They are actually in the light simple weapons area on the weapon chart so I don't see that as a special rule, and if it is called out when it is listed that way in the table is something I can not answer.
Actually, they are listed under unarmed attacks. Light simple weapons is another heading. As are all the other weapons. It is true the unarmed attacks were included in the overall simple weapons table as a convenient place to list them and saving space on not having a third chart just for two entries.
On the other hand, if you read all the relevant rules text, it is quite clear that unarmed strikes are not intended to have a "weapon" proficiency attached to them.
Then you doubt there was a single group that played the game by RAW.
I dispute that it was RAW to begin with. I can see where the confusion could have come up, but I really can't see anyone actually playing that way. All of the relevant Official 3.5 FAQ's answers show math that has no -4 penalty to unarmed attacks. There isn't even a question about whether monk's get proficiency with unarmed strikes. That's because an unarmed strike is not a weapon, even if it shares some of the rules of weapons. Non-weapon proficiency doesn't apply to things that aren't weapons.
Back on topic, I like Pathfinder better because they cleared up some of the stupid misconceptions and rules things that caused internet arguments like the one above.
It is true that some new rules arguments have been created. But I haven't seen any that couldn't be fixed by common sense. Pathfinder is d20 after 9 years of experience with d20. It's polished, and I like that.
Here's why I prefer Pathfinder:
1) Many, not all but many, issues were fixed or at a minimum addressed as well as they could.
2) There is more balance with the races and classes. Things aren't perfect but they are much better.
3) Favored classes are benefits instead of penalties
4) Archetypes make classes more customizable
5) Fewer prestige classes. I think they have their place but they aren't dominant
6) The PHB and DMG are essentially in the same book. No longer do the players need to have the PHB and the magic item section of the DMG
7) The monsters are tougher
8) The adventures are present and consistent.
9) Subscriptions. I am not in a place financially to do this yet but I certainly will as soon as I can
10) Playtesting, playtesting, and a bit more playtesting.
Skills system changes alone make it better, imo.
|
So your monks took the -4 nonproficiency penalty to their attack rolls? 8)I'm sorry, but where in the rules is that from?
A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.Unless I missed the part where the rules declare "fists" a weapon, everyone can strike unarmed without penalty.
Edit: Not that it would have mattered in my games. I can't remember the last time I saw someone playing a monk.
Since you asked.
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
So either 'Fist' is declared a weapon, and is not on the monk's proficiency list, or it is NOT a weapon, and therefore falls under 'improvised weapons'. Either way, by the rules they must take a -4 penalty to their attack roll if they do not have something granting proficiency. Which Improved Unarmed Strike does not.
Since you asked.
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
So either 'Fist' is declared a weapon, and is not on the monk's proficiency list, or it is NOT a weapon, and therefore falls under 'improvised weapons'. Either way, by the rules they must take a -4 penalty to their attack roll if they do not have something granting proficiency. Which Improved Unarmed Strike does not.
Or it is an unarmed strike, which has plenty of rules about it. Being not-a-weapon makes it not an improvised weapon.
|
|
And since TOZ wants to quote the SRD for Improvised weapons, I refer again back to the Monk Class features stating:
"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
So there you go as a textual reference to Fists being a type of weapon, whetehr or not it is an explicit definition is a rather moot point.
Again, show me where it says monks are proficient with unarmed strikes. They are not proficient with all simple weapons, unarmed strike is a simple weapon, and Improved Unarmed Strike does not grant proficiency.
Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling.
1. Pathfinder made official a lot of my homebrew rules.
2. They tend to produce higher quality material.
3. Classes and races more balanced.
4. Less clutter than 3.5
That said I really liked 3.5. It was probably the best D&D system produced, although it did have some issues. Many of which were addressed by Pathfinder.
I Like PF over 3.5 due to it being in print and new stuff coming out.
I also like the adult themes that exist throughout the books. Blood Bio, Troll Fortune tellers, Bloat Mages, page 3-- something in the APG, Create treasure map, Peth...
Classes are exciting, and have tons of cool stuff that even a fighter gets. Several restrictions on classes are reduced or removed.
The new book of Ultimate Magic makes me really exciting in hopes of playing an anthropomorphic animal or at least making a kingdom filled with them.
|
|
I reply again with a question "Where does it state in the text of the rulebooks that unarmed strike is indeed a simple weapon.
I take it you have no reference proving that monks are proficient in unarmed strikes, other than 'they SHOULD because it makes sense'.
