Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 3207711" data-attributes="member: 19675">I'll boil my position down to its barest:&nbsp; Unarmed Strike is just another name for a successful unarmed attack, nothing more, nothing less.That position is in accord with the PHB definitions of unarmed attack &amp; unarmed strike; it keeps the interaction of &quot;unarmed attack&quot; and DR language of Ki Strike from being 90% garbage; it meshes with the FAQ ruling on the direct questions of being able to do special combat maneuvers with FoB; it creates no problems with the language under &quot;Unarmed Attacks on pg 139 which starts off with &quot;Striking for damage...&quot;; it is roughly analogous to the language dealing with regular armed attacks on pg 139, just above that unarmed attacks section.Even when we look at Grapple, there is no distinction.&nbsp; That section's closest brush with calling it an &quot;Unarmed attack&quot; is &quot;struggling hand-to-hand&quot;; you do damage after a successful grapple roll- a successful unarmed attack (which is how the PHB and I both define an unarmed strike).&nbsp; Since we're dealing with near synonyms, we can't legitimately say &quot;Unarmed attack&quot; = &quot;struggling hand-to-hand&quot; while saying &quot;Unarmed attack&quot; ≠ &quot;unarmed strike&quot; without some kind of proof of the former.&nbsp; Thus, we can't really call Grapple an unarmed attack or an unarmed strike under the &quot;Unarmed attack&quot; ≠ &quot;unarmed strike&quot; interpretation of the rules.The PHB defines Unarmed attack as a melee attack &quot;with no weapon in hand,&quot; and an Unarmed Strike as a &quot;successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons.&quot;I've seen several people on these boards ridicule that definition based on the assumption that a &quot;strike&quot; is merely the name for a subset of unarmed attacks.And it is- its just not the subset they're assuming.&nbsp; They're defining Unarmed Strike as a group of specific kinds of attack you get from the Feat IUC- Flying Mare kicks, Tiger claw strikes, or some such- martial arts maneuvers as opposed to the regular, untrained flailing about without a weapon.In reality &quot;unarmed strikes&quot; are the subset of successful unarmed attacks.Contrast the postion where unarmed attacks are something very different from unarmed strikes.&nbsp; You have to go to special attack manuvers- trips, grapples, etc. to find what the result of an unarmed &quot;attack&quot; is- there is no entry, no discernable existence for unarmed &quot;attacks&quot; seperate from them that I can find.&nbsp; Even the section on &quot;'Armed' Unarmed Attacks&quot; equates monk attacks with touch spells and natural weapons and doesn't talk about results until you reach the section on &quot;Unarmed strike damage.&quot; This position also makes a horrible mash of the Ki Strike language.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 3207711, member: 19675"] I'll boil my position down to its barest: [B]Unarmed Strike is just another name for a successful unarmed attack, nothing more, nothing less. [/B] That position is in accord with the PHB definitions of unarmed attack & unarmed strike; it keeps the interaction of "unarmed attack" and DR language of Ki Strike from being 90% garbage; it meshes with the FAQ ruling on the direct questions of being able to do special combat maneuvers with FoB; it creates no problems with the language under "Unarmed Attacks on pg 139 which starts off with "Striking for damage..."; it is roughly analogous to the language dealing with regular armed attacks on pg 139, just above that unarmed attacks section. Even when we look at Grapple, there is no distinction. That section's closest brush with calling it an "Unarmed attack" is "struggling hand-to-hand"; you do damage after a successful grapple roll- a successful unarmed attack (which is how the PHB and I both define an unarmed strike). Since we're dealing with near synonyms, we can't legitimately say "Unarmed attack" = "struggling hand-to-hand" while saying "Unarmed attack" ≠ "unarmed strike" without some kind of proof of the former. Thus, we can't really call Grapple an unarmed attack or an unarmed strike under the "Unarmed attack" ≠ "unarmed strike" interpretation of the rules. The PHB defines Unarmed attack as a melee attack "with no weapon in hand," and an Unarmed Strike as a "successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons." I've seen several people on these boards ridicule that definition based on the assumption that a "strike" is merely the name for a subset of unarmed attacks. And it is- its just not the subset they're assuming. They're defining Unarmed Strike as a group of specific kinds of attack you get from the Feat IUC- Flying Mare kicks, Tiger claw strikes, or some such- martial arts maneuvers as opposed to the regular, untrained flailing about without a weapon. In reality "unarmed strikes" are the subset of [I]successful[/I] unarmed attacks. Contrast the postion where unarmed attacks are something very different from unarmed strikes. You [I]have [/I]to go to special attack manuvers- trips, grapples, etc. to find what the result of an unarmed "attack" is- there is no entry, no discernable existence for unarmed "attacks" seperate from them that I can find. Even the section on "'Armed' Unarmed Attacks" equates monk attacks with touch spells and natural weapons and doesn't talk about results until you reach the section on "Unarmed strike damage." This position also makes a horrible mash of the Ki Strike language. [/QUOTE]

Verification