Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TKDB" data-source="post: 5867245" data-attributes="member: 6690697">None of that says anything about being proficient or nonproficient. The fact that you can't deal lethal damage with the unarmed strike without taking a -4 penalty doesn't mean it's somehow not a weapon or different from other weapons -- it's just a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, same as a sap. The -4 penalty to deal lethal damage does look the same as a nonproficiency penalty, but it's actually just part of the rules for using a nonlethal weapon to deal lethal damage (and the same applies vice-versa).The -4 to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike when you don't have IUS is in addition to any nonproficiency penalties you may have.As for natural weapon proficiencies not showing up in monster stat blocks, that doesn't mean they don't exist by RAW -- to the contrary, the fact that they are mentioned in the type descriptions in the MM glossary means that these proficiencies do exist and are relevant. Absence of mention in the stat blocks is not a denial of its existence; it's a space-saving method relying on the fact that the monster's proficiencies are a function of its type, just as a character's proficiencies are a function of his or her class. When the books show statblocks for sample characters or NPCs, they don't list out every weapon proficiency the character has due to class in the statblock, because that information is tied up in the simple fact that the character in question has levels in fighter or wizard or rogue or what-have-you. Likewise, natural weapon proficiency isn't mentioned in monster statblocks because the fact that, for example, a dire wolf is proficient with its natural bite attack is tied up in the fact that the dire wolf has the animal creature type, which is explicitly stated in the MM to entail proficiency with all natural weapons the creature possesses. "Weapon proficiency" isn't given its own entry in the MM because the primary source for that information is the PHB, which states that "A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#attackRoll" target="_blank">attack rolls</a>." There is nothing in the MM (the primary source for information pertaining to natural attacks and other things particularly relevant to monsters) stating that natural weapons are exempt from this rule, so by RAW a creature without proficiency with its natural weapons (such as a humanoid or fey) takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls with those weapons.But you know what, just for the sake of argument, let's say there is no such thing as nonproficiency with a natural weapon -- all monsters are automatically proficient with their natural weapons, even if their type is not described as such in the MM. Let's make that one small concession to RAI.It still wouldn't matter because "unarmed strike" is listed as a simple weapon in the PHB, and monks are not proficient with all simple weapons. They are proficient with "club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling." Note the omission of unarmed strike. Intentional? Certainly not -- it's clearly an accidental oversight, most likely by designers who made the same assumption every sane player does: That it doesn't make any sense for anyone, least of all a martial artist, to be nonproficient with punching things.Trust me on this. I've seen this point examined again in again in numerous different threads over the years, and the conclusion reached is always inevitably that yes, by RAW a monk is not proficient with unarmed strike under ordinary circumstances.And if it's rules lawyering you're worried about...well, take a look at this thread. The fact is, whether you realize it or not, you're arguing the side of RAI, and trying to dig up some scrap of RAW to justify it. I'm arguing pure RAW, without regard for sense, sanity, or even game balance. The discussion here is academic in nature, a matter of addressing a broad point by examining a specific example, but suppose I were a bullheaded jerk of a rules lawyer playing in a game you were running, and I wanted an edge against the monk baddies you put me up against. I'd use this very issue to try to get that boost, bringing RAW to bear. That's what makes rules lawyers so aggravating -- not that they debate over the vagaries of RAI (if you're using that, the DM unquestionably has the final say), but that they leverage obscure, oft-forgotten, and/or unintuitive RAW (like the monk proficiency issue) for every shred of advantage they can get. A wannabe rules lawyer arguing RAI doesn't have a leg to stand on, because it's simply a matter of opinion and the DM clearly has the authority here; a knowledgeable rules lawyer arguing broken RAW can walk right over a DM who insists on always sticking to RAW, because they're appealing to a recognized (though flawed) "higher" authority. @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6683609" target="_blank">Wasqa</a> , I really apologize for derailing your thread like this. I only brought up the monk thing as an example of how 3.x RAW is often flawed or broken. Maybe I should have just gone with something a bit more flagrant, like Pun-Pun...</blockquote>

Verification