As we have read many times on these boards and elsewhere, text trumps table, so please show me where in text format, not listed on a table it references these items:
1) Unarmed strike is a weapon.
2) Training does not grant proficiency.
3) Refute that Improvised Weapon specifically refers to an object picked up and used to make an attack and makes any reference whatsoever to any form of natural weapon (which the monk's unarmed attacks most definitely are described as).
A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only.An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
Benefit
You make attack rolls with simple weapons normally.Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.Special
All characters except for druids, monks, and wizards are automatically proficient with all simple weapons. They need not select this feat.
|
|
Well, I must admit, you are most adamant on this particualr matter.
I'm bored, and arguing rules passes the time.
So I ask you this: What happened to your assertion that an unarmed strike is a Simple Weapon, not on the list for Monk's to use, and therefor subject to a -4 penalty?
Nothing happened to it, you asked for textual proof that unarmed strikes are weapons. Since the listing of unarmed strikes in the Weapons section was not enough, I found a line specifically stating 'An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon' which proves that an unarmed strike is a weapon.
The rule for Unarmed attacks being treated as Light Weapons is specific to an off-hand attack while two-weapon fighting, not unarmed strike as a rule.
It is always considered a light weapon. I don't understand how you can say that is specific to only one situation.
You are again trying to ignore that explicit fact that monks do indeed have several Simple Weapons on their Weapon Proficiency list, so repaetedly referencing this specific passage ", with out the context of the remaining sentences in the same paragraph ("Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of mainly simple weapons and possibly also some martial or even exotic weapons. A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls." is a blatant attempt to cut out information that is quite obviously countering or embellishing upon the first sentence in the form a list of exceptions.
I again point out that the RAW most definitely states that Monks are highly trained in unarmed attacks. Why you are so insistent that this does not infact mean that Monks are capable of using unarmed attacks with proficiency is a point of bafflement for me. Does this mean that the Fighter who has proficiency in all simple and martial weapons had never trained one single instant in any of them?
Because the only place that tells us what weapons a class is proficient with is the weapons and armor proficiencies section of the class write-up. You are suggesting class fluff and class features that do not deal with proficiencies grant proficiency with mentioned weapons. I am saying that if the proficiency is not specifically granted, then the class does not have it. Fighters are fluffed as masters of weapons, but do not have proficiency with ALL weapons.
To sum up: Monks are trained to use unarmed attacks (trained means "been granted proficiency with [item/concept trained in]"), Unarmed strikes are indeed treated as Light weapons, for the purposes of two-weapon fighting's off hand attacks.
You have mysteriously backed away from your previous grip on Unarmed Strikes being Simple Weapons, and you have yet to show any proof that an unarmed strike is a weapon rather than treated like any number of weapon types for specific purposes such as off-hand attacks, natural weapon attacks, and effects that create damage modifers based on size alteration, magical enhancement, etc.
I have not backed away from any such thing. Unarmed strikes are light simple weapons. You have shown no proof that unarmed strikes are NOT weapons, only claiming that 'being in the weapons table/list does not automatically mean it is a weapon'.
I have yet to see any textual assertion directly quoted from a Rulebook stating that monks' unarmed attacks do indeed incur a -4 non-proficiency penalty, primarily because there is no proficiency to acquire. It is a basic ability every being is born with (as long as they have a corresponding form to strike with). The monkis given a tremendously ability to enhance a rather blase standard ability and transform it into the things legends are made of. Any DM, Gm or PathMaster (can I coin that phrase now?) that would assert otherwise would very quickly be without many of the players I have had the experience of playing with, including myself.
I am not stating that monks taking the -4 makes sense, I am stating that it is how the rules actually are. Non-proficient users take a -4 to attack rolls, and monks are not stated to be proficient with unarmed strikes. Thus they are supposed to take the -4 by the rules.
Monks are proficient with unarmed attacks (as is every character in Pathfinder):
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
You can find it here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html#simple-martial-and-exotic -weapons
It is also on page 140-141 of the Core Rulebook.
|
|
For the record, I only have access to the d20srd, and so cannot give page numbers at this time.
We're on a retro kick, Bob, talking about how it was in 3.5. I brought up the old quirk about how monks aren't proficient with their fists as a joke, and people wanted to say that's not how it was. So I'm arguing the point.
I didn't realize you were talking about 3.5. 3.5 did have the unspecified, yet 100% acceptable, assumption that monks were proficient with their unarmed attacks.
When you get bored, you can really get feathers ruffled.
