Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nyrfherdr" data-source="post: 1858972" data-attributes="member: 3394">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</blockquote>

Verification