|
Does the term "unarmed attack" include;
A) Any attack made without a weapon, including natural attacks, improved unarmed strikes (proficient) and unarmed strikes (non-proficient)?
B) Only unarmed strikes. Even if you are proficient, and therefore considered "armed".
C) Only non-proficient unarmed strikes count as unarmed attacks. You cannot be armed or even considered to be armed.
I ask because there are a number of traits that apply to either "unarmed attacks" or "unarmed strikes". If there is no difference, why the distinction?
You gain a +1 trait bonus on damage rolls made with unarmed attacks.
You gain a +1 trait bonus on damage rolls when using unarmed strikes.
Those are the first two I pulled up using the traits filter, but there are others.
As per CRB p182 unarmed attack and unarmed strike are the same thing.
Note: improved unarmed strike does not grant proficiency, it removes the AoO for making unarmed strikes. All characters are proficient in unarmed strikes as per the rules on CRB p141 in the "Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons" section.
- Gauss
They are the same thing, and the answer is B. There is no distinction, just two synonymous terms used interchangeably.
Hmmm, it looks like this isn't as simple as I thought.
As per CRB p182 "Armed" Unarmed Attacks include Improved Unarmed Strikes, Touch Attacks with a spell, and Natural Weapons.
However, all three also count as armed so they may not qualify for Heavy Hitter 1. It is confusing.
I personally think that it is meant to be Unarmed Strikes based on the wording of the trait.
Mizu Ki Hikari Rebel: You have trained in martial arts under the banner of Mizu Ki Hikari rebels. You gain a +1 trait bonus on damage rolls made with unarmed attacks.
- Gauss
Here you go:
Quain Martial Artist: Having grown up in Quain, you were taught under various schools of martial arts, and have used all you have learned to hone your fighting prowess. You gain a +1 trait bonus on damage rolls when using unarmed strikes.
- Gauss
|
|
Thank you. It doesn't really provide any further insight as to why the distinction between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks - which is what I was hoping for.
I presume they were both meaning to do the same thing: +1 w/unarmed strikes.
Being that PFS is RAW, I guess a Natural Weapon Ranger could benefit from "Heavy Hitter" as per the CRB definition of unarmed attacks - presuming I buy the book and presuming it's a permitted trait in Society play???
Doesn't really go with the character flavour I had in mind so I will probably skip it altogether and see if "Dirty Fighter" is permitted...
|
|
As per CRB p182 unarmed attack and unarmed strike are the same thing.
Note: improved unarmed strike does not grant proficiency, it removes the AoO for making unarmed strikes. All characters are proficient in unarmed strikes as per the rules on CRB p141 in the "Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons" section.
- Gauss
If they are the same thing, does this mean that when a Style feat, such as Snake Fang, says that, "you can make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity".
For an Unarmed Attack, we may swap out a Combat Maneuver with no question in regards to an AoO.
Does that now mean for an Unarmed Strike, we can do the same, if they are considered the same thing?
Kazumetsa Raijin, read further. :)
- Gauss
This seems pretty simple and clear to me TBH. Unarmed attacks are attacks made with an unarmed strike.
As defined in Combat, if you need rules citation.
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Unarmed attacks are punches, kicks, and headbutts. Not claws, fangs, wings, talons, tails, tentacles, or whatever.
An unarmed strike does not count as a natural attack, as per the description on the Weapons page.
Monks have a special caveat that they can deal Unarmed Strikes with additional body parts.
And "Armed Unarmed" attacks COUNT AS an armed attack but ARE NOT LITERALLY an armed attack. No contradiction there either where the trait would not apply to armed unarmed attacks.