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

[Egres]

I'm not a professor, but I did graduate with an English degree. Perhaps that carries a smaller bit of weight.[...]
Put me down for: unarmed strikes always do damage, usually nonlethal but sometimes lethal.

Good!

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.

Well, you are right, but try to put yourself in my shoes and tell me what you'd do.

You try to argue about a D&D rule, and a poster argues that your argument is wrong, and you aren't entitled to argue more cause you aren't an English Native speaker.

I'll admit my English is very bad, but that doesn't mean i can't understand an English sentence!

Thats' the reason why i'm here asking for your help.

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

Ouch!..the first one against the "Unarmed Strikes always deal some kind of damage".

Were is Kriegspiel when you need him?

Who?

But I wonder what the "point" of the discussion is? Why is it so important that unarmed strikes always deal some kind of damage?

The point is, above all, to see if a "not-coming-from-an-English-Native-Speaker" rules interpretation can be right.

The original issue was about the possibility to make a Trip attempt during a Flurry of Blows, where you are limited to Unarmed Strikes, that, by the Glossary definition, can't be used to make a Trip attempt, as Hyp stated so many times in the past.

However, here's the result of this strange "poll" so far:

Unarmed Strikes always deal some kind of damage=10

Unarmed Strikes sometimes don't deal any kind of damage=1

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Ouch!..the first one against the "Unarmed Strikes always deal some kind of damage".

You misread my post.

I am *not* voting for the second option in your survey - an unarmed strike is an attack and an attack, if it hits, will always do at least one point of damage (before DR).

What I *am* saying is that the particular bit of rules you quoted do not support your conclusion that unarmed strikes always do damage.

Instead, you need to go back to the rules on combat - which is why I posted the "complete proof" at the end of my post.

 

[Tatsukun]

Well I guess you could call me a grammar professor. I teach English composition, grammar, TOEIC and TOEFL classes. Oh, and yes, I'm a native speaker.

But that's not really the point. The point here is that you opponent is imagining things. The sentence in question states that unarmed attacks usually do non-lethal damage.

Now the word 'usually' means, in a strict sense, 'more often than not' or 'more than 50% of the time'. So the sentence as written doesn't really tell us more than that unarmed strikes do non-lethal damage more often than they don't.

So the argument your opponent is making seems to be that the other option would be to do no damage.

Your argument (and mine) is that the other option is to do normal damage.

It is not defined by the sentence at all. One could argue that the other option would be that a large group of squirrels appears and dances the Macarena.

So, who is right? Well, like all things in English, being the bastard son of many other languages, you need to look at context. Has your opponent, anywhere in the books, found any reference to attacking and doing no damage (before of DR).

I would guess not. In DnD one simply cannot attack and do no form damage (before DR again).

So, the next logical step is to ask what other kinds of damage there are, and who might have access to them. Well BEHOLD, the next sentence! It gives us a clear example of a monk doing normal damage. There you go, both questions answered.

Now, from a strictly grammatical reading, we don't know if there is a third option. Those who vote for the Macarena squirrels could be right; nothing in the rules prohibits it (maybe the 3rd level bard spell "summon novelty dancers"?). But your opponent is wrong, as you cannot attack and do no form of damage in DnD.

Ok, I have rambled (I'm not even at work!). Let me sum up…

1)The sentence in question tells us that unarmed attacks do non-lethal damage more often than they don't.

2)It doesn't define what the other option(s) are.

3)One of the other options is to do normal damage.

4)One of the other options can not be to attack and do no damage

5)"Summon novelty dancers" would be a great spell.

Ok, time for breakfast. Good luck!

-Tatsu
------
Professor Joshua "Tatsu" Sargent
Waseda University English Department

 

[Judas]

I'm just going to go straight to the 3.5 SRD and quoting this:

IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE [GENERAL]

Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

Special: A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.

A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.

 

[Egres]

Well I guess you could call me a grammar professor. I teach English composition, grammar, TOEIC and TOEFL classes. Oh, and yes, I'm a native speaker.

