Unarmed fighters retain original fighter weapon proficiencies?


Rules Questions


10 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Does the Unarmed Fighter archetype from Ultimate Combat retain its simple and martial weapon proficiencies? Or does it give them up for all those fancy exotics?

The text for the archetype specifically says that "the unarmed fighter picks up a weapon only rarely, and when he does, he prefers the weapons of the monk."

The proficiency section, on the other hand, appears to be silent on the matter.


If the proficiency entry makes no mention of martial weapons, why would you assume he loses them? The first paragraph is flavor text and has no rules bearing.

Consider also the Dargoon: "Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A dragoon is not proficient with tower shields."

Should we assume that this replaces or modifies the standard fighter's proficiencies? Modifies, of course. As the unarmed fighter does.


Consider, also, the Dawnflower Dervish and Geisha bard archetypes, the Staff Magus archetype, and the Woodland Skirmisher ranger archetype. They specifically say that their proficiencies replace the base proficiencies.

On the other hand, check out the Kensai magus and Beast Rider cavalier. They don't say anything about replacing the base proficiencies but it doesn't make sense that they stack with the base proficiencies since they're just subsets of the standard options. The only sensible way to read them is to assume they replace.

The Unarmed Fighter doesn't really resemble either of those styles, however. So I suppose that doesn't really imply anything concrete. Since it doesn't say they replace and the proficiencies given don't really overlap with the standard proficiencies like the Beast Rider or Kensai, I'd probably lean towards the permissive interpretation.

EDIT: Also, it's worth noting that in the Unarmed Fighter proficiencies, it specifically calls out the kinds of armor an Unarmed Fighter is not proficient in, but it makes no such limitation for weapons.

Grand Lodge

If it says "this replaces ___", then it does.

If not, then you still have it.

It is just that simple.


Yeah, he keeps all those proficiencies as per RAW.

So hilariously enough, I cannot think of a single class or archetype that is proficient with more weapons then the Unarmed Fighter is. I think that was the real thing that Ravingdork was getting caught up on.


Eh. Seems like a fair trade for Weapon Training.

Sczarni

Archetypes wrote:

Alternate Class Features:

The primary way in which archetypes modify their corresponding base classes is via the use of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must normally choose to use the standard class features found in the class’s original source (typically the Core Rulebook or the Advanced Player’s Guide)—the exception is if he chooses to adopt an archetype. Each alternate class feature presented in an archetype replaces a specific class feature from its parent class. For example, the flowing monk archetype’s redirection class feature replaces the Stunning Fist feature of the standard monk class.

Fighter wrote:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency:

A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, light, and medium) and shields (including tower shields).

Unarmed Fighter Archetype wrote:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency:

An unarmed fighter is not proficient with medium armor, heavy armor, or shields. An unarmed fighter is proficient with all monk weapons, including exotic monk weapons.

The rules for using archetypes state that the alternate class features replaces the base class feature. With that in mind it's probably fair to say that unless the archetype says its a modification you would replace it. In its entirety.

It may not be popular, but until I was shown rules to the contrary I would take this to mean that the Unarmed Fighter is proficient with light armour and all monk weapons, including exotic monk weapons. He or she is not proficient with simple or martial weapons.


If that's the case, then as an Unarmed Fighter you aren't proficient with any armor, either since it only says that you are not proficient in medium or heavy armor. It doesn't say anything at all about light armor. But why would it bother to tell you what you aren't proficient in unless it expected you to apply the changes against the standard fighter proficiencies?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I disagree with you Krodjin. In most cases it actually says what it replaces in the description. For example the one you used for flowing monk specifically says, "This ability replaces Stunning Fist."

There are plenty of example where material is added to the class with an archetype and doesn't subtract from that ability for example, Druids get Wild Empathy but in the saurian shaman description it says under wild empathy "A saurian shaman can use wild empathy with dinosaurs and reptiles as a full-round action with a +4 bonus." Compare this to Blight druids

"A blight druid can improve the attitude of vermin as a normal druid can with animals. Vermin have a starting attitude of unfriendly. The blight druid can also improve the attitude of animals and mindless undead creatures that were formerly animals, but she takes a –4 penalty on the check unless the animal or undead has a disease special attack.

