PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other [REWRITE] Unarmed Strikes P.E.A.C.H.



ShaneMRoth
2015-07-15, 12:18 PM
Rewrite: Unarmed Strikes

This Rewrite clarifies how Unarmed Attacks function in the 3.x game system.

Short Version
Unarmed means no weapon; no weapon means no weapon proficiency.

Long Version
An Unarmed Strike is a melee attack made without a Weapon. The defining quality of an Unarmed Strike is the conspicuous lack of a weapon, and under no circumstances shall this defining quality be ignored, rescinded, or nullified in-game.

It is not mechanically possible to have a weapon proficiency in a weaponless attack form.

Weapon Proficiency rules shall only come into play for attacks made with Weapons.

Weapons fall into two distinct categories, as defined in the Core. Manufactured Weapons and Natural Weapons. Unarmed Strikes fit into neither of these categories.

It is sometimes necessary to treat Unarmed Strikes like weapons for specific mechanical purposes that include, but are in no way limited to: combat resolution, feat selection, and spell casting. These mechanical expediencies in no way change the weaponless nature of an Unarmed Strike.


Core Rules

This rewrite is understood by the author to be compatible with the Core Rules.

This rewrite is understood by the author to cause no change in the function of any existing game mechanic in the Core Rules, beyond clarifying that Monks (and all of the other character classes) are not required to have a weapon proficiency when making a weaponless attack like an Unarmed Strike.

Mechanical Underpinnings

The Unarmed Strike is listed under Weapons (and in the category of Simple Weapons.)

Reasonable people can be forgiven for believing that an Unarmed Strike might be a Simple Weapon.

Throughout the Core, there are phrases which mandate that Unarmed Strikes be treated like weapons.

This has created doubt as to whether or not a character must have weapon proficiency in Simple Weapons in order to be proficient with an Unarmed Strike.

And since the Monk class does not have proficiency in Simple Weapons, the implication is that Monks are not proficient in their signature attack.

This has been the source of concern, confusion, and conflict.

Definitions

The word Unarmed is not formally defined in the Core.

This rewrite shall use the commonly understood English language definition of this word.

Unarmed
adjective
not equipped with or carrying weapons.

An Unarmed Strike, by definition, is a weaponless strike.

Rules as Written
A single two word Rule As Written shall be scrutinized: Unarmed Strike.

A strike, according to the Core, is a melee attack made with a weapon.

From the SRD (Actions in Combat)

With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.

Therefore, An Unarmed Strike is a weaponless melee attack. The defining characteristic of an Unarmed Strike is the conspicuous lack of a weapon.

Every phrase in the Core that looks like it might define an Unarmed Strike as a Weapon is heavily qualified and falls consistently and peculiarly short of actually defining an Unarmed Strike as a Weapon.

Defining an Unarmed Strike (a weaponless melee attack) as a Weapon renders the term Unarmed Strike to be entirely meaningless, both in regards to game mechanics and linguistics.

It is absurd on its face to require a weapon proficiency for a weaponless attack.

It is also absurd on its face that the Monk class is able to take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and yet somehow manage to remain completely untrained (non-proficient) in Unarmed Strike. The notion that a character can become more lethal with an attack form, yet somehow not qualify as ‘proficient’ in that attack form undermines Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

FAQ

Why not just make a house rule that all characters are proficient with unarmed strikes, as was done in Pathfinder?

That is one way to go.

This rewrite establishes that Unarmed means Weaponless, and that there is no reason to require a weapon proficiency for an attack made without a weapon.

This rewrite is based on the notion that the Monk class was not broken in the first place and that weaponless attacks never needed a weapon proficiency.

If an Unarmed Strike is not a weapon, why does it appear in the Weapon Section as a Simple Weapon?


I am not going to try and guess as to why the Unarmed Strike appears as it does among the list of Weapons in the Core.

The term ‘Unarmed Strike’ refers to a weaponless melee attack.

The conspicuous lack of a weapon is the defining characteristic of an Unarmed Strike.

The appearance of the Unarmed Strike in the Weapon section of the Core doesn’t change the meaning of the term ‘Unarmed Strike’ (a weaponless melee attack.)

If a Gauntlet is a Simple Weapon, then how come an Unarmed Strike isn’t?

