Unarmed Strike: semantic problem. [Native English speakers help me!]

[Gort]

#7.

Yeah. What exactly is the point of making the attack roll if you can't actually inflict damage?

Heck, what's the point in unarmed striking rules if you can't do damage with them?

 

[Thanee]

Not really a native english speaker (english is only my third language), but I consider myself fairly good and agree with the others, it pretty clearly means what you said.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Egres]

Wow!

I'm impressed!

Unarmed Strikes always deal some kind of damage=8

Unarmed Strikes sometimes don't deal any kind of damage=0

What exactly is the other guy saying?

Here:

Egres attempts to conflate two separate statements into one:

Quote:
Unarmed Strike: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage.

There is nothing there that says an Unarmed Strike must cause damage, only that it typically causes nonlethal damage, and that monks can deal lethal damage. These are separate clauses, and attempting to make them into one is not a strict reading. There is no limitations on the Unarmed Strike in these regards, only the characteristic it typically causes nonlethal damage - meaning that the majority of Unarmed Strikes cause nonlethal damage. If you're reading that as "always causes damage" then you're reading it incorrectly, because no such clause exists.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

I have to point out that there is nothing in the given sentences that indicates either way as to whether or not an attack always does damage. The point that an unarmed attack does deal some sort of damage in every attack whilst correct according to the RAW. are not part of these clauses. That doesn't mean I disagree - successful attacks do always cause at least one point of damage (prior to DR), just that these clauses don't have any information supporting it. They also don't have any information that refutes the point either....

 

[Egres]

Just a note:

He's claiming that(referring to Tatsu and Shilsen's posts):

First, is said professor a grammar professor, or merely a literature professor? The latter don't necessarily have any claim to a better knowledge of grammar than anyone else.

:\

 

[Egres]

I have to point out that there is nothing in the given sentences that indicates either way as to whether or not an attack always does damage. The point that an unarmed attack does deal some sort of damage in every attack whilst correct according to the RAW. are not part of these clauses. That doesn't mean I disagree - successful attacks do always cause at least one point of damage (prior to DR), just that these clauses don't have any information supporting it. They also don't have any information that refutes the point either....

Can you explain us why?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm not a professor, but I did graduate with an English degree. Perhaps that carries a smaller bit of weight.

As for the comment about literature vs. grammar, a person who reads and analyzes books for a living may not know the names of various grammatical conventions, but there is no better person for interpreting text and divining its meaning.

Put me down for: unarmed strikes always do damage, usually nonlethal but sometimes lethal.

 

[nyrfherdr]

Another English and Linguistic Scholar (somewhat rusty and not currently 'practicing')

The two sentences (clauses using the language supplied earlier) are both included in the definition of Unarmed Strike. Both sentences are required, because an unarmed Strike typically deals nonlethal damage. When it doesn't deal nonlethal damage (as in the case of a Monk or a character with Improved Unarmed Strike) it may deal lethal damage. A third option (dealing no damage) is not provided.

While someone could argue that the 3rd option is possible, it is not specifically included in the definition provided.

The final statement I would make is that the rules are included in the Combat section of the rulebook, where the rest of the context for the rule exists. In those rules it clearly states that a successful attack deals a minimum of 1 point of damage (before Damage Resistance). I supposed because Damage Resistance exists in the game, the 3rd Option that sometimes an unarmed strike deals no damage would be accurate, but I don't know of any other rule that applies.

I hope this helps.
I must add that I don't enjoy arguing the rules or language of the rules. It adds no value to my enjoyment of the game, nor to my enjoyment of sharing the game with others, including my friends here at EN World. Many a rule requires interpretation because that's the nature of the roleplaying experience.

As Lord Pendragon would tell me... Step off the soapbox, scruffy.

Game ON!
Nyrfherdr

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Before DR / ER:

All successful attacks always do at least one point of damage - i.e., a tiny creature attacking with a cursed tiny-sized knife -10 (1d1-10) and a Strength score of 1 (-5) will do 1d1-15, for a minimum of 1 point of damage.

Should that attack be done with an unarmed strike, it will usually (not always) be nonlethal damage.

Some people / creatures do lethal damage with an unarmed strike.

The two statements you quote do not *explicitly* state that all unarmed strikes must do damage; this much is true.

What they say, logically laid out, is:

3. If an unarmed strike does any damage, it is usually nonlethal.
4. Some creatures do lethal damage with unarmed strikes.

What is missing is the rules from the text on weapon attacks. With those included:

1. Unarmed strikes are melee weapons. [SRD, Equipment]
2. Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage. [SRD, Combat Basics]
3. If an unarmed strike does any damage, it is usually nonlethal.
4. Some creatures do lethal damage with unarmed strikes.

Better?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Funny, how does it, whenever something comes up about Grammar or Ortography, everybody seems to be a professor in English or a graduate or a master or whatever else?
(...)
Were is Kriegspiel when you need him?


Since I am not an Englisch native speaker, I won´t add anything useful to this threat. But I wonder what the "point" of the discussion is? Why is it so important that unarmed strikes always deal some kind of damage?
(And depending on the wording at other places in the rulebook, it might not be true - if the "grab" attempt for grapples or the touch attack for trip attempts is sometimes considerend an unarmed strike, it doesn´t always deal damage. But I believe it´s not worded that way, but I am to lazy to look at it... )

Mustrum Ridcully