This has been a facet of 3.0 since it came out, and while it is rarely even made aware of, it exists as something that is houseruled universally.
Monks do not have proficiency with unarmed strikes. An unarmed strike is a simple weapon, and monks don't get a hand-waved proficiency list, rather a select list that happens to not include unarmed strike. Improved Unarmed Strike does not actually grant proficiency, but makes you count as armed for purposes of AoOs and can choose between lethal and nonlethal without penalty.
Considering how the game expects monks to work, I suspect this is a rather important rule that's obviously an oversight, of which repair is a simple addition of ", unarmed strike, " to the proficiency list text.
|
Interesting point. While it isn't clearly stated, Improved Unarmed Strike does state you are "skilled at fighting while unarmed," which infers proficiency.
Honestly, I'd like to see monk proficiencies get expanded. The current repertoire is limited in stereotype, and unfairly so.
In part, to address this, I would say monks are proficient with all simple weapons. (Of course, I could also see a trained monk kicking serious rear with a longsword, too.)
First they have to decide whether an unarmed strike is a simple weapon or a natural attack, since the rules currently say they're both depending on where you look. I noticed that humanoid monsters are all proficient with simple weapons, but class features replace your monster hit die features if for humanoids with 1 hit die.
|
Has anyone in their games been applying a -4 penalty to unarmed strikes?
Nope I look at this as one of thoes unlisted common sense rules. (Ex: there is no rule that says your eyes have to be open to see. If my players tell me they can see around them while thier eyes are shut I says "Common Sense" and they all nod). I would say any weapon you are born with that is attached to you, you are automatically proficient with. You may not be great with it (as your BAB will show) but you do not need special traning to use it without penalty.)
|
|
So, it's not only whether a monk is proficient with an unarmed attack, but also whether the unarmed attack is a natural weapon or a simple weapon.
According to the PHB glossary, a natural weapon is "[a] creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages." See PHB 3.5, p.310.
It doesn't specifically state that a humanoid's unarmed attack is treated as a natural weapon. Logically, I'd say it's included. But hey, who's to say that this has anything to do with logic.
Second, I went to the glossary for the MM. Nothing about proficiency whatsoever - just that secondary attacks suffer a -5 penalty. However, let me say that the description of natural attacks, especially how they play out, do not jive with someone using fisticuffs at a high level, i.e., limited by appendage, not by level. See MM 3.5, p.312. Unarmed strikes are not included in the glossary. Regarding humanoids, "Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class." Id.
If you look at Table 7-5 in the PHB 3.5, unarmed attacks are treated as simple weapons. See PHB 3.5, p.116. (Still, there is no description of unarmed attacks in the weapons listing.)
So, by this analysis, I would say that unarmed attacks were intended to be treated as simple weapons, not natural attacks. (Note that I'm not saying that this makes sense.) Further, ALL humanoids are proficient with simple weapons - which would account for monks - BUT FOR the facts that humanoids, by definition are restricted by class. And nothing in the monk's class states clearly that a monk is proficient with all simple weapons.
My conclusion is the same as the OP's - a big glaring oversight.
My recommended solution would be again to simply include in the monk's proficiencies a proficiency with ALL simple weapons. This would be the easiest approach.
A second approach, however, would be to bring the description of natural attacks in line with unarmed attacks - or at least clearly direct the reader that unarmed attacks, for the purpose of rules, are treated as simple weapons and NOT natural attacks. (As noted above, I'm leary to combining unarmed attacks into natural attacks given the limitation on natural attacks, i.e., not by BAB.)
Considering how the game expects monks to work, I suspect this is a rather important rule that's obviously an oversight, of which repair is a simple addition of ", unarmed strike, " to the proficiency list text.
I think the best fix is to state that all creatures are proficient with an unarmed strike.
related to this point, I just went ahead and gave Simple weapon proficiency to all creatures and classes. My thinking is that they are "SIMPLE" weapons, anyone can pick them up and now how to use them effectively.
I mean if a Sorcerer can be proficient with all simple weapons, then a Monk sure as heck should be.
|
|
How's this?
Weapon and Armor Proficiency:
Monks are proficient with all simple weapons and with 'monk weapons': Handaxe, Kama, Nunchaku, Sai, Shuriken, and Siangham.
Alternatively, a monk may select a Weapon Group from the fighter class that he/she has been trained instead of 'monk weapons.' For the purposes of monastic combat, weapons from the Weapon Group are treated as 'monk weapons.'
A monk may select additional weapon groups with the feat, Weapon Group Proficiency, whenever the monk is entitled to a feat or bonus feat.
A monk who selects an alternative weapon group to 'monk weapons' in not proficient with 'monk weapons' unless he/she subsequently selects that group or another group that contains specific 'monk weapons.'
A monk is always proficient in simple weapons and may use any weapon in line with monastic combat rules.
|
|
Weapon Groups from the fighter class do not grant proficiency.
There is no Weapon Group Proficiency feat and introducing it requires a complete overhaul of the current system which manages weapon proficiency.
Currently, simple and martial weapon proficiencies are gained by taking a class. Proficiency in specific weapons is gained by taking a class (rogue, wizard, cleric), a race (dwarf, elf) or by taking the Weapon proficiency (single weapon) feat.
|
|
Weapon Groups from the fighter class do not grant proficiency.
