Unarmed Strike

[Kraedin]

Are PCs automatically proficient with unarmed strike? (I.e., without taking Weapon Proficiency: Simple.) For example, if a 3rd level Wizard attacked a 1st level Commoner with an unarmed strike, does he take the -4 non-proficiency penalty?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

i'm pretty sure everyone/everything is considered to be proficient with their "natural attack form". unarmed strikes would be the natural attack form of most humanoids.

so, yes to the first, and no to the second.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

When humans attack unarmed with out the Improved Unarmed Strike, they suffer an Attack of Oppertunity for this attack. But there are no further penalties...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Lord Pendragon]

It should be pointed out that the wizard would only suffer an AoO if he attacked an armed commoner. You suffer the AoO when an unarmed person (without Improved Unarmed Attack) attacks an armed one. If one unarmed person attacks another unarmed person (without Improved Unarmed Attack) there are no AoO's exchanged.

Just thought I'd point it out, since my group didn't know this at first, and a very silly fist-fight occurred before we cleared the matter up.

 

[Zhure]

I can't cite a reference, but I remember Monte saying he'd intended for all characters to be proficient with their own native attacks.

Greg

 

[Kraedin]

Does anyone have rules text to back up automatic proficiency?

 

[kreynolds]

Does anyone have rules text to back up automatic proficiency?

Yeah. They're simple weapons. Nuff said.

 

[Malin Genie]

Yeah. They're simple weapons. Nuff said.

That's not really enough - wizards, rogues and druids are not proficient with all simple weapons.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Does anyone have rules text to back up automatic proficiency?

Reverse engineering will explain it.

Monk are actually not stated to be proficient with Unarmed Strike, though most people would agree, that they are highly proficient with it.