Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jessemock" data-source="post: 1406496" data-attributes="member: 15694">Which is exactly what is at issue here:  the definition and description of unarmed attacks have to be clear, because there's a question over the application of precisely this action.  Clearly, this is not the case, when an 'unarmed strike' is considered a light weapon--or a weapon at all.  When you attack with an unarmed strike, you do not attack with a successful blow. In other words, an unarmed strike does not result from any unarmed attack that is not, itself, an unarmed strike.  An unarmed strike results from an unarmed strike. No; there is no 'unarmed strike' ("successful blow...") that is not landed by an 'unarmed strike' ("considered a light weapon"). "A successful blow...is considered a light weapon." It would mean that the monk always hits. Shouldn't the successful part make me uncomfortable?  The problem is obviously that whoever wrote this section of the rules originally meant to make this distinction, but that same writer or those who followed left it by the wayside--as should have been done:  there's no need for a term that defines a "successful blow" in addition to 'damage'. That's a good argument, except that, in terms of practical consequences, it's ridiculous:  you can't make an unarmed melee touch attack with your off-hand in a TWF routine?  What's the point?Characters somehow forget how to trip without a weapon in their off-hand?No; I believe that this is merely a continuation of the poor use of terminology:  there's absolutely no reason to deny this maneuver any more than there is to deny grapples in a flurry.  It's a mistake that occurs because of careless writing.I mean that everyone with whom I've argued these points, from Caliban to Hyp, has said that the grapple restriction doesn't make sense.  Nevertheless, we're all continuing to play this academic game.  That's fine, I guess. They're opposed attack rolls, just as in Disarm.  The point is that penalties and bonuses that affect attack rolls should affect grapple checks. No, no; what I'm getting at is that I don't know what point of mine you're commenting on.  I have no problem with the monk's US being the sole that provides lethal damage in a grapple.  I'm saying only that this further adds to the notion that the monk has clearly been intended as a grappler--what would be the point, then, of restricting grapples from flurries?  There isn't any.  Look; my take is simply this:  all unarmed attacks are really variations on unarmed strikes (understood as weapons).  Where they differ, they differ, e.g. weapon focus, but otherwise all unarmed attacks should be considered substitutable for unarmed strikes (and should derive whatever aspects haven't been specifically defined for them from unarmed strike).I think that's obviously the intent of the rules for unarmed attacks, but, in typical D&D fashion, they've left this just ambiguous enough to spark endless threads.Does WotC own the Enworld server?</blockquote>

Verification