Unarmed Strike: semantic problem. [Native English speakers help me!]
- Thread starter Egres
- Start date
Goblyns Hoard
First Post
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....
Lord Pendragon
First Post
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.
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.
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
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
First Post
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?
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
Legend
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
(...)
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