This ability replaces wild empathy."

If your interpretation was correct than those shaman would lose wild empathy and what it means in place of this new ability and then why include the caveat This ability replaces wild empathy in the Blight Druid.

If you read each of the abilities of monks they specifically list what is replaces, this replaces fast movement or still mind or bonus feats.

Furthermore, if the unarmed fighter had only monk weapon proficiencies he has less weapon proficiencies than a monk who has a series of simple weapons in addition to monk ones.
Where does he get light armor, there is nothing in there that says he gains it, only that he loses medium and heavy.

Unless it says it replaces it modifies the ability in general, so that unarmed monks gain all standard fighter abilities plus monk weapon proficiencies but lose medium and heavy armor. IMO this means that the trade is the armor for the weapons and then they move on from there.

Sczarni

MacGurcules wrote:
If that's the case, then as an Unarmed Fighter you aren't proficient with any armor, either since it only says that you are not proficient in medium or heavy armor. It doesn't say anything at all about light armor. But why would it bother to tell you what you aren't proficient in unless it expected you to apply the changes against the standard fighter proficiencies?

He gets Armor Proficiency, Light because every character except the following receive it;

Armor Proficiency, Light wrote:
Special: All characters except monks, sorcerers, and wizards automatically have Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

I'll have to check the Martial & Simple weapon proficiencies again, but I think the wording is different and less inclusive then the language for Armor Proficiency, Light.

@Taenia: show the rule where it says it only modifies the ability/class feature and doesn't replace it (ie: the rule that contradicts the one I've quoted) and I will gladly reconsider my position.

Look, I'm not saying I'm right - I could very well be wrong. I just try to interpret what I read the best I can - which is often pretty poor admittedly.

At any rate I've never said that the rules are clear & concise - in fact in a lot of instances they're ambiguous and confusing.

I arrived at my conclusion (which I'm happy to reconsider) by starting a spreadsheet for each of the core classes. I then start a new tab for each of the archetypes I'd like to play and I cut out the base features and replace them with the new feature - at the end of the exercise your left with a character that I think resembles what the authors/designers had in mind.

When I did this for Unarmed Fighter I realized he didn't have the same weapon proficiencies as a standard fighter. I did not find this too surprising as he is, after all an "unarmed fighter". It wouldn't make much sense for the archetype to grant more proficiencies then an armed fighter receives.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Here is an example where your interpretation would not work in my opinion:

from the basic fighter:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency

A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, light, and medium) and shields (including tower shields).

from Unbreakable

Weapon and Armor Proficiency

An unbreakable is not proficient with tower shields.

I disagree with you logic that states the only weapons and armor proficiencies this character gains are the lack of tower shield proficiency. Since this makes no sense nor does it make sense in your example to be the only case where the listed proficiency is not listed with the class but with the feat or elsewhere in the book.

Now the problem stems from this line:

Each alternate class feature presented in an archetype replaces a specific class feature from its parent class.

which actually is true but not universally applied for every ability modification of an archetype. Example with unbreakable:

Unflinching (Ex)

At 2nd level, an unbreakable gains a +1 bonus on Will saves against mind-affecting effects. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels after 2nd level (to a maximum of +5 at 18th level).

This ability replaces bravery.

I think what you are reading is that every ability modified replaces the existing ability where I believe the intent of this statement is to intake some ability must be replaced to be an archetype, not everyone but at least one. These specific modifications are presented with the:

the ability replaces ability x

where as modifications that don't replace but modify are not described that way.

I think the idea of your spreadsheet is really cool but i think the only abilities you can cut and paste are the ones that list themselves as being replaced the other would have to be modified instead.

Just to give you another point from a different perspective, the druid animal shaman wild shapes say this:

Wild Shape (Su)

At 6th level, a saurian shaman’s wild shape ability functions at her druid level –2. If she takes on the form of a reptile or a dinosaur, she instead uses her druid level +2.

