Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZansForCans" data-source="post: 1408658" data-attributes="member: 8059">You were claiming the description in the Combat section defined unarmed attack as unarmed strike. My point above is that this is clearly not the case with the other examples included. I will not try to defend the clarity in any other way, except to recommend that when one starts with the definitions given in the glossary, you typically gain greater consistency within the rules sections themselves, instead of trying to derive derivations from those sections when they do not clearly include a definition themselves.An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon for purposes of deciding what bonuses/feats/skills/etc. apply when using an unarmed strike in an unarmed attack. It is not considered a weapon for any other purpose. Folks like to quote this all the time and totally ignore the context of each and every time that phrase appears in the rules. Most of those quotes are followed by text like "So you can use <this feat>, apply <this combat style this way>..." etc. The one that doesn't is contained in the section on defining what weapon encumbrance is. You can't just pull that line out and say: "well, then unarmed strike is just like a weapon." Every single one of those quotes is there so you think instead: "well, then an unarmed strike is light."You're absolutely right. You don't attack with a successful longsword blow either, but you're trying to deliver one with your attack with your longsword. In the same way, you may attack without weapons (unarmed attack) in an attempt to deliver a blow that deals damage. This particular blow (the unarmed kind that deals damage) happens to have a defined game term name: unarmed strike. The unarmed attack is made with any body part you'd like to use (and technically is just "without weapons"), but the contact of that body part for damage is always called an unarmed strike in the game. Attempting to deliver an unarmed strike is considered the same as delivering a successful blow with a light weapon for purposes of weapon encumbrance. Fortunately, for those with high strength and other methods of generally increasing their damage when using a melee weapon, the damage imparted by this successful blow we are also told is considered weapon damage. With out these phrases, we'd have no rules for how to handle delivering a blow without weapons. There is no explicit equivalence between these particular unarmed attacks and the more common melee attack with a weapon.That makes no sense. "considered a light weapon" is not a definition or replacement for unarmed strike. The unarmed strike is delivered by your body (part) with an unarmed attack. Your body (part) is not considered a light weapon; delivering an unarmed strike with it, however, is.I think I talked about this bit enough above already...I disagree. The sentence wasn't written with successful in there. Our replacing the definition doesn't suddenly impart the success to the flurry attack. It only says that the monk can only use successful blows or monk weapons, not that the monk is then always successful with the flurry attacks. A flurry attack that beats a foe's AC is allowed to deliver a successful blow. As written, a flurry attack that beats a foe's AC is not allowed to deliver an unarmed Trip attempt or a touch attack with a spell (however an unarmed strike could be used instead for this latter point). Oh, but there is. See, without the damage clause (which I've left off everywhere above for brevity), the confusion becomes much worse. Now, it's trivial to say that your attempt to deliver a Trip is equivalent to an unarmed strike. In fact, it's nothing like that with the current definition because you aren't doing damage. The Trip attempt can still be thought of as delivering a blow of some sort. "blow" is not a defined game mechanic, but dealing damage is. Balance. No, from the rules, I glean that making a Trip attack without a weapon requires more work/attention/finesse--however you'd like to flavor it--than making one with a trip-enabled weapon. I like to look at it as a bonus to deciding to use a trip weapon, not necessarily a detriment to the unarmed Trip.I disagree, but that's pretty obvious by now <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I have a comment below relating to the monk bit... But, playing the academic game has been invaluable for me understanding the rules at a much deeper level. If you hate this kind of thing, don't let it affect your game. Play it like you see it. Whether it's a house or core rule then would make no difference in having fun, typically.Why? Disarm explicitly says that "as a melee attack" you can do these things and secondly you make opposed "attack rolls". So your attack modifiers apply as usual for attacks. Grapple checks are not opposed attack rolls, although they are "like" them in that they are based on your BAB and include your Str modifier. Why not give them Improved Grab too, then? You have to draw the line somewhere. The designers seem to have given the monk the lethal version of "Damage Your Opponent". They didn't go so far as to allow the monk to use an unarmed strike differently than anyone else in a grapple though. If you really want to use an unarmed strike, you have to "Attack Your Opponent" and take the -4 on a normal unarmed attack roll. For a monk, unless you want to flurry with unarmed strikes or combine them with a light monk weapon for some reason, this obviously doesn't make much sense. For anyone else, especially those with IUS, you must take this route to deal lethal damage.I completely disagree that it was the intent. But of course, we could argue that into the ground. I'll try to let my thoughts on this stand here. I do understand where some of the generalizations you and others have mentioned seem like good ideas. I personally like the balance created by the way they are currently written, but it wouldn't irk me to play in a campaign that open unarmed attacks up a bit more. I do agree that the rules could have been written more clearly--especially in 3.5. But clearly there are some areas they didn't touch or want to touch to keep the (illusion, some would say) of a revision that was mostly compatible with 3.0. But, I don't agree that the rules are written to allow "strike" in any form to mean "attack" or that unarmed attacks should 'default' to the rules for using unarmed attacks with an unarmed strike. Natural weapons, for example, are used with an unarmed attack, and they should not be subject to any rules that pertain to attacks with an unarmed strike. Many of the alternatives for unarmed attacks in the core rules don't deal damage. And the list of non-unarmed strike, unarmed attacks is not necessarily limited even to the obvious ones in the core rules. Opening up a de facto equivalence between attack forms that deal damage and those that do non-damaging effects is not a good idea, IMHO.Finally, I completely agree with Camarath on the Improved Grab and FoB with natural weapons question.</blockquote>

Verification