[Unarmed Attacks] Have we been living a lie?

[ForceUser]

Recently I pondered taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat with my rogue. The particular campaign world is ruled by a lawful evil empire that has outlawed most weapons, and it occured to me that being the weapon could be more useful in such a setting than trying to smuggle a weapon past imperial officials day in and day out. So I read up on the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and Unarmed Attacks in the combat section of the PHB, and there I discovered what could be a terrible omission. At least, I hope it was an omission, because the alternative means that my friends and I have been doing unarmed strikes wrong since 3E came out.

Okay, it's like this: nowhere in the PHB does it say that [improved unarmed strikes] do real damage like a normal weapon. In the Unarmed Attacks section of the combat chapter, it specfically notes that:

"You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal normal damage before you make your attack roll, but you suffer a -4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to strike a particularly vulnerable spot to deal normal damage."

Now, okay, you're thinking that this only applies to untrained unarmed strikes, right? That somewhere else in the book it mentions that improved unarmed strikes deal real damage. The logical places to look then would be the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and the Unarmed Strike section of the Monk class description. Somewhere, it must say that improved unarmed strikes do normal damage without the -4 to attack, right?

Right?

Wrong. Nowhere in any relevant section of the PHB that I can find does it say that Improved Unarmed Strike defaults to normal damage. Instead, the feat simply states you don't incur attacks of opportunity when using it, and the Monk Unarmed Strike writeup just says

"...They deal more damage than normal, as shown on Table 3-10: The Monk. A monk fighting unarmed gains the benefits of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat..."

So this leads me to conclude some scary things for the Monk class. One, Improved Unarmed Strike deals subdual damage unless you declare an attack at a -4 penalty. Two, this throws the usefulness of monk weapons into a whole new light. Three, I don't have Adobe Acrobat on my work computer, so I'm led to wonder if this has been errated in the D&D FAQ. Four, who the heck will ever want to play a Monk if his most effective attack form deals subdual damage?

Did I read this wrong? Have I missed something? Please tell me I've missed something.

 

[Tiberius]

You did miss something. From the SRD, because I don't feel like running upstairs to get my PHB:

Usually, a monk's unarmed strikes deal normal damage rather than subdual damage. However, she can choose to deal her damage as subdual damage when grappling.

Hmmmm... that quote doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Lemme go get the book after all.

Alright, let's see. Page 39 [1st printing PHB]:

Usually, a monk's unarmed strikes deal normal damage rather than subdual damage (see Subdual Damage, page 134). However, she can choose to deal her damage as subdual damage when grappling (see Grapple, page 137).

There you have it. Monks deal normal damage with their unarmed attacks, and can opt to do subdual damage when grappling.

-Tiberius

 

[Darkness]

You've missed something.

PHB, p.39, right column, just above table 3-11:
Usually, a monk's unarmed strikes deal normal damage, but she can choose to deal subdual damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll.

 

[ForceUser]

Whew! I was pretty worried about that! Thanks

Next question: if a class other than the monk takes the Improved Unarmed Attack feat, do they still do subdual as their default damage type?

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Subdual.

Monks do not get Improved Unarmed Strike as such; they get a different ability that is strictly better. You shouldn't conclude anything about monks from the feat, except that they get at least the same benefit.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yes. Non-monks (or other classes which have the "does real damage" ability) do subdual with their fists, even with the improved unarmed feat. The only thing improved unarmed lets you do is avoid AoO's and make AoO's when fighting armed opponents.

Note that subdual damage is as good as normal damage in most situations. Unless you're fighting undead, constructs or oozes (IIRC), you'll simply be able to pummel your opponent unconscious and then decide whether to coup-de-grace him with regular damage (-4 to the attack roll for doing real damage doesn't change the fact that you automatically hit and critical on a coup-de-grace). Or just tie him up/stick him in a barrel/send him to an unpleasant outer plane.

 

[drnuncheon]

And you can always wear a gauntlet to turn your unarmed strikes into normal damage-dealing weapons.

J

 

[hong]

Honestly, the armed/unarmed fighting thing is one of the most screwed up sections of the 3E combat rules. It's right up there with the monk's unarmed iterative attacks, and fighting while mounted.

Throwing the following out for discussion:

I wonder what would happen if unarmed attacks, by default, didn't provoke an AoO as such. However, they require the attacker to be _in the defender's square_, as opposed to being 5 feet away as with normal weapons. This effectively means that to punch someone, you have to enter their square and thus draw an AoO. The Improved US feat would let you make unarmed attacks from 5 feet away.

What would be the consequences of this?

 

[rushlight]

"I wonder what would happen if unarmed attacks, by default, didn't provoke an AoO as such. However, they require the attacker to be _in the defender's square_, as opposed to being 5 feet away as with normal weapons. This effectively means that to punch someone, you have to enter their square and thus draw an AoO. The Improved US feat would let you make unarmed attacks from 5 feet away."

Well, IIRC, if you try to enter an enemy's square and the AOO scores damage, you are stopped and stay in your square. Thus you couldn't punch a guy who has a sword if his AOO hits.

Which kinda makes sense...

 

[doktorstick]

It's right up there with the monk's unarmed iterative attacks, and fighting while mounted.

I must have missed these discussions.