Unarmed strike - a solution

[Kerrick]

I'm working on a revised monk, and someone over on the Paizo boards pointed out a loophole: while unarmed strike is listed as a simple weapon, nowhere, in any of the books, does it say that you're automatically proficient with it (or even whether or not it's a natural weapon).

So, after some thought, I came to the following conclusions:

1) Unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. While fists fall under a broad interpretation of "natural weapon"*, one could reasonably assume that a fist is not the same thing as teeth, claws, etc. - it is not designed to be used in combat, except under special circumstances or a last resort. Humanoids are tool-makers and -users - we resort to weapons first, fists second.

*From the PHB Glossary: "A creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages."

2) While it could be argued that since fists are a part of your body, you're automatically proficient with them, I refer to #1 - unless you're a brawler, a boxer, or a martial artist (i.e., you have special training), you're going to do little more than wail on someone until they go down. That's literally what fistfights are - people beating the crap out of each other with little finesse or strategy. WotC chose to model this by (apparently) making you proficient, so you don't suffer a -4 penalty, but you incur AoOs instead. I'm not completely sure of the rationale behind this, but I guess someone attacking an armed opponent with bare hands is going to get beaten before he can get in range.

3) The Improved Unarmed Strike feat, therefore, is akin to xxx Weapon Proficiency, but applied to unarmed strikes - since you're already proficient, it removes the secondary penalty.


With that in mind, I propose the following solution: Make unarmed strike a Simple weapon like normal and ditch the AoO.

* Unarmed strikes deal so little damage, even at larger sizes, that it doesn't hurt anything.

* One less thing that incurs AoOs is a good thing, IMO, and everyone but mages gets simple weapons, so again it's not a logic breaker.

* Improved Unarmed Strike can go away - proficiency in unarmed strike is be gained by taking Simple Weapon Proficiency, just like every other weapon. There's no need to make a special case for this.

* For monks, it clears up a lot of the problems - unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon, not a natural one. Their unarmed strike ability then becomes a class ability exclusive of Improved Unarmed Strike (which is now gone).


Does this make sense? Am I missing anything? What do you think?

 

[blargney the second]

What's the problem that you're trying to solve? (Corollary: is this a solution looking for a problem?)

 

[Legildur]

...Is this a solution looking for a problem?

I guess it depends on how many "Monks and Improved Natural Attack feat" threads you have read.

 

[jaelis]

I guess it depends on how many "Monks and Improved Natural Attack feat" threads you have read.

Yes, but that problem is actually pretty easily solved with a yes or no answer... you seem to be after something a bit deeper.

So in your approach, would a monk still be able to benefit from a magic fang spell?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

There is no issue with monks. It says plain as day in their description that they get to treat it as manufactured and natural. The only real debate is whether or not people think it's overpowered to let monks take INA, not that, by RAW whether or not they can. Which is also a silly argument to me, given the widespread assertion monks can't hang with fighters in melee. Who in turn can't compete with the druids... *shrug*

 

[Legildur]

...The only real debate is whether or not people think it's overpowered to let monks take INA, not that, by RAW whether or not they can.

I thought it was the other way around? That is, the issue is whether it is allowed under the RAW (this is the threshhold issue).

I think that the debate on whether it is overpowered is secondary.

 

[Kerrick]

There is no issue with monks. It says plain as day in their description that they get to treat it as manufactured and natural.

Obviously someone seems to think so, since there's a section in the FAQ that says they're separate:

How would a monk's unarmed damage be modified by
natural attacks, or vice versa?

A monk’s natural weapons (claws, bite, and so on) don’t have any effect on the damage dealt by her unarmed strikes, nor does a character’s unarmed strike damage have any effect on her natural weapon attacks.

Oh yeah, and there's this too:

Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a
magic weapon?

No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal
answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes).

The amulet of mighty fists (Dungeon Master’s Guide, 246)
grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and
natural weapon attacks, which would include the monk’s
unarmed strike.

See, even the FAQ can't decide if unarmed strike is natural or manufactured, because by those rulings, it's neither - it can't be enhanced like a normal weapon, but unarmed damage doesn't stack with natural attacks either. (The second ruling seems to imply that unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons, so they can't take INA either.)

The real issue here, though, is what I pointed out in my first post - by the RAW, no one, including a monk, is proficient with unarmed strike. Yes, I know it's rather common sense, but not having it spelled out leads to the tangled mess I described.

So, by making a simple rule, it clears up the whole thing. I know it's not as pressing as, say, time stop or the turning rules (or even grapple), but I thought someone might appreciate it.

 

[blargney the second]

Your initial premise is faulty. Unarmed strikes are simple weapons. Look at the weapon table.

 

[Kerrick]

Yes, I know that, thank you - I said that in my first post. If you're saying "because they're considered simple weapons, then they're also manufactured" then yeah, I guess I did miss the point. You still have several problems, though:

They don't follow normal rules for weapons - you don't suffer the -4 nonproficiency penalty, and using them provokes AoOs.

If they ARE manufactured weapons, no one's proficient with them unless they're proficient with simple weapons. Which monks aren't.

You see where I'm going with this?

 

[glass]

If they ARE manufactured weapons, no one's proficient with them unless they're proficient with simple weapons. Which monks aren't.

They quite obviously are simple weapons, which does indeed mean that monks are not proficient. Pretty much everybody houserules that (deliberately or accidentally), but it is still technically* correct.


glass.

(* Which someone once said was 'the best kind of correct).