A Gauntlet isn’t a Simple Weapon, either.

A Gauntlet isn’t a Weapon at all.

A Gauntlet is Armor.

The Gauntlet is listed right there, as a Simple Weapon. How is it not a Weapon?

There are at least two ways that a Gauntlet is not a weapon.


A strike made with a Gauntlet is still an Unarmed Strike.

An Unarmed Strike is a strike made with the conspicuous lack of a Weapon.

Therefore, a Gauntlet is not a Weapon.

If a Gauntlet were a Weapon, it wouldn’t be possible to make Unarmed Strikes with it.


A Gauntlet is also not a weapon in the same way that a shield is not a weapon.

Light and Heavy Shields both appear on the Weapon list.

That doesn’t change the fact that they are both armor.

They craft like Armor.

They function like Armor.

Their masterwork components are based on Armor (150 gp) not Weapons (300gp).

Their appearance in a list of Weapons does nothing to change their nature.

This underscores why the appearance of a term on the Weapons section doesn’t cause something to be defined as a weapon.

Gauntlets are including as a component of several sets of armor (Chainmail, Breastplate, etc.).

Gauntlets are armor.

Spiked Gauntlets are listed as weapons. Why aren’t they weapons?

Spiked Gauntlets are like Spiked Shields.

They are weaponized armor.

It stands to reason that a character is using some part of his body when making an Unarmed Strike. Why doesn’t a character’s body count as a weapon for the purposes of Unarmed Strikes?

Because if a part of a character’s body qualifies as a weapon, then (in terms of game mechanics) that part of the body qualifies as a Natural Weapon, like a Claw or a Stinger.

Unarmed Strikes, by their nature, are attacks made without a weapon. That’s what Unarmed means.

It is not possible to make an Unarmed Strike with a Natural Weapon.

Why aren’t Unarmed Strikes considered Natural Weapons?

If you read the Core text for Natural Weapons, you will discover that an attack with a Natural Weapon is an Armed Attack.

It is an attack that involves a Weapon.

Therefore, it is not possible to make an Unarmed Strike with a Natural Weapon.

Are creatures with Natural Weapons unable to make Unarmed Strike?

A creature with a Natural Weapon could make an Unarmed Strike, provided that creature didn’t use his Natural Weapon when making the attack.

A druid in the shape of a bear could deliver a headbutt as an Unarmed Strike.

But when that druid strikes with his claws, he is making an Armed Attack with a Natural Weapon.

In the Weapons section of the Core, this phrase appears: “An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon”. This phrase, and phrases like it, appear throughout the Core.

Doesn’t ‘always’ mean that mean that you have to treat an Unarmed Strike like a Weapon under all circumstances, including for purposes of weapon proficiency?

No.

An Unarmed Strike is always a weaponless attack.

When you make an Unarmed Strike you are, by definition, not using a Weapon.

You don’t need a Weapon proficiency when you are not using a Weapon.

You don’t need a Weapon proficiency when you are making an Unarmed Strike.

In the Core text describing the Monk class, the following text appears: “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.”

Doesn’t that mean that an Unarmed Strike is both a Manufactured Weapon and a Natural Weapon?

No.

An Unarmed Strike is, by its nature, a weaponless attack.

So, an Unarmed Strike is not a Weapon of any kind.

It can be “treated” like a weapon, for specific mechanical purposes.

It can be “considered” a weapon, for specific mechanical purposes.

But it will never, ever, ever, ever be a Weapon.

Because “Unarmed Strike” is a term with an inherent meaning: Weaponless melee attack.

The game is written in English; Unarmed Strike is not an object in an object oriented programming language.

The meaning of terms like Unarmed Strike are not subject to change based on where those terms appear in the Core.

Since by following this rule, you cannot be proficient in Unarmed Strikes, that would mean you can no longer take feats for Unarmed Strike that require proficiency, like Weapon Focus. Is this an intended result?

No.

A feat that explicitly allows for an unarmed strike to be treated as a weapon still plays as written.

What about the Improved Critical feat?

Only a Monk may apply the Improved Critical feat to an Unarmed Strike. Every other character class can suck it.

But, by RAW--

I’m going to stop you right there.


