[3.5] Why separate Proficiency (Unarmed) and IUS?

[Frosty]

I was just looking through the PHB again and I noticed that Wizards aren't proficient with unarmed strike. I got to thinking about it, and I wonder how one can be proficient with using a weapon (like your fists) but still provoke AoOs. It just doesn't quite make sense. Wizards do get a -4to hit *and* provokes with Unarmed strikes correct? I mean, it stands to reason that if you practice with punching enough, you won't be provoking. and if you're still provoking, you aren't really proficient.

[Kellus]

As I understand it, Unarmed Strike is not a normal weapon that you gain proficiency in through a class. You gain proficiency in it by taking Improved Unarmed Strike, at which point you don't provoke anymore. Of course, I don't really understand it.

I will never for the life of me understand why they didn't just give the monk a natural slam attack and call it a day.

[Frosty]

Actually, you *do* gain proficiency with Unarmed Strike through many classes, but not *all* classes gain proficiency in it. Unarmed Strikes count as Simple weaons, which the Druid, Wizard, and strangely enough the Monk, does not get proficiency in.

[charl]

Actually, you *do* gain proficiency with Unarmed Strike through many classes, but not *all* classes gain proficiency in it. Unarmed Strikes count as Simple weaons, which the Druid, Wizard, and strangely enough the Monk, does not get proficiency in.

Doesn't the Monk get the improved unarmed strike automatically though?

[Frosty]

Doesn't the Monk get the improved unarmed strike automatically though?

Yes they do. However, IUS only allows you to avoid the AoO. It doesn't say anything about avoiding the -4 non-proficiency penalty.

This leads me to believe Monks take a -4 but don't provoke when they attack. Another reason why Monks sucks, and another reason why the designers of the Monk class were probably smoking something illegal when they designed it.

[AslanCross]

...wow, you're right. For all the "Monks can smash stuff with their fists" text in the Monk entries in both the PHB and the SRD, it says nowhere that they're actually proficient with it. Of course you could say that they're proficient with them by RAI, but RAW really has nothing on it.

[Talic]

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

Creatures are always considered proficient with their natural weapons. Always. No character, creature, or otherwise, in the entire D20 universe, takes a -4 penalty for being nonproficient with unarmed strikes.

[kamikasei]

Creatures are always considered proficient with their natural weapons. Always. No character, creature, or otherwise, in the entire D20 universe, takes a -4 penalty for being nonproficient with unarmed strikes.

An unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon, though, I thought, except for monks?

[The Rose Dragon]

Humanoids aren't proficient with their natural weapons automatically. If they have racial HD, they are proficient with all simple weapons, and if they don't, they are proficient with the weapons listed in their class entry only.

Most other type descriptions say that creatures of those types are proficient in weapons mentioned in their entry, which usually includes natural weapons, or they are proficient in their natural weapons only. Not so with Humanoids.

So, Humanoid Monks without RHD, by RAW, automatically take -4 non-proficiency penalthy while attacking unarmed.

[Roderick_BR]

As far as I can tell, no one takes -4 for unarmed attacks. No where in the rules says you need Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Unarmed Strike to attack without the -4.
Notice that Improved Unarmed Strike is not a Weapon Proficiency feat. It is a different kind of feat, usable to both remove the AoO, and to allow a character to deal lethal damage without taking that -4 to attack rolls.
So, still, you are proficient with unarmed strikes. You just provoke AoO from armed enemies and deal non-lethal damage if you don't have IUS.

[Starbuck_II]

As far as I can tell, no one takes -4 for unarmed attacks. No where in the rules says you need Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Unarmed Strike to attack without the -4.

Or everyone without simple weapon proficiency takes -4 to hit; monks and Wizards in the core books.

Notice that Improved Unarmed Strike is not a Weapon Proficiency feat. It is a different kind of feat, usable to both remove the AoO, and to allow a character to deal lethal damage without taking that -4 to attack rolls.
So, still, you are proficient with unarmed strikes. You just provoke AoO from armed enemies and deal non-lethal damage if you don't have IUS.

No one without simple weapon proficiency is proficient in a simple weapon proficiency.
Either, your class lists it or you aren't proficient.

