Proficiency with unarmed strike

[ChefOrc]

I assume that every class is proficient with unarmed strikes (it makes sense that a creature is proficient with its own body), but I just cannot find that rule. The closest thing I find is that not all classes are proficient with simple weapons. Can somebody help?

If this rule did not exist, we would be left with the very strange situation where monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes ...

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

Monks, IIRC are considered to have the improved unarmed strike feat.

 

[DogBackward]

If it's not mentioned as a proficiency, you're not proficient. And it makes sense. Most people in real life wouldn't be considered proficient with their unarmed strikes. And the classes that aren't proficient, wizard being the only one I know of off-hand, make sense as not knowing how to fight hand-to-hand very well.

Note that Unarmed Strike is listed on the Simple Weapon table, which backs up my thinking on the matter, as well. Seems wizards just don't konw how to throw a punch...

 

[Hypersmurf]

And the classes that aren't proficient, wizard being the only one I know of off-hand, make sense as not knowing how to fight hand-to-hand very well.

Druids, Wizards, and Monks, from the PHB.

Monks, IIRC are considered to have the improved unarmed strike feat.

Indeed. Which removes the AoO incurred for attacking unarmed, permits one to threaten while unarmed, and allows one to deal lethal damage. What the feat doesn't mention is removing a non-proficiency penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

Only weapons require a proficiency. Apart from monks, characters attacking with unarmed strikes are... not armed. Although they are listed on the weapon table for reference, you can clearly see they are neither light, one-handed, nor two-handed weapons, although the table implies they are Simple.

The weapon description says this:

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.


If an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage, it must not BE weapon damage or that clause would be superfluous.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's interesting that the Druid entry specifically notes that a Druid is proficient in the natural weapons of forms he assumes via Wild Shape.

The implication is that a Wizard who polymorphs into a form with natural weapons is not, since the class has no such note, and Polymorph (via Alter Self) mentions that you gain natural weapons, but says nothing on the issue of proficiency.

And unless natural weapons are defined as simple or martial somewhere, druids are about the only class that mention proficiency in natural weapons. So a Psychic Warrior manifesting Bite of the Wolf, for example, is not proficient...

-Hyp.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

unarmed strike: A sucessful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal...

Sweet - It's an Attack, but not an attack with a weapon...

It is "considered" a Light weapon (for the purposes of TWF or the like I guess)

A "Ray" has similar language.

In the apparent absence of rules - I would say that you are "proficient" - the automatic nonlethal damage seems "built in" to account for the lack of training.

 

[glass]

I assume that every class is proficient with unarmed strikes (it makes sense that a creature is proficient with its own body), but I just cannot find that rule. The closest thing I find is that not all classes are proficient with simple weapons. Can somebody help?

If this rule did not exist, we would be left with the very strange situation where monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes ...

An unarmed strike is neither a simple, martial or exotic weapon, so no proficiency is required.

EDIT: Ah, that Druid note puts the cat amongst my pigeons, doesn't it.


glass.

 

[Egres]

An unarmed strike is neither a simple, martial or exotic weapon, so no proficiency is required.

Even if it's listed in the simple weapons chart?

 

[pawsplay]

Even if it's listed in the simple weapons chart?

Where it's not a light weapon? I think the chart must bow to the primary source rule in this case.