The phrase, by RAW, has been invoked to make the following arguments about Unarmed Strikes:




An Unarmed Strike is a Weapon.

An Unarmed Strike is a Simple Weapon.

An Unarmed Strike is an object, but it doesn’t have any physical properties like Hit Points, Armor Class, or Hardness.

An Unarmed Strike is not an Attack.

An Unarmed Strike is not an Unarmed Attack.

An Unarmed Strike is not an Action.

The Sorcerer is more proficient with an Unarmed Strike than the Monk.

It is technically possible to craft a masterwork Unarmed Strike.

It is technically possible to craft a magic weapon that is a Dancing Unarmed Strike.

An Unarmed Strike is a Manufactured Weapon.

An Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon.

An Unarmed Strike is both a Manufactured Weapon and Natural Weapon at the same time.

An Unarmed Strike is sometimes a Manufactured Weapon and sometimes a Natural Weapon.

An Unarmed Strike is neither a Manufactured Weapon nor a Natural Weapon, but it’s still a Weapon.

Nothing in the Core says that an Unarmed Strike doesn’t require a Weapon Proficiency.

And my personal favorite…


The meaning of the word ‘Unarmed’ and the meaning of the word ‘Strike’ are irrelevant when determining what an Unarmed Strike is.

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

By RAW, arguments about how to handle Unarmed Strike in the game seem to take into account every word in the Core except for two words: Unarmed Strike.

Unarmed Strike is a two word Rule As Written. It means weaponless melee attack.

Weaponless attacks don’t require weapon proficiency because read the first half of this sentence again.

The Monk class really isn’t broken.

It never was.

But you don’t understand. By RAW the Unarmed Strike is--


If you need the Monk to be broken, then ignore this entirely unofficial, entirely non-binding, homebrew re-write.

You go bye now.

Kamai
2015-07-18, 02:03 AM
Since by following this rule, you cannot be proficient in Unarmed Strikes, that would mean you can no longer take feats for Unarmed Strike that require proficiency, like Weapon Focus. Is this an intended result?

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-18, 03:53 AM
Since by following this rule, you cannot be proficient in Unarmed Strikes, that would mean you can no longer take feats for Unarmed Strike that require proficiency, like Weapon Focus. Is this an intended result?

Not according to the Weapon Focus feat...


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.

EDIT: I have modified the rewrite's FAQ to include this question.

eggynack
2015-07-18, 05:59 AM
Not entirely sure I see the point. Most folk already play with monks proficient with their unarmed strikes. The vast majority of players have no idea that monks aren't proficient with them, and the few that do know are also aware that monks are awful enough without a lack of proficiency such that they don't need a nerf. Also not really sure why you spend so much time arguing about the current RAW status of unarmed strikes. Doesn't seem to be much point to that if you're changing the rule to this form no matter what its old status was.

SkipSandwich
2015-07-18, 10:16 AM
Shane, you write these really tight, explicitly-worded houserules and rewrites. Do you have some specific goal in mind other then sewing up ALL the loopholes and other oversights that can lead to potential silliness and/or abuse of game mechanics?

Kamai
2015-07-18, 10:41 AM
So the note does let it work specifically on Weapon Focus. As far as I'm aware, Improved Critical from core does not have the same overriding text, and I strongly there are class features that require you to use weapons you are proficient in to make use of, although none are coming to mind in core.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-18, 04:33 PM
...Most folk already play with monks proficient with their unarmed strikes. The vast majority of players have no idea that monks aren't proficient with them. ...

This entire rewrite is founded on the premise that weaponless attacks, including unarmed strikes, require no weapon proficiency.


Shane, you write these really tight, explicitly-worded houserules and rewrites. Do you have some specific goal in mind other then sewing up ALL the loopholes and other oversights that can lead to potential silliness and/or abuse of game mechanics?

I'm seeking a high degree of clarity of a rule while also being mindful of a referee's need to adjudicate that rule under any number of unforeseeable circumstances.

I don't believe it is possible to sew up all loopholes or oversights.


So the note does let it work specifically on Weapon Focus. As far as I'm aware, Improved Critical from core does not have the same overriding text, and I strongly there are class features that require you to use weapons you are proficient in to make use of, although none are coming to mind in core.