There are only two options:
Unarmed strike is a natural weapon
or
it is a simple weapon (like the PHB shows it on the weapon table)

There are no other options or you are just houseruling.

[Frosty]

Or everyone without simple weapon proficiency takes -4 to hit; monks and Wizards in the core books.



No one without simple weapon proficiency is proficient in a simple weapon proficiency.
Either, your class lists it or you aren't proficient.

There are only two options:
Unarmed strike is a natural weapon
or
it is a simple weapon (like the PHB shows it on the weapon table)

There are no other options or you are just houseruling.

You left out Druids. I believe Druids also aren't proficient with Simple Weapons.

[Roderick_BR]

Or everyone without simple weapon proficiency takes -4 to hit; monks and Wizards in the core books.



No one without simple weapon proficiency is proficient in a simple weapon proficiency.
Either, your class lists it or you aren't proficient.

There are only two options:
Unarmed strike is a natural weapon
or
it is a simple weapon (like the PHB shows it on the weapon table)

There are no other options or you are just houseruling.

No, I'm not houseruling. I'm just stating that no one takes a -4 penalty for unarmed strikes. You just provoke AoO. Notice that Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization makes an exception for unarmed strikes, meaning that they are not normal feats.

Saying that you requires a feat to have unarmed attacks at all means that YOU are houserulling.

[Starbuck_II]

You left out Druids. I believe Druids also aren't proficient with Simple Weapons.

Druids can proficiency with natural weapons. So Druids might be proficient (if Unarmed Strikes aren't simple weapons)

[kamikasei]

Saying that you requires a feat to have unarmed attacks at all means that YOU are houserulling.

No one has said that. What's being said is that unarmed strike is a simple weapon, not everyone is proficient in all simple weapons, therefore not everyone is proficient in their own unarmed strike and those who are not take the nonproficiency penalty. Monks are not proficient in all simple weapons, and their class does not grant them proficiency. Can you provide any evidence that something other than class can provide this proficiency (and does so by default for all characters)?

[Coidzor]

Isn't it just that you take the negative to hit (and most of the reason for the AoO) derived from attempting to deal lethal damage with what is naturally nonlethal?

[Starbuck_II]

Isn't it just that you take the negative to hit (and most of the reason for the AoO) derived from attempting to deal lethal damage with what is naturally nonlethal?

Even dealing nonlethal with a non-proficient weapon has a penalty to hit.

Example, a Wizard using a sap (he isn't proficiet in saps) still takes a penalty to hit while dealing nonlethal.

[sonofzeal]

Actually, we worked this through not long ago in our gaming group. See, the issue is that Unarmed Strikes are neither Natural Weapons nor Manufactured Weapons. They're specifically "considered a light weapon", but occupy a unique place on the list and are never treated as a Manufactured or Natural weapon except by Monk. Improvised weapons are "considered as manufactured weapons", but I've never seen text to suggest that for Unarmed Strike.

As such, I think it's fair to assume that Unarmed Strikes follow their own rules, and that we can't just assume that something about Manufactured Weapons carry over. And when you get rid of that assumption, IMO the case for the -4 kind of falls apart, as it isn't implied by any of the text that specifically refers to Unarmed Strike.

[Riffington]

Man, any of you who actually use the RAW houserule must be playing a really weird game...

[kamikasei]

Isn't it just that you take the negative to hit (and most of the reason for the AoO) derived from attempting to deal lethal damage with what is naturally nonlethal?

For simplicity, let's take a Commoner as our example and assume that his one weapon proficiency is in, say, the dagger.

He is nonproficient with unarmed strike (and if someone wants to actually provide evidence against this statement, I'd be delighted to hear it). Therefore if he makes an unarmed attack he takes a -4 for nonproficiency and further provokes an attack of opportunity. This attack will deal nonlethal damage. If he wants to deal lethal damage he has to take another penalty on top of that, and still provokes the AoO.

A monk, by virtue of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, can deal lethal damage with no additional penalty and doesn't provoke an AoO, but the feat doesn't grant him proficiency, and neither does his class.

[Armar]

Allright, let's see what d20srd says about unarmed attacks:

Unarmed Strike

A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

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 are told that an unarmed attack is considered a light weapon. There's no mention of natural weapon anywhere there. Allright, now let's look at two things that are mentioned in it's section for natural weapons:

Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons.

