Timeline for Are Unarmed Strikes Natural Weapons?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2022 at 16:14 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Dec 24, 2022 at 16:03 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken link fixed, cf. https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/a/12100/22219
|
| Jul 6, 2020 at 17:17 | vote | accept | Please stop being evil | ||
| Sep 19, 2015 at 16:14 | history | edited | Ruut | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 121 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2015 at 16:13 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removing the image; it wasn't conveying much meaning, just looking cool. our site's free of posts just generally including cool-looking images for the sake of it and that's a good thing.
|
| Sep 19, 2015 at 16:12 | history | edited | Ruut | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 259 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2015 at 16:08 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @Ruut Quotes are fine if they're assisting your explanation, but quoting rules on their own won't carry the day. We can read those ourselves if we're digging around after all, we come here to be shown what we should be taking away from them. If we're confused and don't know what to take away from them, the same rules presented back to us usually won't help. | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 16:05 | comment | added | Ruut | @doppelgreener I thought quotes would be a good thing. Guess I was wrong. | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 16:04 | history | edited | Ruut | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1881 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2015 at 15:58 | comment | added | doppelgreener | Could you cut down on the quoting many multiple paragraphs, and focus on actual personal explanation? (You only have like, two sentences of actually doing so.) I imagine if someone's read about unarmed strikes, quoting the unarmed strike rules back at them won't be very helpful. The helpful part is you helping us understand them, and quoting won't do that. | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 15:56 | comment | added | Ruut | @EmrysTernal I added some more information to the bottom of the answer to help you out. | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 15:56 | history | edited | Ruut | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1099 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2015 at 15:42 | comment | added | Ruut | @EmrysTernal Agree to disagree. How would someone manufacture an unarmed strike? | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 15:29 | comment | added | Emrys Ternal | I disagree on your assertion that unarmed strikes that aren't used by a monk count as NEITHER manufactured or natural. Unarmed Strike is in the SRD weapons table, right alongside all other manufactured weapons. Furthermore, it would make logical sense from all statements that any given weapon is either manufactured (subject to iteratives) or natural (which is not, although that's not the only distinction between them). Is there a specific statement that says an unarmed strike does NOT count as a manufactured weapon? | |
| Feb 22, 2015 at 0:14 | history | answered | Ruut | CC BY-SA 3.0 |