Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TKDB" data-source="post: 5867153" data-attributes="member: 6690697">There is in fact weapon proficiency for natural attacks, it's just not a feat you can take. If you read the creature type description in the Monster Manual, most types (humanoids being a notable exception) will be explicitly stated as being proficient with their natural weapons. Likewise, druids are explicitly stated to be proficient with the natural attacks of any form they turn into (though this is actually redundant, since by changing creature type the druid automatically gains those proficiencies anyway in the vast majority of cases).With respect to unarmed strikes, they are listed in the equipment section as a simple weapon, and there is a Simple Weapon Proficiency feat.The rule for weapons is that you are not proficient unless stated otherwise. This applies to natural weapons as well as manufactured weapons, as evidenced by the fact that those that routinely rely on natural weapons (monsters and druids) are explicitly stated to be proficient with them and there is nothing that states that natural attacks are treated differently in terms of proficiency. Nowhere in the RAW are monks stated to be proficient with unarmed strike in any form, ergo by RAW monks are not proficient with unarmed strike, and therefore take a -4 nonproficiency penalty unless they have somehow acquired simple weapon proficiency (via the feat or a level in a class that grants it) and/or proficiency with their natural attacks (via racial hit dice or being a non-humanoid).No, it doesn't make a lick of sense. And that's my point. 3.x RAW are full of holes, some of them silly, easily overlooked things like this, and some of them downright game-breaking (like Pun-Pun). RAW should always be your baseline, to be sure, but if you stick strictly to RAW in all cases you're going to run into far more problems than you would by being a bit more flexible.</blockquote>

Verification