VEEERY GOOD!

You misread my post.

I am *not* voting for the second option in your survey - an unarmed strike is an attack and an attack, if it hits, will always do at least one point of damage (before DR).

What I *am* saying is that the particular bit of rules you quoted do not support your conclusion that unarmed strikes always do damage.

Instead, you need to go back to the rules on combat - which is why I posted the "complete proof" at the end of my post.

Ah, ok.

However, your answer, limited to the Glossary part, should go, then, to the "third option" results, with those who think that the Glossary alone can't help defining what an Unarmed Strike can do or not.

Then:

Unarmed Strikes always deal some kind of damage=10(+1 )

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

 

[Henrix]

Time for another non-native english speaker to chime in. I do have some inklings of formal logic, though.
So if these sentences are analyzed as formal logic (and only these sentences):

A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons.

This sentence only tells us that unarmed strikes in some cases deal nonlethal damage. It tells us nothing about the other cases, i.e. whether they might not deal any damage.
(Curiously all unarmed strikes are evidently successful blows. I wonder what an attempt at unarmed strike is called.)

A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage.

This on the other hand tells that there are two, and only two, kinds of unarmed strikers; monks and non-monks.
Monks can deal lethal damage, non-monks deal nonlethal.

Evidently there are cases where a monk can do other things than deal lethal damage, but it does not tell us what. From what these sentences say might be anything.

All non-monks always deal nonlethal damage.

We do not know whether not dealing damage is a possible outcome.

(From the rest of the rulebook of course we know that the alternative for monks is to deal non-lethal damage, and that there are non-monks who may deal lethal damage.)

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

Can you explain us why?

Because neither of the clauses actual state anything about the amount of damage - just about the type of damage. Nothing here states nor refutes the fact that a certain minimum amount of damage is produced.

Basically I'm saying the same as Patryn... the fact is that the unarmed strike always does a minimum of one point of damage, but that information is found in a different bit of the rules. The rules you have provided only discuss the type of damage that is done and the options for whether or not the damage is lethal or non lethal. On the basis of the information presented we have no evidence for an unarmed strike causing a minimum amount of damage - so on a purely semantic argument (sorry too many debating classes back in school) we can not conclude anything about the amount of damage done on the basis of the information you have provided.

You need the additional bit from the rules that says "All successful strikes in combat cause a minimum of 1 point of damage" in order to fully support your point.

So put me down as another +1 on the 3rd choice... I agree an unarmed strike always does at least one point of damage, but I disagree that the statement you have provided proves that point.

If as Henrix is postulating the argument is that the alternative to "usually deals non-lethal damage" is "doesn't deal any damage" then I would suggest you require whoever you're discussing it with to provide some evidence that there are successful attacks (of which an unarmed attack is a sube-type) that cause less than 1 point of damage (prior to DR of course)

 

[Thanee]

As someone else has already noted, there is a general rule, that successful attacks always deal at least one damage (of course prior to damage reduction), regardless of penalties. There is no hint in the rules whatsoever, that attacks can deal 0 damage, so this option is quite clearly nonexistant.

As Tatsukun already noted, there is no definition on what is unusual. There is no rule about unarmed attacks dealing no damage, however, while there is a rule about unarmed attacks dealing lethal damage as opposed to non-lethal damage (what the first sentence defines as the usual way).

So, putting things into context, "unusual" most probably means (as in "can only mean") lethal (instead of non-lethal).

Besides, this has very little to do with grammar, rather with semantics.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Sado]

The guy you're arguing with said:

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.

Well, the SRD says:

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage.

Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage.

I think that settles it.

 

[Egres]

The guy you're arguing with said:


Well, the SRD says:





I think that settles it.

Well, the fact is that he says that you can use an Unarmed Strike, instead of an Unarmed Touch Attack, in order to make a Trip attempt.

In other words, he says that you can make a Trip attempt during a Flurry of Blows, even if you you are limited to Unarmed Strikes.

In this way ( by his definition) you could make an Unarmed Strike that doesn't deal any damage.