# Proficiency with unarmed strike



## ChefOrc (May 2, 2007)

I assume that every class is proficient with unarmed strikes (it makes sense that a creature is proficient with its own body), but I just cannot find that rule. The closest thing I find is that not all classes are proficient with simple weapons. Can somebody help?

If this rule did not exist, we would be left with the very strange situation where monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes ...


----------



## Gerion of Mercadia (May 2, 2007)

Monks, IIRC are considered to have the improved unarmed strike feat.


----------



## DogBackward (May 2, 2007)

If it's not mentioned as a proficiency, you're not proficient. And it makes sense. Most people in real life wouldn't be considered proficient with their unarmed strikes. And the classes that aren't proficient, wizard being the only one I know of off-hand, make sense as not knowing how to fight hand-to-hand very well.

Note that Unarmed Strike is listed on the Simple Weapon table, which backs up my thinking on the matter, as well. Seems wizards just don't konw how to throw a punch...


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 2, 2007)

DogBackward said:
			
		

> And the classes that aren't proficient, wizard being the only one I know of off-hand, make sense as not knowing how to fight hand-to-hand very well.




Druids, Wizards, and Monks, from the PHB.



			
				Gerion of Mercadia said:
			
		

> Monks, IIRC are considered to have the improved unarmed strike feat.




Indeed.  Which removes the AoO incurred for attacking unarmed, permits one to threaten while unarmed, and allows one to deal lethal damage.  What the feat doesn't mention is removing a non-proficiency penalty.

-Hyp.


----------



## pawsplay (May 2, 2007)

Only weapons require a proficiency. Apart from monks, characters attacking with unarmed strikes are... not armed. Although they are listed on the weapon table for reference, you can clearly see they are neither light, one-handed, nor two-handed weapons, although the table implies they are Simple. 

The weapon description says this:

_Unarmed Strike
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. 

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. 
_

If an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage, it must not BE weapon damage or that clause would be superfluous.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 2, 2007)

It's interesting that the Druid entry specifically notes that a Druid is proficient in the natural weapons of forms he assumes via Wild Shape.

The implication is that a Wizard who polymorphs into a form with natural weapons is not, since the class has no such note, and Polymorph (via Alter Self) mentions that you gain natural weapons, but says nothing on the issue of proficiency.

And unless natural weapons are defined as simple or martial somewhere, druids are about the _only_ class that mention proficiency in natural weapons.  So a Psychic Warrior manifesting Bite of the Wolf, for example, is not proficient...

-Hyp.


----------



## Gerion of Mercadia (May 2, 2007)

PHB Glossary said:
			
		

> unarmed strike: A sucessful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage from a character attacking *without* weapons. A monk can deal...




Sweet - It's an Attack, but not an attack with a weapon...

It is "considered" a Light weapon (for the purposes of TWF or the like I guess)

A "Ray" has similar language.

In the apparent absence of rules - I would say that you are "proficient" - the automatic nonlethal damage seems "built in" to account for the lack of training.


----------



## glass (May 2, 2007)

ChefOrc said:
			
		

> I assume that every class is proficient with unarmed strikes (it makes sense that a creature is proficient with its own body), but I just cannot find that rule. The closest thing I find is that not all classes are proficient with simple weapons. Can somebody help?
> 
> If this rule did not exist, we would be left with the very strange situation where monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes ...



An unarmed strike is neither a simple, martial or exotic weapon, so no proficiency is required.

_EDIT: Ah, that Druid note puts the cat amongst my pigeons, doesn't it._ 


glass.


----------



## Egres (May 2, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> An unarmed strike is neither a simple, martial or exotic weapon, so no proficiency is required.



Even if it's listed in the simple weapons chart?


----------



## pawsplay (May 2, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> Even if it's listed in the simple weapons chart?




Where it's not a light weapon? I think the chart must bow to the primary source rule in this case.


