Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 3206238" data-attributes="member: 19675">It can't have any effect on an attack that does no damage.&nbsp; Ki Strike's sole purpose is to penetrate DR...and attacks which do no damage aren't affected by DR.&nbsp; Increasing an &quot;unarmed attack's&quot; ability to deal damage is like increasing a forest fire's ability to freeze water.To continue the exercise, when we go to the combat section of the PHB to look at unarmed combat (under the heading of Standard Actions...&quot;Attack&quot;, p 139), we get this:(whereapon it starts discussing provoked AoOs)Note that it doesn't say &quot;attacking for damage&quot;, &quot;striking&quot; is the word that is used.The ONLY time when damage dealing is mentioned is under &quot;Unarmed Strike Damage.&quot;&nbsp; There, you see verbiage about damage (as per the chart in the equipment section) and some later words about dealing lethal damage with one, as opposed to the standard non-lethal damage.The distinction between &quot;attack&quot; and &quot;strike&quot; blurs further when we read right before that section:Not &quot;the monk's &quot;unarmed strike&quot;...its just another &quot;'armed' unarmed attack&quot;- there is no further distinction made.In fact, nowhere in this section do we distinguish between the end results of unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes, strikes seem to be the only result listed of an unarmed attack of any kind.In fact, when we look at the very first section we see:Again, the only meaningful distinction between &quot;attack&quot; and &quot;strike&quot; is, as per the glossary, success.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 3206238, member: 19675"] It can't have [i]any[/i] effect on an attack that does no damage. Ki Strike's [i]sole[/i] purpose is to penetrate DR...and attacks [i][b]which do no damage[/b][/i] aren't affected by DR. Increasing an "unarmed attack's" ability to deal damage is like increasing a forest fire's ability to freeze water. To continue the exercise, when we go to the combat section of the PHB to look at unarmed combat (under the heading of Standard Actions..."Attack", p 139), we get this: [i](whereapon it starts discussing provoked AoOs)[/i] Note that it doesn't say "attacking for damage", "striking" is the word that is used. The ONLY time when damage dealing is mentioned is under "Unarmed Strike Damage." There, you see verbiage about damage (as per the chart in the equipment section) and some later words about dealing lethal damage with one, as opposed to the standard non-lethal damage. The distinction between "attack" and "strike" blurs further when we read right before that section: Not "the monk's "unarmed strike"...its just another "'armed' unarmed attack"- there is no further distinction made. In fact, nowhere in this section do we distinguish between the end results of unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes, strikes seem to be the only [i]result[/i] listed of an unarmed attack of any kind. In fact, when we look at the very first section we see: Again, the only meaningful distinction between "attack" and "strike" is, as per the glossary, success. [/QUOTE]

Verification