You have challenged the Wraithstrike. :)
RAW and RAI are not the same thing. RAI the monk does not get a penalty. RAW he is not proficient and therefore a penalty should be incurred. However it should be noted that the opening comment was that someone claimed to play by RAW and ToZ challenged that.
The evidence follows
Class FeaturesAll of the following are class features of the monk.
Weapon and Armor ProficiencyMonks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling.
Note that this is an all inclusive list.
Simple, Martial, and Exotic WeaponsAnybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of mainly simple weapons and possibly also some martial or even exotic weapons. A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
I don't see unarmed strike in that list.
I know you want to go by "Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed", but that only shows intent
I was incorrect about the table calling an unarmed strike out as a light weapon, but it is a simple weapon by the chart so that means either a monk must have all simple weapons listed or unarmed strike specifically must be listed in the class entry for him to be proficient with it.
The only way to become proficient with a weapon is for it to be listed in your class under the weapon and armor proficiency section, your race can give it to you or you can spend a feat on it. The monk class does not give it in the weapon proficiency section, it gives no bonus feat that gives it, nor does it give any racial abilities that grant proficiency with unarmed strike.
According to the evidence I have presented the monk is not proficient with unarmed strikes.
You have only presented evidence for RAI which shows they should be proficient so far which we already agree with. You have shown nothing that says monks are proficient.
PS:I could not find the change made in Pathfinder either, but we can handle that after we take care of this 3.5 debate.
Edit:All those came from the 3.5 SRD.
Or for fun you could start up the ol' "monks with gauntlets" chestnut.
But no, seriously, the main difference for me is:
1) It's ok and "cool" to be a core class. They're not just speed bumps on the way to <Insert Prestige Class #1,125 Here>
2) After years of 3.5, it's nice to be able to make a character without needing a 70lb duffle bag of books you need 3 pages from each.
PS:I could not find the change made in Pathfinder either, but we can handle that after we take care of this 3.5 debate.
I posted the minor change in Pathfinder already. All characters are proficient with unarmed attacks, regardless of class. It's listed in the equipment section.
Monks are proficient with unarmed attacks (as is every character in Pathfinder):
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.You can find it here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html#simple-martial-and-exotic -weapons
It is also on page 140-141 of the Core Rulebook.
Thanks Bob. The fact that they went out of their way to change the rule in pathfinder further proves our point.
edit:Now I see your other post reminding me of this one.
I have played a little 3.5 and never played PF, but I have been interested to give it a try. So why do you prefer PF over D&D 3.5? Is it because it is in print? Do you think the system is superior? Other reasons?
I'm just going to bypass the whole monk discussion (which I find very silly) and address the OP.
There are a few reasons that I personally prefer Pathfinder to 3.5
1. Monk's are proficient with Unarmed Strikes.
2. Skills are much more simplistic in a logical manner.
3. The classes tend to be more balanced, actually much more in Pathfinder.
4. I know 3.5 had alternative class options but Pathfinder archetypes are that a better.
5. There aren't *looks under desk* over 100 Pathfinder books all with rules. (I do own around 100 of the 3.0/3.5 books)
6. Fighters getting more love as well as archery.
I'm sure there are other reasons but I'll leave it at that. Also #1 is definitely the primary reason. ;)
Weren't also all creatures automatically proficient with their natural attacks/weapons even back in 3E?
Thanks Bob. The fact that they went out of their way to change the rule in pathfinder further proves our point.
Actually, all it proves is that the designers were on the internet when someone decided to use the "simple weapons" chart to declare monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes.
If the rules don't redefine an English word, the standard definition should be used.
Weapon: any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
My Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has a similar definition. An instrument, which is a type of tool, is generally defined as a handheld implement. I don't think holding your own hand makes it
If an unarmed strike was supposed to be defined as a light simple weapon, why is it specifically in a different category on the table? The only subcategory that doesn't have weapon in the title. Several unneeded sentences could have been removed from the book if they had just placed unarmed strike under light weapons instead of specifically separating it out as its own category.
What I find interesting is that 3.0 has the exact wording. So nobody noticed the possible confusion for at least 3 years. It wasn't even considered an issue worthy of being placed in the official 3.5 FAQ. Which has an example of how to flurry, with no -4 penalty to be seen anywhere.
So the only people who insist that monk's aren't proficient are bored people who like to argue on the internet. Prove to me that a single gaming group actually played where monk's had a -4 penalty with unarmed strikes.
Actually, all it proves is that the designers were on the internet when someone decided to use the "simple weapons" chart to declare monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes.
