Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 3211203" data-attributes="member: 19675">WotC simply does not use language with the precision you guys are expecting.The glossary is where the game terms are defined.  The rest of the text regarding a particular entry tells you how things work.For example "Armor Class" is defined in the PHB glossary, but it doesn't include all of the possible things that can affect the calculation of AC.  The definition for "Sorcerer" is only one line long, and includes ZERO mechanics info.In the case of unarmed strike, the glossary defines it (as a "successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons." etc.), but you have to go to the combat section to find out that you must declare your unarmed attack, roll dice, compare it to the target's AC, and see if you actually strike the opponent to deal damage.Which post?  We've been at this a while. <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=":)" /> Yes, it is whacky in that it is horribly imprecise.  Why say that Ki Strike affects "unarmed attacks" when (if your position is correct) the only effect the power can have is upon "unarmed strikes?"  Essentially, your position means that the power description is saying that all unarmed "attacks" have an ability that only benefits unarmed "strikes."  Why draft the rules this way?Again, its the subset of successful unarmed attacks.  The references to it in the monk class is a result of (as you see directly in the CustServ answer) treating the two terms as interchangeable.The language of IUS refers to "strikes" only in its latter sections- it starts off by referring to unarmed attacks.  I say that because the first sentence of the Feat is a brief restatement of the rules for "Armed" Unarmed Attacks.  The last portion says "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike..." when it should (by your position) say  "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed attack..." (emphasis mine) unless you want to assert that only unarmed strikes get screwed without this feat.  (I doubt that you would, because that would contradict the more fully fleshed out language on p139.)Again, they're using the 2 terms interchangeably.The equipment section?  Longswords don't do damage unless they hit either.  The difference is that the various melee weapons have a variety of attributes, whereas the unarmed attacks don't get broken down by body part, thus are handled more abstractly than even the weapons.  Where a longsword is clearly different from a dagger or 2 hander, a PCs bite=kick=punch.The table shows everything in the book that could be considered a melee or ranged weapon with the exception of improvised weapons...and the equipment section tells us to compare improvised weapons to weapons on the chart and approximate.The glossary definition for unarmed strike does not exclude successful unarmed attacks that do no damage.  "Strikes" "typically" deal "non-lethal damage," but all other possibilities are left open- lethal damage, no damage at all, spell damage, characteristic damage, stuns, disarms, sunders, trips can all be delivered by a successful unarmed attack, aka, an unarmed strike.</blockquote>

Verification