Monks & Psionics question

[Lasher Dragon]

ALL weapons are EITHER melee and/or ranged
~AND~
ALL weapons are EITHER simple, martial, exotic, or improvised

That's it.
Those are the choices.
Unarmed strike is a simple melee weapon. If unarmed strike were in a category unto itself, it would have it's own specific entry. I don't care what the table says, it doesn't matter that it doesn't say "Unarmed Attack (melee weapon)". The fact is that unarmed attack is mentioned specifically within the paragraphs entitled "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons".

 

[Plane Sailing]

While I agree with you, Plane, I don't think that's a valid argument. To use the analogy used before, an apple is a red fruit, but not all red fruits are apples.

The analogy doesn't hold up in this case though - "apple" is a member of the set "red fruit". Other things also are members of the set "red fruit", but we don't need to know every single member of the set of "red fruit" to know that "apples" are *a* valid member of the set. The exception is that some apples could be a member of the set "green fruit" instead, so we can't make assumptions about the set which an apple might be a member of.

On the other hand,

"Longswords" are a member of the set "manufactured weapons". They can't be a member of the set "natural weapons" or "unarmed strikes", they are always "manufactured weapons".

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Cheers

 

[Jdvn1]

Yeah, I got you.

 

[Egres]

Well, if you say so!

No, I'm not the one who says that.

It's the PHB 3.5.

And it's not the first (nor the last) silliness found in the RAW.

But we are debating about RAW, aren't we?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Yeah.

But even if manufactured weapons could be melee weapons (even if all manufactured weapons are melee weapons), this doesn't mean that unarmed strikes are melee weapons, or that you can apply spells and/or effects that enhance or improve melee weapons to your unarmed strikes.

You can apply them only if they can be applied to manufactured or natural weapons.

It's silly, but these are the RAW.

< moderator hat >
Egres, may I remind you of the rules of ENworld, about being polite to other people? That goes for Patryn anyone else too of course. Tiny insults have a way of spiraling out of control and nobody wants that, eh?
< /moderator hat >

Sorry, my bad.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, I'm not the one who says that.

It's the PHB 3.5.

Again, only if you ignore the part where it says that all light weapons are melee weapons, and therefore anything that is a light weapon must by necessity be a melee weapon.

 

[Delemental]

As much as I hate to say it, because it seems silly to me, Egres may have a point here.

From the Combat section:

STANDARD ACTIONS
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.

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.

Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is ten range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.

The RAW give three categories for types of Attack actions: Melee, Unarmed, and Ranged. Also, there is the highlighted distinction on Unarmed attacks that they are "much like attacking with a melee weapon". If an unarmed strike was a melee weapon, there would be no need to make that distinction.

But ultimately, the original question was about using psionic feats/powers to enhance a monk's unarmed strike. I'd guess that most would allow it to work without nitpicking over this detail. The real reason for distinguishing an unarmed attack from a melee weapons seems to be for the purpose of defining the attacker's ability to make and provoke attacks of opportunity, as well as the default damage type (nonlethal for unarmed, lethal for melee).

Oh, and just to throw fuel onto the fire of the side argument on "unarmed strike = natural weapon", here's a quote from a couple of spells:

Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)

So here, at least, they are saying that an unarmed strike is an example of a natural weapon (in Magic Weapon) and specifically mentions the unarmed strike (and the use of a fist) as something that can be affected by Magic Fang, which affects "one natural weapon".

 

[satori01]

The glossary clearly defines Melee Weapons as : A handheld weapon designed for close combat.

Yet Table 7.5 clearly has Armor Spiker listed as melee weapons. Theoretically going by the glossary an exotic weapon such as a spike in a long braid of hair would not be a melee weapon. The Glossary is not always the best source for line in the sand, not budge an inch rules definitions.

However with that said, I do think there is one valid reason for not having Unarmed Strikes be melee weapons, so people like Egres dont try to slavish fit the "Rules as written", into allowing for Sunder or Disarm attempts on Monks or people punching or having hands. You know if unarmed strikes were listed as melee weapons someone would pull that crap, I know I have players that would.

That I believe is the only difference in classification, and the only reason Unarmed attacks is a seperate catergory on table 7.5 in the PHB.

Under the Unarmed Strike paragraph for Weapon Descriptions it even states that
"the damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls".

In this case they act like a duck, quake like a duck, and work just like a duck, but are not quite ducks.

 

[Egres]

So here, at least, they are saying that an unarmed strike is an example of a natural weapon (in Magic Weapon) and specifically mentions the unarmed strike (and the use of a fist) as something that can be affected by Magic Fang, which affects "one natural weapon".

But they are contradicted by the rest of the PHB and MM, and then they are wrong.

We can't take two spells as a primary source for the definition of Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons.

 

[satori01]

Err no, Egres an unarmed attack counts as a natural weapons that is what Magic Fang says. Monks are extra blessed with hands of steel and thus can also count their bodies as manufactured weapons in regards to spells. Where do the rest of the books contradict this, especially given this is spelled out explicitly under the Unarmed Strike entry for the Monk class in the PHB.

 

[Egres]

Err no, Egres an unarmed attack counts as a natural weapons that is what Magic Fang says. Monks are extra blessed with hands of steel and thus can also count their bodies as manufactured weapons in regards to spells. Where do the rest of the books contradict this, especially given this is spelled out explicitly under the Unarmed Strike entry for the Monk class in the PHB.

Are Unarmed Strikes Natural Weapons?

No.

That's what I'm saying, and nothing more.