What I find interesting is that 3.0 has the exact wording. So nobody noticed the possible confusion for at least 3 years. It wasn't even considered an issue worthy of being placed in the official 3.5 FAQ. Which has an example of how to flurry, with no -4 penalty to be seen anywhere.
So the only people who insist that monk's aren't proficient are bored people who like to argue on the internet. Prove to me that a single gaming group actually played where monk's had a -4 penalty with unarmed strikes.
Since the designers changed the wording then it was because they wanted to close the loophole.
It does not matter if every group played without the penalty. That does not make it RAW. By that argument the speed limit in my town is 55 in a 1/4 mile section, when the sign obviously says 35.
I already said the chart does not support the light simple weapon idea which is of little consequence. It is still a simple weapon though, and monks by RAW are not proficient with simple weapons.
Do monks need to be proficient in unarmed strikes to avoid the penalty? yes.
If there any place in 3.5 that provides them proficiency? No
In other words the box was never checked.
You can't provide the text saying they were proficient because it does not exist.
A couple of things were not fixed between 3.0 and 3.5, and there are things that still were not fixed between 3.5 and Pathfinder so the 3 year comment is not even a factor assuming it was even 3 years. I never played 3.0 so I can't say if the 3 year period is accurate or not. Something not being put in the FAQ is not a factor. There were many debates that came up on the old boards that never got answered.
Everyone knew the intent was for the penalty to not be taken so it was never a big issue. My point is that by RAW there is no proof. You keep arguing intent. Show me where the rules say the monk is proficient, not where the designers intend for him to be proficient.
Once again we already know intent.
And TOZ, I must ask you to clarify: how do you justify unarmed strike ignoring the context surrounding your assertion that an unarmed attack is a light simple weapon, which is only considered one for the purposes of using an unarmed attack as an off-hand attack using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules in the SRD, especially in light of the clear and concise statement in the Monk Class Features that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
Your buddy deinol is the one saying it is not a weapon.
ToZ and myself are saying the monk is not proficient with it per my above quotes.It if is not a weapon then it is an improvised weapon. No matter how you cut it you get -4.
The chart list it as a simple weapon, and the description of it says it acts like a light weapon when used.
You see Simple Weapons and then the subcategories are
Unarmed attacks, light weapons, and so on.
Remember we know the intent. Where is rule saying monks are proficient with unarmed strikes?
I believe the question is similiar "why do you prefer 3.5 over 3.0"
Nothing new here but:
a few changes that make life easier (skills for example)
a few changes that remove loopholes (can be houserules, I know)
till now, official material doesn't overshadow the material in the basic rule book.
and I heard that the adventure paths are awesome (I just pick ideas, but never really use them)
you can eagerly wait for the new books
Why wouldn't you change?
There are two reasons that I can find:
Money (you might have a lot of 3.5 books and don't want to throw them away)
WOTC lincenced material (you might like to bash beholders and Illithids)
The help Paizo has offered for those negative points is backwards compatability. But it's not a real solution.
I play Paizo for a similiar reason to why I didn't learn latin in school.
I brought up the old quirk about how monks aren't proficient with their fists as a joke, and people wanted to say that's not how it was. So I'm arguing the point.
Man, there's a thin line between rules lawyering and doing something in public that will ultimately require you to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life, and you're so crossing that line. :)
It's silly to suggest that a mostly-RAW 3.5 game in which monks are proficient with fists, if someone were to have played a 3.5 monk for some crazy reason, is RAW-wise equivalent to your ultra houseruled game. I feel like I can say this because I think you know it's silly.
|
|
They are actually in the light simple weapons area on the weapon chart so I don't see that as a special rule, and if it is called out when it is listed that way in the table is something I can not answer.An unarmed strike is a simple weapon. Monks were not proficient with simple weapons, and there is not rule listing unarmed strikes as an exception. It is an oversight, but it is still RAW.If unarmed attacks are simple weapons (I know, they are listed in the weapons table for convenience) then why do they have special rules to note that they "count as" light weapons for weapon finesse and "count as" weapon damage for things that affect them? If they were intended to be counted as a light simple weapon for all purposes, those rules would not need to be specially called out.
I doubt there is a single group that ever decided monks really were non-proficient in fists.
In the 3.5 description of Monk, the Unarmed Strike is listed as Simple Weapon. However The rules ALSO describe Natural Weapons as any weapon physically a part of the character, such as fists, knees, etc. It is obvious from the RAW that Unarmed Strike counts as both Simple Weapon and Natural Weapon.