----------



## Egres (May 2, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Where it's not a light weapon? I think the chart must bow to the primary source rule in this case.



It's a simple weapon that is considered a light weapon.


----------



## Notmousse (May 2, 2007)

If we continue with this idea that unarmed strikes are simple weapons not only do you need to be proficient with them, but must ready them before you may attack.

While the idea of a monk 'cocking' his fists before he decides to unload on some shmuck is amusing I think it's to silly to rule as such in game.


----------



## Zaruthustran (May 2, 2007)

Notmousse said:
			
		

> If we continue with this idea that unarmed strikes are light weapons not only do you need to be proficient with them, but must ready them before you may attack.




Terminology alert re: light vs. simple. 

Also: where do you get the idea that a weapon--any weapon--needs to be "readied" before it can be used in an attack? 

-z


----------



## Notmousse (May 3, 2007)

Good catch, they're not simple, they are light.

But I get that idea from the exact same place I get the idea that you need to ready any of your weapons, by unsheathing it, drawing it from a storage compartment, etc...  If I ever hear a monk's player state 'I draw my fists' again I'll bust up laughing.


----------



## Egres (May 3, 2007)

Notmousse said:
			
		

> Good catch, they're not simple, they are light.



Actually,  they are  listed as simple weapons.



> But I get that idea from the exact same place I get the idea that you need to ready any of your weapons, by unsheathing it, drawing it from a storage compartment, etc...



Can you cite the passage that leads you to think so?


----------



## irdeggman (May 3, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> Actually,  they are  listed as simple weapons.




Only in the table though. Text trumps tables in general.




> Can you cite the passage that leads you to think so?




IMO this comes from the difference between "wielding" and "holding".  Both terms are used extensively in the rules when it comes to weapons (and in general used in a confusing manner).

You can "hold" a longspear or a greatsword in one hand but you don't "threaten" with it since you can't make an attack with that melee weapon without using 2 hands (assuming of course it is "sized properly").



> Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.






> threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own.


----------



## glass (May 3, 2007)

Egres said:
			
		

> Even if it's listed in the simple weapons chart?



Is it? IDNHMBIFOM, but I didn't think it was.


glass.


----------



## Deset Gled (May 3, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Only in the table though. Text trumps tables in general.



Text only trumps tables when there is a contradiction between the two.  I haven't seen any text yet that contradicts the table.  

If an unarmed strike is considered to be a weapon, and all weapons are classified as simple, martial, or exotic, doesn't it directly follow that an unarmed strike must be fall into one of those three categories?

IMO, calling an unarmed strike a simple weapon in the table without specifically calling out that monks are proficient with them is something that falls under the category of "dumb editing mistake that should have been rectified years ago, but wasn't because WotC hates to get off their collective asses and issue errata unless they absolutely have to".



> IMO this comes from the difference between "wielding" and "holding".



Whether or not you can hold certain weapons without wielding them is a huge debate that comes up in most TWF threads.  I'll just say here that I agree with you on this point, but the rules are far from clear on it.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 10, 2007)

Must be something in the air, because this notion just came up with me for the first time ever, and apparently a lot of other people are having the same issue at the moment. 



			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> IMO, calling an unarmed strike a simple weapon in the table without specifically calling out that monks are proficient with them is something that falls under the category of "dumb editing mistake that should have been rectified years ago, but wasn't because WotC hates to get off their collective asses and issue errata unless they absolutely have to".




I'd think that, rather, they should edit the Improved Unarmed Strike feat to note that proficiency with unarmed strikes is included as part of the package. That way, Monks will automatically get it (with their IUS feat), and any classes that don't already have proficiency via their Simple+ Weapons class features (such as Wizards and Druids) will need to pick up the IUS feat if they want to become brawlers.

(Although, come to think of it, maybe they should just clarify that everyone is proficient with it- after all, everyone is proficient with Grapple, too, and that is pretty much in the same boat as punching someone.)


----------