Only a Monk may apply the Improved Critical feat to an Unarmed Strike. Every other character class can suck it.

EDIT: I have included a question on the Improved Critical feat in the rewrite's FAQ.

eggynack
2015-07-18, 05:02 PM
This entire rewrite is founded on the premise that weaponless attacks, including unarmed strikes, require no weapon proficiency.
So, you're just trying to restart that thread in a weird homebrew context?

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-18, 05:21 PM
So, you're just trying to restart that thread in a weird homebrew context?

Before I even drafted this rewrite, I read Djinn_in_Tonic's thread on the matter.

And I found this...


A rewrite is when you taken an existing mechanic and, rather than tweaking it slightly, you rewrite it to better fit it's intended goal. This may involve minor additions or removals, a complete revision of the feat along similar lines (replacing Two-Weapon Fighting with, for example, the ability to make two attacks at your full bonus as a standard action), or a slight change in the exact wording: the point is that you're merely changing the exact specifics, not inventing something completely new. Perhaps an ability doesn't work as intended, or you feel a certain feat is to powerful or to weak. Either way, you have a basis for your creation, from which you do not deviate to much.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?150609-3-5-Homebrew-Theory-The-Philosophy-of-Creation

That's what I'm endeavoring to accomplish with this rewrite.

A rewrite of the mechanics of the Unarmed Strike to better fit the intended goal of that mechanic.

Which is that the Monk class was never broken in the first place.

eggynack
2015-07-18, 05:31 PM
Before I even drafted this rewrite, I read Djinn_in_Tonic's thread on the matter.

And I found this...


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?150609-3-5-Homebrew-Theory-The-Philosophy-of-Creation

That's what I'm endeavoring to accomplish with this rewrite.

A rewrite of the mechanics of the Unarmed Strike to better fit the intended goal of that mechanic.

Which is that the Monk class was never broken in the first place.
But the monk was broken in the first place. That's why you're making its mechanics fit the intended goal of that mechanic. The mechanics once did not fit those intended goals, and in this sense, the mechanics were broken. I just don't see much of a point to it, because this is a change that everyone makes already.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-18, 05:34 PM
But the monk was broken in the first place. That's why you're making its mechanics fit the intended goal of that mechanic. The mechanics once did not fit those intended goals, and in this sense, the mechanics were broken. I just don't see much of a point to it, because this is a change that everyone makes already.

Then, don't worry about it. It's a Homebrew Rewrite. Unofficial. Non-binding.

eggynack
2015-07-18, 05:39 PM
Then, don't worry about it. It's a Homebrew Rewrite. Unofficial. Non-binding.
But that's why I don't see the point of all the discussion of the base unarmed strike ability. You could have literally done this entire post in two sentences, as follows:

"By the rules, monks are not proficient with their unarmed strikes, because they are weapons. Thus, as a house rule, I suggest removing the weapon-hood of unarmed strikes entirely, to better fit what I feel to be the intent behind them."

And you're done. Still not much point to it, because again, most everyone either does something like this, or doesn't even recognize it as a thing that must be done.

Renen
2015-07-18, 05:40 PM
Doesn't this actually screw the monk over more? If unarmed strike isn't a weapon, then any "boosts" to damage or accuracy that specify weapon can't be used. So now monk has even less options to buff it's damage and hit rate.

Thoughts?

Oh, and monk is broken in many other ways. I mean... He is playable but there's a reason he is considered the worst class in PHB. When discussing how bad monk is people pretty much never bring up the unarmed strike problem since it's usually just hand waived as them being obviously proficient.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-18, 05:48 PM
But that's why I don't see the point of all the discussion of the base unarmed strike ability. You could have literally done this entire post in two sentences, as follows:

"By the rules, monks are not proficient with their unarmed strikes, because they are weapons. Thus, as a house rule, I suggest removing the weapon-hood of unarmed strikes entirely, to better fit what I feel to be the intent behind them."

And you're done. Still not much point to it, because again, most everyone either does something like this, or doesn't even recognize it as a thing that must be done.

That is one way to approach the issue.

I am not taking that approach.

I wrote this in the context of a Rewrite, not a House Rule.


