Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starbuck_II" data-source="post: 4782538" data-attributes="member: 61375">No, no they aren't.&nbsp;Humans are assumed to be humanoids. Correct?&nbsp;Now, where do you see proficiency of natural weapons?&nbsp;Hmm, let us try another type: DragonFunny that= Dragons are proficient in natural weapons. I can go on, but humanoids are not proficient.&nbsp;Humans are not.&nbsp;Now are unarmed strikes simple weapons? Likely yes. They are on simple weapon table.But even if they aren't : humans including Monks are not proficient.&nbsp;&nbsp;In fact, if unarmed strikes are not simple weapons: how do you gain prociency? There is no feat for that.&nbsp;Druids are proficient, but only while wild shaped if unarmed strikes are natural weapons for proficiency.&nbsp;Did you ever read Druid entry? This part: &nbsp;If everyone is automatically proficient than why mention proficiency gained?&nbsp;Ergo, D&amp;D doesn't like the idea of everyone proficient with natural weapons.Houserules will differ obviously.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starbuck_II, post: 4782538, member: 61375"] No, no they aren't. Humans are assumed to be humanoids. Correct? Now, where do you see proficiency of natural weapons? Hmm, let us try another type: Dragon Funny that= Dragons are proficient in natural weapons. I can go on, but humanoids are not proficient. Humans are not. Now are unarmed strikes simple weapons? Likely yes. They are on simple weapon table. But even if they aren't : humans including Monks are not proficient. In fact, if unarmed strikes are not simple weapons: how do you gain prociency? There is no feat for that. Druids are proficient, but only while wild shaped if unarmed strikes are natural weapons for proficiency. Did you ever read Druid entry? This part: If everyone is automatically proficient than why mention proficiency gained? Ergo, D&D doesn't like the idea of everyone proficient with natural weapons. Houserules will differ obviously. [/QUOTE]

Verification