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Unarmed Strike is the conspicuous lack of a weapon, and under no circumstances shall this defining quality be ignored, rescinded, or nullified in-game.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.
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.