Doesn't this actually screw the monk over more? If unarmed strike isn't a weapon, then any "boosts" to damage or accuracy that specify weapon can't be used. So now monk has even less options to buff it's damage and hit rate.

Thoughts?

One thought springs immediately to mind...

SRD (Monk Class; 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.

eggynack
2015-07-18, 05:53 PM
That is one way to approach the issue.

I am not taking that approach.

I wrote this in the context of a Rewrite, not a House Rule.

A rewrite is a house rule. That should be pretty clear from the thing you posted. You're not creating something completely new, but instead modifying it, and modification is a form of house rule. In fact, that's basically what house rules are. If you're creating something completely new, that's home brew, though I suppose house rules are a kinda subset of home brew. Point is, this is a house rule.

Renen
2015-07-18, 05:55 PM
So it's treated as a weapon for all purposes that one really cares to treat it as a weapon for except when it comes to the rule about having a penalty to hit with a weapon you are not proficient with? And in that one case it is not treated as a weapon, thus not risking the possible penalty for not being proficient?

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-18, 05:58 PM
A rewrite is a house rule. That should be pretty clear from the thing you posted. You're not creating something completely new, but instead modifying it, and modification is a form of house rule. In fact, that's basically what house rules are. If you're creating something completely new, that's home brew, though I suppose house rules are a kinda subset of home brew. Point is, this is a house rule.

Call it whatever you need to call it.

I wrote this document as a Homebrew Rewrite, so that's what it is.

Renen
2015-07-18, 06:05 PM
What about my point? Did I get it about right?

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-18, 06:13 PM
So it's treated as a weapon for all purposes that one really cares to treat it as a weapon for except when it comes to the rule about having a penalty to hit with a weapon you are not proficient with? And in that one case it is not treated as a weapon, thus not risking the possible penalty for not being proficient?

It seems like you are struggling with this entire concept.

The Unarmed Strike is not "treated as if it weren't a weapon" for the purposes of weapon proficiency.

The Unarmed Strike is, by definition, not a Weapon at all. Unarmed means "without a weapon".

Existing rules that call for the Unarmed Strike to be treated like a weapon, or considered a weapon, still play.

Renen
2015-07-18, 06:18 PM
No I get the concept. It just seems like if accuracy and damage buffs can be applied to it as if it was a weapon, then it's not a weapon in name only. But I get the rewrite, and it's a logical rewrite.

eggynack
2015-07-18, 06:27 PM
Call it whatever you need to call it.

I wrote this document as a Homebrew Rewrite, so that's what it is.
I just don't get the point of all the discussion of the past nature of unarmed strikes in a homebrew rewrite.

Renen
2015-07-18, 10:18 PM
Also, while I could be wrong on this, I just remembered something and wanted to add.
While I see good reasoning in the way you wrote stuff, I wanna play devil's advocate and add this:
Unarmed indeed means "not equipped with or carrying weapons" but just because one doesnt carry a weapon doesnt mean one cant use make an attack with a weapon. This is in reference to the fact that if a trained soldier severely harms a civilian, they are charged with a higher crime than a normal person would, because their body itself is considered a deadly weapon.

Now, you address that this might make it a natural weapon. In my opinion this is not so for the following reasons:
1)
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon Now, natural weapons DO say that "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" however the above quote is more specific. In DnD if there are two contradicting texts, the one that is more specific wins. This means that if (all) natural weapons are called out as being part of creatures body, thats a pretty general statement as it applies to all natural weapons. But then you have something that MIGHT be considered a natural weapon if not for the fact that is very specifically states that is is ALWAYS considered a light weapon.

2) A monk's unarmed attack is specifically called out as being treated as a manufactured and a natural weapon, but only for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. This means that is not not always and universally treated as natural, but only when applying buffs. (Fun fact, this means you can throw fists, as there are a few skills that specifically call out throwing a weapon, and fists qualify)

3) Unarmed strike is mechanically different in other ways. For one it benefits from iterative attacks from having higher BAB. Something no other natural weapon gets.