However this does not say it replaces Wild Shape. The author confirmed that his intention was to prevent wild shape til 6th but this description actually says, since it doesn't replace wild shape, you get wild shape at 4th as a 4th level druid, at 5th as a fifth level druid and at 6th as a 4th druid unless its a reptile or dinosaur in which case its 8th.

Obviously the intent was different, as he posted, but the wording makes it clear that the lack of replacing the feature means your retain it, modified by the new addendum.

Sczarni

I've re-read the archetypes rules and I can't find anything that says you modify the class feature - it says you replace it. So unless it says ability "x" modifies ability "y" I can only assume you replace it.

I truly don't care if I'm viewed as being "right" or "wrong". The OP had a question, I expressed my opinion, supported it with specific references to the rules as I understand them and that's the end of it for me.

I'm more then happy to reconsider my interpretation and reserve the right to do so if I find something in the rules that would cause me to reconsider.


It seems clear (at least to me) that the intent is to replace the fighter's martial weapon proficiencies with the unarmed fighter's monk weapon proficiencies. But then again, the intent and spirit of the rule is more important to me than the actual letter of the rule. I certainly don't think it would be unbalancing to have the unarmed fighter be proficient in all martial and monk weapons. And I can certainly see how it can be interpreted this way.


Well, sorry for necromancy but this question bothers me now. I thought that his exotic weapon proficiencies replaces martial one, but text says

Quote:
An unarmed fighter is not proficient with medium armor, heavy armor, or shields

Why would it possibly remove medium and heavy armor with shields if you dont have them in the first place? IMHO, point is "UF dont have this armor proficiencies, but have this monk weapon proficiency".

I guess replacing features means 1 by 1 basis and every armor and weapon class goes as separate one, if archetype loses certain proficiency it would say "An unarmed fighter is not proficient with martial weapon"

Liberty's Edge

Krodjin has a point with his citation of the rules. My opinion is that the archetypes writers don't always take the rules text in the right consideration and write unclear rules for the archetypes.

RAW the Unarmed fighter seem to be limited to the monk weapons, but I am not sure at all about RAI.
Hitting the FAQ button but I think that a more general FAQ about the replacement/modification of the armor and weapon proficiencies for most archetypes would be needed.


I agree that features replace ones of the base class, but i think that
Simple Weapon Proficiency
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Light Armor Proficiency
Medium Armor Proficiency
Heavy Armor Proficiency
Light Shields Proficiency
Heavy Shields Proficiency
Tower Shields Proficiency
is 8 separate features, every of wich have to be replaced on its own basis. I read text as "Remove Medium Armor Proficiency and Heavy Armor Proficiency, add Monk Weapon Proficiency and Exotic Monk Weapon Proficiency" and nothing says about martial weapons.
As Medium Armor Proficiency have Light Armor Proficiency as prerequisite i believer they should be treated like feats.


Well, they can't really say that an Unarmed Fighter is not proficient with all martial weapons because that would cut out the Monk weapons that are also martial. There are also parts that you have to look at piecemeal. 'Remove Medium, Heavy, and Shields' is obviously an alteration, but it's an alteration to the armor clause. But 'Proficient in all Monk weapons' is a straight-forward clause that's neither an addition nor a select replacement; therefore it is a wholesale replacement of the entire weapon clause. By contrast, the Dervish Dancer Bard archetype has an exclusion clause 'not proficient with whips and rapiers' and an inclusion clause 'gains proficiency with kukri and scimitar'. It specifically calls out that you gain proficiency with those two weapons when, according to the popular response here that if it doesn't specify it replaces, it adds to, they didn't need to specify that. By the logic of "If it doesn't say it replaces, it adds", they could have simply said, "Dervish Dancer is proficient with kukri and scimitar" and that would suffice. The fact that they specify 'gain' is pertinent. If it said Unarmed Fighters gain proficiency in all Monk weapons, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't; it says Unarmed Fighters are proficient... which can be interpreted as a wholesale replacement of the vanilla clause.


'not proficient with whips and rapiers' and an inclusion clause 'gains proficiency with kukri and scimitar' is just the same as "is proficient", just worded that way cos he lost some weapon proficiency. Else they would also say that unarmed fighter is proficient in light armor, not that he is not proficient in medium and heavy one, as they need to specifically state removal of this features.


