|
4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Sean K Reynolds wrote: First of all, unarmed strike can't be *any* body part you want. It's undefined for non-monks, but the monk class specifically calls out "a monk's [unarmed] attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet," so it's reasonable that non-monks have to follow a similar restriction (otherwise the non-monk has more versatile unarmed strike options, which is silly).
So a human holding a barrel with his could make a kick or knee unarmed strike (his arms are busy holding the barrel, so no fists or elbows). If he had TWF, he could make two unarmed strikes, one with the left leg and one with the right leg.
So I had two questions on this one. Specifically, related to several quotes below:
(Monk) Unarmed Strike wrote: A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. (Monk) Unarmed Strike wrote: This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. (Combat) Unarmed Attacks wrote: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, ... Now, if we go off of what you said above, then parts of these three quotes stop making sense.
First, the "head butts" listed under Unarmed Attacks from the Combat section. If Monks can't use them, who can? If Monks can't use them, does this mean that anybody else with IUS can? I agree with you that such would be silly, but otherwise why is it there?
Second, the second quote from Monk's Unarmed Strike. It says that a Monk may may unarmed strikes with his hands full. My normal interpretation of that would be that a non-Monk could not do so, so the Human with IUS and TWF in your above example could not make any kick attacks because his hands are full. If that's not the case, then why the extraneous wording in the Monk description?
If SKR happens to see this one, I'd very much like to get his answer, since the origin quote was him in a different thread about Vestigial Arms, but I'm not going to hold out for it. I'm just hoping for clarification in general by the population at large.
1) Everyone.
2) It's a reminder.
Unarmed Strike is undefined but that doesn't mean it's outside of the context of reason. I often use the phrase "vulgar pelvis thrust" in jest to illustrate this; a Monk who is bound up and rendered helpless can't attack with his chest using the force of his breathing or using his eyelids by blinking because that's just plain silly. But just because examples such as fists, elbows, knees, feet, and headbutts are given doesn't mean that other equally reasonable options are unavailable. Shoulder or hip strikes should be equally plausible and BBT's favorite example of the Gelatinous Cube Monk shouldn't be excluded simply because it lacks limbs. Theoretically speaking, an Awakened Elephant with Monk levels should be able to make unarmed strikes with its trunk and a Merfolk should be able to make Unarmed Strikes with her tail even if her hands are occupied just as a Human with his hands full can kick. A creature with horns that makes a headbutt as an Unarmed Strike wouldn't count his horns in the damage and treats it as a normal unarmed strike rather than a natural attack.
So what I'm hearing is that the extraneous wording actually serves exactly 0 purpose? Personally, I'd prefer not to buy that, but that's not me answering my own question, just stating my natural inclination.
It does raise confusion, though, given the SKR quote listed above. His interpretation appears to be that Monks are restricted by the list that they are given, and that non-Monks would be restricted the same way.
Fishing for additional opinions here, since BBT doesn't give any reasons for his answers, and Kazaan doesn't exactly answer the original questions.
Three things to consider.
1) The curse of backwards-compatibility. The CRB was written/lifted from 3.5 (which, in turn, carries over from 3.0 and so on and so forth) so there a lot of things that are a little disparate. Consider how Sunder is written, specifying that it only works on the Attack action while Trip and Disarm originally had that terminology but had it removed before final printing but Sunder was overlooked. If there's a clear disparity or contradiction, it stands to reason that one of the two options (and possibly even both if they are contrary rather than contradictory) is incorrect.
2) Not all creatures are built the same. Should a creature that lacks limbs be prohibited from making Unarmed Strikes? If not, then trying to limit unarmed strikes to specific limbs is ridiculous at best. It stands on better reasoning that the list provided for general Unarmed Strikes is non-exhaustive; that punches, kicks, and headbutts are just examples of what an Unarmed Strike would be but it includes other methods of striking unarmed with other body parts.
3) Even if the list of possible Unarmed Strike limbs were exhaustive, it doesn't suddenly cease to exist for Monks. Monks aren't prohibited from making headbutts just because it's not on the particular list provided in their class write-up. They get that plus the general rules on Unarmed Strikes that apply to everyone.
So, to put the answers on a silver platter, Monks are not prohibited from making Headbutts because it's a general rule allowance and nothing in the Monk write-up specifically trumps it. Additionally, it seems that the additional language for Monks making unarmed strikes with their hands full is dangling verbiage that relies on a no-longer-valid presumption that attacks are linked to specific limbs, similar to the Sunder presumption that it, along with Trip and Disarm, could only be used on the Attack action; a rules element that was changed to let them apply to any melee attack, but the specification on the Attack action was never removed from Sunder.
The only difference in Monk unarmed strikes and everyone else is Monk's get a Free IUS and can deal more than normal damage dice.
Otherwise there is no difference.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