I can see ruling a -4 non proficiency to attack. But I can also see not ruling that as the way Unarmed Strike is written causes it to fall into a hybrid of Natural and Simple Weapons. And since there is no rule for dealing with hybrid weapons of this type I can see ruling either way, by the RAW.
|
|
And TOZ, I must ask you to clarify: how do you justify unarmed strike ignoring the context surrounding your assertion that an unarmed attack is a light simple weapon, which is only considered one for the purposes of using an unarmed attack as an off-hand attack using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules in the SRD, especially in light of the clear and concise statement in the Monk Class Features that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
Your buddy deinol is the one saying it is not a weapon.
ToZ and myself are saying the monk is not proficient with it per my above quotes.It if is not a weapon then it is an improvised weapon. No matter how you cut it you get -4.
The chart list it as a simple weapon, and the description of it says it acts like a light weapon when used.
You see Simple Weapons and then the subcategories are
Unarmed attacks, light weapons, and so on.Remember we know the intent. Where is rule saying monks are proficient with unarmed strikes?
Natural Weapon... no penalties... :)
see not that hard :)
But easy to forget as well :)
|
|
But Krome, they're only treated as natural weapons for the purpose of spells and other effects! Not for proficiencies or feats like Improved Natural Attack! Remember? :)
Man, there's a thin line between rules lawyering and doing something in public that will ultimately require you to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life, and you're so crossing that line. :)It's silly to suggest that a mostly-RAW 3.5 game in which monks are proficient with fists, if someone were to have played a 3.5 monk for some crazy reason, is RAW-wise equivalent to your ultra houseruled game. I feel like I can say this because I think you know it's silly.
When did I say my games were equivalent to RAW games? ?_?
They are actually in the light simple weapons area on the weapon chart so I don't see that as a special rule, and if it is called out when it is listed that way in the table is something I can not answer.In the 3.5 description of Monk, the Unarmed Strike is listed as Simple Weapon. However The rules ALSO describe Natural Weapons as any weapon physically a part of the character, such as fists, knees, etc. It is obvious from the RAW that Unarmed Strike counts as both Simple Weapon and Natural Weapon.
I can see ruling a -4 non proficiency to attack. But I can also see not ruling that as the way Unarmed Strike is written causes it to fall into a hybrid of Natural and Simple Weapons. And since there is no rule for dealing with hybrid weapons of this type I can see ruling either way, by the RAW.
You got a quote saying people get natural attacks? If there is no way to deal with it by RAW then the RAW does not support it. RAW means you go by what the book says. The book does not includes fist, knees and so on. It gives an incomplete list, but what it does do is list any weapons that may be used as a natural attack in the creature's description.
I don't see any humans, elves, or other core races with natural attacks listed in the monster manual. That means neither the PHB or the monster manual has them listed
To go further we all know that a monster is proficient with whatever natural attacks is given to it in the monster manual
Example
Humanoid Type
TraitsA humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
......[/b]
We know 0HD humanoids advance by character class so they have to go by the class. The monk does not give proficiency in unarmed strikes, nor does any of the humanoids core races.
Now let us look at another creature type
Aberration TypeAn aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three.
FeaturesAn aberration has the following features.
8-sided Hit Dice.
Base attack bonus equal to ¾ total Hit Dice (as cleric).
Good Will saves.
Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.Traits
An aberration possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
Proficient with its natural weapons. If generally humanoid in form, proficient with all simple weapons and any weapon it is described as using....
It seems that the monster entry has to specifically give it the ability to be proficient with natural weapons.
I am done thread-jacking. :)
Character class options are wonderful, the fact that you now get something cool every time you level up makes things just that bit more special. The graphic design of the books make them a pleasure to flip through (apart from the art on the goblinoid races in the Bestiary, don't know what happened there. I mean, goblins look cool but what's happened to the legs of the others?). Looking forward to getting the world guide. The fact you can still house-rule stuff because the rules structure is sound. Having everything you ever wanted in two books.
@cibet44: Just remember that PF rules are available for free on the PRD site (which I give Paizo major props for even though personally I prefer 3.5 to PF). So your group doesn't have to drop a bunch of cash initially on PF just to run the adventure paths. Just something to consider.
Now, having decided that, one thing that does bother me a bit is the fact that we now have to buy four new core rulebooks which essentially means we are buying four new PHB and four new DMGs. In all of our gaming history since 1E our group has only had a PHB for each player and 2 DM guides. Now with PFRPG we will have a DMG for every player, seems a bit wasteful, but that's what it takes.
