One thing I hope they fix/do better (wording)

[Zimri]

The case that springs directly to the fore of my mind seeing as how I love the monk class was the wording behind the whole unarmed strike/improved unarmed strike/natural attack/improved natural attack debacle. Not to get in to a whole debate about what should or should not have been acceptable in that particular instance better, clearer wording would have been and will be much appreciated.

 

[marune]

The case that springs directly to the fore of my mind seeing as how I love the monk class was the wording behind the whole unarmed strike/improved unarmed strike/natural attack/improved natural attack debacle. Not to get in to a whole debate about what should or should not have been acceptable in that particular instance better, clearer wording would have been and will be much appreciated.

I dont think we will see something like "Improved unarmed strike" as a feat in 4E.

 

[Voss]

Wording is something they need to do better. Desperately.
But the most recent miniatures release doesn't inspire much hope for that. 4 full pages of errata for 60 little cards.

This is something of a cross your fingers and hope situation, sadly. Or possibly 'how I learned to ignore the errors and love the errata' thing, but thats a little sad.

 

[kennew142]

I dont think we will see something like "Improved unarmed strike" as a feat in 4E.

I'm hopeful that we will. Bo9S had a superior unarmed strike feat that dealt damage that scaled by level. I liked it a lot.

 

[marune]

I'm hopeful that we will.

What I meant is that such ability sounds more like a power than a feat.

 

[Voss]

In the same way that two-weapon fighting will somehow be a power, sadly thats true. Which suggests to me that it won't be in at all, since none of the PH classes are 'defined' by fighting without weapons.

 

[Aage]

I don't see why you need to distinguish between natural and unarmed... aren't fists sort of a natural weapon for humans?

I think you're right Voss, Unarmed fighting will probably not be that supported in phb 1 (reserved for the monk, perhaps?)... Or maybe the unarmed strikes fit into one of the fighter weapon categories?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

It sounds like you're meaning to make a general point about wording, not specifically an in-depth discussion about Improved Unarmed Strike.

There are always going to be some feats, items, monster abilities, or whatnot that are poorly worded. Always. My preferred fix would be general guidance in the PHB and DMG encouraging the DM to rule in the spirit of the rules and in keeping with the design principles rather than strict literalism to the RAW. And encouraging the players to go along with this.

In 3.5, you gain HP if you're drowning and below -1 HP; a pounce attack is a single attack PLUS a full attack; and Beads of Karma cost nothing and stack. Just to name a few case where the literalist ruling is, IMO, a poor approach to use.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

What I meant is that such ability sounds more like a power than a feat.

I minor numerical improvement that is always available? Sounds like a 4e feat to me. Power Attack, Spring Attack, Robilar's Gambit, etc. are more likely to become powers, from what I've read.

 

[Zimri]

I don't see why you need to distinguish between natural and unarmed... aren't fists sort of a natural weapon for humans?

You would think that however WOTC customer service (and a great number of people at enworld) has said that you can not benefit both from being a monk with improved unarmed strike and improved natural weapon.

It sounds like you're meaning to make a general point about wording, not specifically an in-depth discussion about Improved Unarmed Strike.

You're right that is what I'm going for because I've had the knock out drag down fights about how exactly is (for instance) a human monks fist not natural even though it is stated that it counts as both a natural and manufactured weapon. The sides won't meet and I've accepted that.