This does not invalidate your houserule or anything, i just figured i'd share.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-18, 10:38 PM
Also, while I could be wrong on this, I just remembered something and wanted to add.
While I see good reasoning in the way you wrote stuff, I wanna play devil's advocate and add this:
Unarmed indeed means "not equipped with or carrying weapons" but just because one doesnt carry a weapon doesnt mean one cant use make an attack with a weapon. This is in reference to the fact that if a trained soldier severely harms a civilian, they are charged with a higher crime than a normal person would, because their body itself is considered a deadly weapon.

The trained soldier from your example, in game terms, would probably be considered to have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

And, in game terms, if he were making Unarmed Strikes... he wouldn't be using a weapon.


Now, you address that this might make it a natural weapon. In my opinion this is not so for the following reasons:

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon
1) Now, natural weapons DO say that "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" however the above quote is more specific. In DnD if there are two contradicting texts, the one that is more specific wins. This means that if (all) natural weapons are called out as being part of creatures body, thats a pretty general statement as it applies to all natural weapons. But then you have something that MIGHT be considered a natural weapon if not for the fact that is very specifically states that is is ALWAYS considered a light weapon.

From the Weapon Finesse Feat

Natural weapons are always considered light weapons.

The only contradiction here is that a Natural Weapon is a type of Weapon, and an Unarmed Attack is not a type of Weapon.



2) A monk's unarmed attack ... is not not always and universally treated as natural, but only when applying buffs. (Fun fact, this means you can throw fists, as there are a few skills that specifically call out throwing a weapon, and fists qualify)

Unarmed attacks are not objects, so I don't see how they could be thrown.



3) Unarmed strike is mechanically different in other ways. For one it benefits from iterative attacks from having higher BAB. Something no other natural weapon gets.


This does not invalidate your houserule or anything, i just figured i'd share.

Fair enough.

Renen
2015-07-18, 10:51 PM
Throwing unarmed strikes:

Take amulet of natural weapons. You can add weapon enchantments to it and it enhances your natural weapons in turn with those properties. Since unarmed strike can be enhanced by effects that apply to natural weapons, this would work on them.
Now you add the "Throwing" and "Returning" properties. Now your unarmed strike can be "thrown" and will "return" to you.
How? I have nooooooooo idea. But maybe you transform into inspector Gadget.?


And there's nothing stopping unarmed strike from still always being considered a light weapon, regardless of the fact that it isn't a "weapon" in the conventional sense. D&D rules are silly and funny.

Network
2015-07-19, 12:19 AM
If monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes, does this mean spellcasters are not proficient with rays and touch attacks?

Because they also count as weapons for many purposes despite not being real weapons. If anything, WotC went as far as it could treating natural weapon proficiency as automatic and treating unarmed strikes as natural weapons, despite never stating it explicitely.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-19, 12:23 AM
If monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes, does this mean spellcasters are not proficient with rays and touch attacks?

Because they also count as weapons for many purposes despite not being real weapons. If anything, WotC went as far as it could treating natural weapon proficiency as automatic and treating unarmed strikes as natural weapons, despite never stating it explicitely.

A weaponless attack doesn't require a weapon proficiency.

Rays (ranged touch attacks)... also known as Point At That Guy...

And unarmed melee touch attacks... also known as Touch That Guy...

are made at their base attack bonus.

eggynack
2015-07-19, 12:55 AM
If monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes, does this mean spellcasters are not proficient with rays and touch attacks?

Because they also count as weapons for many purposes despite not being real weapons. If anything, WotC went as far as it could treating natural weapon proficiency as automatic and treating unarmed strikes as natural weapons, despite never stating it explicitely.
No, rays aren't stated to be weapons, so they're not weapons. They explicitly have a specific set of weapon-like qualities, which are laid out in complete arcane, but one of those ways is not requiring proficiency. By contrast, the unarmed strike is explicitly stated to be a weapon, and to always be treated as a weapon, and so it takes proficiency. As for natural weapons, they do indeed go far in treating them as automatic, but they accomplish that by just handing out said proficiency all over the place rather than by making that proficiency not required. Besides, unarmed strikes are stated to fall into the simple weapon proficiency class, so that's the thing monks would probably require, rather than natural weapon proficiency.

BRKNdevil
2015-07-19, 02:16 PM
And all this general weirdness is why i like the Unchained Monk of Pathfinder. It doesn't suck anymore