Pathfinder has been out long enough that you can probably find some used copies. If not, Amazon and Overstock usually has great prices. For the meantime, you could buy just one or two Core Books and buy a couple of the Core PDFs so that everyone has a copy.
I have played a little 3.5 and never played PF, but I have been interested to give it a try. So why do you prefer PF over D&D 3.5? Is it because it is in print? Do you think the system is superior? Other reasons?
I ran and played 3.x for the duration it was in print, and I switched to Pathfinder because I loved the changes it made to the 3.x system while still preserving what I, personally, liked about 3.5 (the general set up of races, classes, feats, the modularity within, the complexity but not overcomplexity of the rules etc.). Many of the changes Pathfinder made were things I was already wanting to see anyway. These changes include:
- The skill system. Doubled costs for cross class skills were eliminated (you just get a bonus to a skill if it's a class skill), and everyone can put ranks in any skill. Also, many skills were streamlined and combined (Perception instead of Listen, Search, Spot), which makes it easier to build a well rounded character.
- Rebalanced races. I feel, based on my personal play style and preferences, the races are better balanced and have more interesting, flavorful features. I like particularly that half-elves are a little more powerful, and that half-orcs now truly feel half-orc, half-human, rather than "like an orc, but less."
- The combat maneuvers system. I really like the streamlined mechanics for grapple, trip, disarm, etc. and having run a Pathfinder campaign (high level) for almost three years now I have seen them work very effectively in gameplay, whereas their use when I ran 3.5 constantly confused and frustrated me. This is a YMMV part, this is just my personal experience.
- Dead levels eliminated. All classes get something cool every level. Fighters in particular got some cool goodies while still being the versatile, modular weapon masters they are supposed to be.
- Concentration based on a caster level check rather than a skill. Concentration is also a little bit harder (but doesn't make spellcasting impossible).
Icing on the cake:
- High quality materials, condensed in larger books rather than lots of flimsy splats containing 10% of stuff I will use and 90% of stuff I will disregard. SO FAR (knock wood), no PrC, Feat, and Spell Bloat with no good reason. Most supplementary additions so far make sense and add to the game without adding notable power creep, which 3.x splats did not always achieve (but I am cautious about this as the "Ultimate" books have yet to come out).
- It's supported. If I truly preferred 3.5 I would have stuck with it--I have the books I wanted as did my friends and nothing would have stopped us from playing 3.5. But that Pathfinder is a system I prefer AND that it's a living game just makes it that much better.
- It's supported by a responsive, interactive company. While I don't necessarily agree with every design or development decision Paizo has made (that's not a requirement, of course :) ), I truly appreciate how available the staff is on these boards and how they do take into account fan feedback (without being completely beholden to it). Right or wrong, I often got the sense that Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro could really care less about its customers as long as people bought their stuff.
Just my personal experience; hope you try Pathfinder and enjoy it but whatever you pick, have fun and happy gaming!
Now, having decided that, one thing that does bother me a bit is the fact that we now have to buy four new core rulebooks which essentially means we are buying four new PHB and four new DMGs. In all of our gaming history since 1E our group has only had a PHB for each player and 2 DM guides. Now with PFRPG we will have a DMG for every player, seems a bit wasteful, but that's what it takes.
But remember that back in the day, IIRC each Core Book was around $40.00 MSRP (IIRC). The Core Rulebook (which is equivalent to the 3.x PHB and DMG combind) is around $50.00 MSRP. You're not spending all that much more, relatively speaking.
Also, if someone games with a laptop, they could buy the $10 .pdf and use that rather than the hardcover book. Or even the free online PRD (link is to the left under "links") in a pinch.
The reason much of the DMG rules were combined into the core rulebook was because it contained information players would ultimately need access to--for example, prestige classes and magic items (when we played 3.5, most of the players in MY group owned both books because of these things). It's just easier to have it all in one place.
You shouldn't have to make everyone buy a new hardcover book. If they want to, great, and yay for supporting the company, but it's not like Paizo is holding you at gunpoint and making you (or are they...?). :)
Now with PFRPG we will have a DMG for every player, seems a bit wasteful, but that's what it takes.I'm confused. Why does each player need a GameMastery Guide (GMG) each?
He's talking about the fact that the PF Core Rulebook contains the equivalent contents of the 3.x Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. And is more expensive than just the 3.5 PHB.