (Dragon # 349, page 92).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Or Unarmed Swordsage.

Ok. The following classes grant Improved Unarmed Strike. Cipher Adept (Pl). Battlerager (RoF). That's all i could find. I have to bounce; could someone check those to see if they grant proficiencies, or if there are ways to qualify without Simple Weapon Proficiency?

[Sagetim]

Or Unarmed Swordsage.

Ok. The following classes grant Improved Unarmed Strike. Cipher Adept (Pl). Battlerager (RoF). That's all i could find. I have to bounce; could someone check those to see if they grant proficiencies, or if there are ways to qualify without Simple Weapon Proficiency?

Shaman from Oriental Adventures gets Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat and an unarmed strike damage progression. I think Inkyo (from Rokugan Campaign Setting) also gets Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat and a crap unarmed strike progression.

[Telonius]

Pugilist from Dragon 310 (a Fighter variant) grants Improved Unarmed Strike. (It also has Simple Weapon Proficiency, since it's a Fighter variant).

[Jormengand]

To add to its list of sins, Disciple of the Word can be entered without being either a monk, or proficient in simple weapons, and doesn't grant proficiency in any kind of weapon or armour. Fortunately, one tends to use Truenamer (who is proficient in simple weapons) to enter it, but it's not necessary.

[Curmudgeon]

Ok. The following classes grant Improved Unarmed Strike. Cipher Adept (Pl). Battlerager (RoF). That's all i could find. I have to bounce; could someone check those to see if they grant proficiencies, or if there are ways to qualify without Simple Weapon Proficiency?
I've checked, and the answer is no.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Cipher adepts gain no proficiency with any weapon or armor.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Battleragers gain no proficiency with any weapons, armor, or shields.

[Nashira]

I've checked, and the answer is no.

Could a pure monk, or a monk/whatever that has gained no additional proficiencies enter either of these classes? Now I'm wondering about making a ridiculous build in various classes that grant bonuses to unarmed strikes, but never actually gained proficiency in it, because science!

[marphod]

The implications are that D&D writers don't spend as much time on mechanics as we do.

That.

(if they did, think about how many stat blocks and sample characters would be different. And there would be example characters with more than 4 classes.)

[Telonius]

If you want to get even more absurd, use Weapon Group (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm) feats. You'll notice that a particular kind of attack is entirely absent...

[Psyren]

If you want to get even more absurd, use Weapon Group (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm) feats. You'll notice that a particular kind of attack is entirely absent...

At least there, Monk gets the basic group "plus any other one." Unarmed Strike can be that one. UA to the rescue!

[Telonius]

Except Unarmed Strike is not listed at all. The "plus any one" is referring to a group, not a weapon. The Monk Weapons list the Improved Unarmed Strike feat as a prerequisite of taking the group, but no listed group specifically mentions Unarmed Strike as a proficiency. And since nothing gives proficiency to "all simple weapons," you're up a creek.

It does give the DM the option of creating new groups, so at least it gives an out.

[Psyren]

Ah, I missed that the "one" refers to another "group feat" rather than to a weapon of your choice. Ah well.

[atemu1234]

My fix is that IUS grants proficiency.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

All of this is extremely dubious, given its provenance. But some collected observations on Monks and unarmed strikes.



As far as the rules are concerned, you can use just about any part of your body in an unarmed attack: a head butt, kick, elbow, knee, or forearm. This means you don't need a free hand to make an unarmed attack.

If you're making any unarmed attacks in addition to an attack with your primary hand (for instance, a sword slash and a kick or head butt), consider the unarmed attacks as off-hand attacks even if you aren't making them with a hand. See Part Two for notes about using unarmed strikes as primary and secondary weapons.

This directly contradicts the PHD:

There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

(As an aside, I also note that Flurry of Blows sets your Str bonus on attacks to x1, no matter what weapon you're attacking with or how it's being wielded.) The article, in part two, addresses everything before that line, saying that what that means is that unarmed strikes are intended to always get +Str on damage. However, you can't TWF and Flurry at the same time:


The monk, however, does not get an extra attack from a second weapon. If the monk is using a flurry of blows, she adds her full Strength bonus to damage from any successful attack, even if she uses what normally would be her off hand, or uses one end of a quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon.

If a monk is not using her flurry of blows ability, she can claim an extra attack from a second weapon.

Amusingly, this is also directly contradicted by the FAQ:

She can even combine two-weapon fighting with a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for twoweapon fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows.

The FAQ also addresses the no such thing as an off-hand attack by saying, in effect, that it's badly written.

So, ultimately, what I'm getting at here is that the reason DMs and players should always go back to the primary sources is because the various collected articles and FAQs are inconsistent, often flatly wrong and tend to avoid addressing things that might be embarrassing; one might note that there's no FAQ discussion of monk unarmed proficiency, Swordsage +wis to AC in no armor or x6 skill points at level 1.

[Jormengand]

This directly contradicts the PHD:

No, it doesn't. It simply means that fighters who wield a sword in one hand and nothing in the other are counted as offhanding their UAS, and monks who do the same are not. Much the same as fighters who attack flat-footed or flanked oppnents don't add extra d6s of damage to that attack, but rogues do.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

No, it doesn't. It simply means that fighters who wield a sword in one hand and nothing in the other are counted as offhanding their UAS, and monks who do the same are not. Much the same as fighters who attack flat-footed or flanked oppnents don't add extra d6s of damage to that attack, but rogues do.

In fact, the FAQ says you are not correct. It says
1) the RAW is that monks can't use unarmed strikes as off-hand attacks, but
2) the RAW is not completely ironclad on this point, and
3) the RAW makes no sense, and
4) unarmed strikes should be allowed to be used as off-hand attacks, and
5) "when using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting...and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits."

[Jormengand]

In fact, the FAQ

Is utterly void.

[Curmudgeon]

This directly contradicts the PHD:

There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.Note that it's entirely RAW legal for the Monk to make a primary unarmed strike, and use a weapon for their off hand attack.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Note that it's entirely RAW legal for the Monk to make a primary unarmed strike, and use a weapon for their off hand attack.


Indeed so.

[ShaneMRoth]

...
If no class actually lists the unarmed proficiency what are the implications?
...

At most game tables, there is no implication.

On this forum? The implications are many, varied, and perilous.