Somewhat related ... the one handed fighter archetype dictates in the fluff text that they only benefit when weilding a one-handed weapon and carrying nothing in the other but none of the actual ability rules dictate they must dlbe one-handed and have an empty hand.

In relation to this topic, since its in the fluff, a free hand fighter can 2H a longsword and still get their benefits because that stipulation is in the fluff.

I think fluff text matters and would say unarmed get just monk weapons but I do see the other side. RAW Vs RAI ... would that be Faq's worthy?

Liberty's Edge

"His fighting school benefits only apply when he is using a one-handed weapon and carrying nothing in his other hand." sound as a rule to me. Not fluff.
There isn't a "fluff section" of the archetype text and a rule section.

The only possible problem is that nowhere is defined what is a "fighting school benefit".


Free-hand Fighter specifies this in the lvl 5 ability, Singleton; it gives +1 attack and damage when wielding a weapon in 1 hand and leaving the other hand free. That's the only ability that explicitly calls it out, though.

Regarding the topic at hand, you have to remember that space is at a premium so they often have to keep the rules terse and tight. If it's a simple exclusion like going from "light, medium, and heavy armor" to "-remove medium and heavy", that's an expected and reasonable way to write it. But if it's going from "proficiency in all simple and martial weapons" to "proficiency in monk weapons only", it's a waste of time and space to explicitly call out he loses general martial proficiency and can be confusing to say he loses proficiency in martial weapons, but gains proficiency with Monk group weapons (some of which are martial weapons). They're not going to use 14 words when 9 will suffice. So you have to exercise some critical thinking in reading a lot of these rules to make sure you balance clarity, brevity, reasonable intent, etc. It is quite sensible that the Unarmed Fighter, which is designed to ape the Monk class, would have only Monk weapon proficiency rather than both general fighter prof and Monk prof. It even says in the little blurb before the archetype that, when they bother to pick up a weapon, they prefer Monk weapons. The brevity with which they write the archetypes can lead to two equally valid readings; 1) Fighters trade "proficiency with all simple and martial weapons" for "proficiency with all Monk weapons, including exotic ones." 2) Fighters gain "proficiency with all Monk weapons, including exotic ones." in addition to "proficiency with all simple and martial weapons". But the more plausible of the two is reading 1, all things considered.


Monk dont have monk weapon proficiency. It have number of weapons specifically called in the entry, while unarmed fighter is proficient in weapons with "monk" quality - ones that can be used to flurry.

UF entry dont say "monk weapon ONLY" its just says monk weapon. If it said "only" i would agree but not how it is now.


I want to thank Kazaan for some of the most polite and thoughtful discussion I have read in a while. It's easy to get defensive, circle the wagons, and refuse to acknowledge the value of an opposing line of thinking, but he's consistently made his case while acknowledging the value of the alternate interpretation.

Reading this thread has convinced me of one thing for sure, which is that the archetype as written is ambiguous.

If Kazaan's preferred interpretation (#1) above is the one intended, then the word "only" would have been a really helpful addition by the author. It's only one additional word, so it wouldn't violate the spirit of economy and brevity Kazaan argues for.

On the other hand I agree with Kazaan that the fact that they do NOT use the word "gain" is also significant, which is a point in his favor. As is the general spirit of the archetype.

Interestingly, the flavor passage "The unarmed fighter picks up a weapon only rarely, and when he does, he prefers the weapons of the monk" seems to me to cut both ways. On the one hand it leans obviously in an RAI sense towards Kazaan. But then again, if the UAF is nonproficent in all non-monk martial weapons, the flavor passage seems hardly worth mentioning -- of course ANY character is going to prefer weapons he is proficient in over weapons he's not. But it would be worth mentioning if the intent was: He received enough training at 1st level to be proficient in all martial weapons, as any fighter would be, but as he progresses as an UAF he becomes more likely to prefer fists or a monk weapon, since he gets more and more bonuses with these.

Anyway, I think Kazaan summarizes the two options well. The text needs only a tiny word added to clarify which is intended.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Unarmed fighters retain original fighter weapon proficiencies? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.