There is no Weapon Group Proficiency feat and introducing it requires a complete overhaul of the current system which manages weapon proficiency.
Currently, simple and martial weapon proficiencies are gained by taking a class. Proficiency in specific weapons is gained by taking a class (rogue, wizard, cleric), a race (dwarf, elf) or by taking the Weapon proficiency (single weapon) feat.
I don't see it as an overhaul, just a different approach. We've been using the Weapon Group Proficiency feat in Unearthed Arcana since that book came out and haven't had any problems with it. The reason I reference the Fighter's weapon groups is simply to direct how weapon group proficiency works.
Of course, if a monk player wants to be proficient in all weapons, just multiclass to fighter once, and then come back. The question is, if he does that, should he be able to include all those extra weapons into monastic combat?
Tangent: I am currently playing a monk in one campaign is has trained specifically in spiked chain fighting. He's a lot of fun. And one of these days, I'd love to try a monk who fights with a heavy and light mace. (Or take a feat to be able to fight with two heavy maces.) Can't recall the name of that feat at the moment. It seems like it was like the drow's two-sword fighting feat, but obviously much more inclusive.
|
|
Of course, if a monk player wants to be proficient in all weapons, just multiclass to fighter once, and then come back. The question is, if he does that, should he be able to include all those extra weapons into monastic combat?
Without tweaking the 3.5/Alpha 3 rules too much, the simplest way to allow a monk to use a non-monk weapon, such as as a greataxe, as a monk weapon would be:
1. Take the Weapon Proficiency (greataxe) feat (unless the monk is already proficient with the weapon).
2. Take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (greataxe) feat.
The Exotic Weapon Proficiency represents the additional special training the monk has gained with the weapon. This training allows him to use the weapon as a monk weapon.
I'm basing this on a suggestion I remember from Dragon Magazine #352. In one of the articles on China Mieville's world, a special longsword required the Exotic Weapon Proficiency for the user to activate its special abilities.
Or just take the Shou Diciple PrC from Unapproachable east, which allows a Monk to use light armor and any light weapon for his flurry.
As far as clearing up the rules goes, I would say to put in a line that "all creatures are considered proficient with their natural weapons" and another that states "for game purposes, unarmed attacks are considered natural weapons".
I would also add to the Monk class that they can flurry any weapon they have proficiency with - forcing them to take a Feat, but not TWO, which is a bit much. Then again, if they multi (and in FR they can), that would leave a lot of room for people who do a level of fighter first (which I always do). Perhaps word it better so that they can flurry any weapon they have taken the weapon proficiency Feat in...
I would agree the Monk needs to be expanded on - like perhaps two different paths down which they can go (like the Rangers Two-weapon and Archery choices). Then a player can focus on the purely combat-oriented skills, or the more esoteric 'mystical' powers.
Another option would be to just present the Monk without the Mystical stuff, as a pure Martial Artist, and then have his abilites synergize with psion - have Ki points interchangeable with psionic points.
But that would probably be a complete rebuild of the Monk concept, and not exactly backwards-compatible.
One last thing - I'm not a big fan of Monks wearing armor - it goes against the flavor - but I think a lot more AC bonuses would help bring him on-par with the other classes - right now, he's looking like an "also ran". Perhaps give players a choice to swap-out some of those mystical abilities for those bonuses, kind of like 'replacement levels'.
|
|
Without tweaking the 3.5/Alpha 3 rules too much, the simplest way to allow a monk to use a non-monk weapon, such as as a greataxe, as a monk weapon would be:
1. Take the Weapon Proficiency (greataxe) feat (unless the monk is already proficient with the weapon).
2. Take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (greataxe) feat.
Slightly tweaked here. Flurry of blows with non-monk weapons. No two-handed weapons, alas.
I can see them using a pair of 'Tomahawks', but a great big Waraxe is more of a Barbarian thing. I know some Monks historically did use Axes, but it just doesn't fit the flavor of the D&D MOnk, IMHO.
I'd love for him to be able to flurry two sets of Nun-chuks, or a single Manriki-gusari. He's got the whirling Dervish beat when it comes to speed and landing multiple, lightning fast blows.
Technically, only weapons require proficiency to avoid the -4 to attack. Manufactured weapons and natural weapons are described as being weapons. Unarmed attacks are never described as being weapons. So technically, there is no bug. No one suffers a penalty for making unarmed attacks because unarmed is not a weapon.
Honestly, I don't think it is anything worth fixing. It is clear even from the OP that this is pretty universally recognized. As an analogy there is also no definition of what it means to be dead. The rules don't need to tell you that a dead person stops healing naturally because there is a consensus on what death means.
Honestly, I don't think it is anything worth fixing.
The main problem here is that certain feats require you to be proficient with a given weapon. For example, monks can't select weapon focus (unarmed) if they're not proficient with with unarmed strikes.
Honestly, I'd like to see monk proficiencies get expanded. The current repertoire is limited in stereotype, and unfairly so.In part, to address this, I would say monks are proficient with all simple weapons. (Of course, I could also see a trained monk kicking serious rear with a longsword, too.)
I support this message.
I think the easiest thing is to just assume everyone is proficient with unarmed strike if you must. It isn't like that breaks anything in the game.