So, if unarmed attack was a natural weapon, then you would not be able to make several attacks with it. Also, it goes on to list the most common ones (Bite, claw, talon, gore, slap, slam, sting, tentacle) with no mention about unarmed attacks.

So, now with both 'Natural weapons' and 'Unarmed attack' -sections pointing us that unarmed attacks are NOT natural weapons, let's take a look at humanoids, particulary this one point:

Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.

So, any humanoid with a character class uses it's proficiencies. Now, with unarmed attack being listed with simple weapons, being always considered a light weapon (NOT a natural weapon), and monks, wizards and druids having no proficiency with them, we will finally arrive to...

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

tl;dr: Monks get -4 to hit with unarmed attacks.

EDIT:

Also, 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.

[Gerrtt]

As silly of an issue as this is, I simply refuse to believe that it hasn't been addressed in a FAQ, Eratta, or otherwise helpful manner.

I mean, seriously, a class designed to use unarmed strikes that isn't RAW proficient? I can't believe I missed it. Probably because it's so obviously intended (I mean, their first class feature has to do with more effectively using unarmed strikes) for them to use that weapon.

Ridiculous. Out of curiosity, is unarmed swordsage proficient with unarmed strikes?

[Starbuck_II]

As silly of an issue as this is, I simply refuse to believe that it hasn't been addressed in a FAQ, Eratta, or otherwise helpful manner.

I mean, seriously, a class designed to use unarmed strikes that isn't RAW proficient? I can't believe I missed it. Probably because it's so obviously intended (I mean, their first class feature has to do with more effectively using unarmed strikes) for them to use that weapon.

Ridiculous. Out of curiosity, is unarmed swordsage proficient with unarmed strikes?

Yes, if it is a simple weapon.
If it is a natural weapon: no only Druid is.

[KaganMonk]

{Scrubbed}

[Starbuck_II]

{Scrubbed}

Yes, WotC are idiots.
What else is new?

[Coidzor]

Hmm, what about the rules about gaining feats in weapons you're not proficient with?

Though the argument that it is in a category of its own due to its weirdness is an attractive one... and the bit about monks getting their unarmed attacks treated as both natural and manufactured. Since they're technically both if you bend your head enough.

[Starbuck_II]

Hmm, what about the rules about gaining feats in weapons you're not proficient with?

Except, Unarmed Striked has exceptions listed in Weapon Focus (almost like they knew you wouldn't be prioficient)

[kamikasei]

{Scrubbed}

I assume you would place yourself in the "in favour" camp (in favour of what?), and so I would thank you not to call me an idiot, directly or otherwise, nor to imply that I am a powergamer* who only likes things if they're overpowered.

* The various interpretations of this term aside, it's clearly being used in a derogatory way here.

For myself, I see this argument in two lights: firstly, as a response to people who argue that the monk is not weak based on fairly dubious reasoning around precise interpretations of certain rules, as it helps to deflate those arguments if you point out that applying that level of scrutiny and legalism hurts as well as helps the class. Secondly, as an illustration of the poor job Wizards did/do on design and editing.

If DMing for a player who wants a monk I would of course tell him he'll be considered proficient with his unarmed strike and probably make gauntlets a special monk weapon in which he's proficient, too. But the fact that I would put in place a reasonable houserule to bring the class in line with what it was intended to do and make it a bit more balanced does not mean that the rules as they are written are fine and dandy. I'm arguing that the houserule is necessary while others seem to be arguing that the fix it puts in place is already there in the rules; and I find their argument unconvincing.

[The Rose Dragon]

RAW doesn't have to make sense. By RAI, sure, Monks are considered proficient with unarmed strikes. However, RAI isn't RAW, and is basically meaningless to discuss.

I don't think anyone actually enforces that rule.

[Coidzor]

Except, Unarmed Striked has exceptions listed in Weapon Focus (almost like they knew you wouldn't be prioficient)

The comparison to the grapple for "wigginess" as a weapon in that feat does seem to suggest it's at least in its own subcategory of rules and rumors of rules. Thanks.