Proficiency with unarmed strike

[Egres]

Where it's not a light weapon? I think the chart must bow to the primary source rule in this case.

It's a simple weapon that is considered a light weapon.

 

[Notmousse]

If we continue with this idea that unarmed strikes are simple weapons not only do you need to be proficient with them, but must ready them before you may attack.

While the idea of a monk 'cocking' his fists before he decides to unload on some shmuck is amusing I think it's to silly to rule as such in game.

 

[Zaruthustran]

If we continue with this idea that unarmed strikes are light weapons not only do you need to be proficient with them, but must ready them before you may attack.

Terminology alert re: light vs. simple.

Also: where do you get the idea that a weapon--any weapon--needs to be "readied" before it can be used in an attack?

-z

 

[Notmousse]

Good catch, they're not simple, they are light.

But I get that idea from the exact same place I get the idea that you need to ready any of your weapons, by unsheathing it, drawing it from a storage compartment, etc... If I ever hear a monk's player state 'I draw my fists' again I'll bust up laughing.

 

[Egres]

Good catch, they're not simple, they are light.

Actually, they are listed as simple weapons.

But I get that idea from the exact same place I get the idea that you need to ready any of your weapons, by unsheathing it, drawing it from a storage compartment, etc...

Can you cite the passage that leads you to think so?

 

[irdeggman]

Actually, they are listed as simple weapons.

Only in the table though. Text trumps tables in general.

Can you cite the passage that leads you to think so?

IMO this comes from the difference between "wielding" and "holding". Both terms are used extensively in the rules when it comes to weapons (and in general used in a confusing manner).

You can "hold" a longspear or a greatsword in one hand but you don't "threaten" with it since you can't make an attack with that melee weapon without using 2 hands (assuming of course it is "sized properly").

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own.

 

[glass]

Even if it's listed in the simple weapons chart?

Is it? IDNHMBIFOM, but I didn't think it was.


glass.

 

[Deset Gled]

Only in the table though. Text trumps tables in general.

Text only trumps tables when there is a contradiction between the two. I haven't seen any text yet that contradicts the table.

If an unarmed strike is considered to be a weapon, and all weapons are classified as simple, martial, or exotic, doesn't it directly follow that an unarmed strike must be fall into one of those three categories?

IMO, calling an unarmed strike a simple weapon in the table without specifically calling out that monks are proficient with them is something that falls under the category of "dumb editing mistake that should have been rectified years ago, but wasn't because WotC hates to get off their collective asses and issue errata unless they absolutely have to".

IMO this comes from the difference between "wielding" and "holding".

Whether or not you can hold certain weapons without wielding them is a huge debate that comes up in most TWF threads. I'll just say here that I agree with you on this point, but the rules are far from clear on it.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Must be something in the air, because this notion just came up with me for the first time ever, and apparently a lot of other people are having the same issue at the moment.

IMO, calling an unarmed strike a simple weapon in the table without specifically calling out that monks are proficient with them is something that falls under the category of "dumb editing mistake that should have been rectified years ago, but wasn't because WotC hates to get off their collective asses and issue errata unless they absolutely have to".

I'd think that, rather, they should edit the Improved Unarmed Strike feat to note that proficiency with unarmed strikes is included as part of the package. That way, Monks will automatically get it (with their IUS feat), and any classes that don't already have proficiency via their Simple+ Weapons class features (such as Wizards and Druids) will need to pick up the IUS feat if they want to become brawlers.

(Although, come to think of it, maybe they should just clarify that everyone is proficient with it- after all, everyone is proficient with Grapple, too, and that is pretty much in the same boat as punching someone.)