Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pegasos989 06-24-07, 03:51 AM	So, a vampire's energy drain says: Living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels. For this purpose, is unarmed strike (monk's or otherwise) concidered a natural weapon? And if not, can a monk flurry with slam attacks? EDIT: So, I am trying to create a vampire, who used to be pretty charismatic and really good, large (not in game terms, just large for a human. 7 feet tall or so) boxer, before he turned into vampire. I would like him to be efficient and boxer type without completely losing the benefit of energy drain... Currently thinking of using bugbear's stats, adding a level of barbarian or monk and then the vampire template...
weasel0 06-24-07, 04:26 AM	Magic Fang Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.) So yes, unarmed strikes are natural attacks. Special Attacks: A vampire retains all the special attacks of the base creature and gains those described below Energy Drain (Su): Living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels. For each negative level bestowed, the vampire gains 5 temporary hit points. A vampire can use its energy drain ability once per round. I stand corrected yet again this week. >:| That said, the slam is not a flurry-able weapon, and cannot be used as part of the attacks granted by flurry. Please note that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy. Though arguably, the underlined statement could mean that it only works once per round(but it neglects to say "only"), or it can choose to use it at least once per round. My bets are on the intent of "only" once per round. Otherwise the sentence makes as much sense as saying you can eat once per day. I can also eat less than that. I can eat more that that too.
Nom 06-24-07, 11:22 AM	For this purpose, is unarmed strike (monk's or otherwise) concidered a natural weapon?Yes. And if not, can a monk flurry with slam attacks?The rules for combining unarmed strikes and natural weapons are poorly specified at best. The FAQ seems to indicate that you can conduct a full flurry routine in addition to any natural (secondary) weapon attacks. Precedent suggests that you cannot use the limb "wielding" your natural weapon and the limb "wielding" your unarmed strikes at the same time. That said, the slam is not a flurry-able weapon, and cannot be used as part of the attacks granted by flurry. It's when they want to use the slam as a secondary natural attack that things get blurry.
DarkNick 06-24-07, 10:51 PM	Personally I would allow the drain effect to work with a monks attack i.e. monk damage replaces the slam attack damage. But in the case of a flurry or multiple attacks then I would say it only worked on the first attack (seeing as they can only use it once per round...otherwise it could get ridiculous.)
Anathema 06-24-07, 11:17 PM	I would submit that an unarmed strike is not a natural attack, the way natural attacks are defined in the MM. Yes, unarmed attacks are "...a part of the creature", but were they to be identified as "natural weapons" then they would further have to be treated as such; meaning they would also not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus (which they do), and they would have to be assigned a damage type (which they are not, as far as I can tell). Additionally, natural attacks are givine a finite scope of types; Bite, Claw/Talon, Gore, Slap/Slam, Sting, or Tentacle. A slam is not the same thing as an unarmed strike, where an unarmed strike is an attempt to punch, kick, or otherwise strike the opponent with a precision attack; a slam is a creature simply swinging an appendage at you without regard for protecting itself. There really is no clear-cut definition here; but this is how I would rule it. An "unarmed strike" is not a natural attack, because there are a different set of rules governing each.
Leilond 06-25-07, 04:07 AM	Exactly I remember the definition of natural attack on the website but I cannot find now... I will go on memory A natural attack is an attack delivered with a body part that inflict lethal damage without the need of any power or feat Unarmed damage isn't a "natural attack" because it require a feat to deal lethal damage Monk unarmed strike isn't a "natural attack" because the rule say specifically that you must consider it "natural attack" only for spells of effects
Pegasos989 06-25-07, 06:26 AM	Monk unarmed strike isn't a "natural attack" because the rule say specifically that you must consider it "natural attack" only for spells of effects "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." It would seem to be within "effect enchansing or improving natural weapons" to have a supernatural ability that lets you deal negative levels with your natural weapons. So while it is not natural weapon, it is treated as natural weapon for this purpose?
Leilond 06-25-07, 06:28 AM	"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." It would seem to be within "effect enchansing or improving natural weapons" to have a supernatural ability that lets you deal negative levels with your natural weapons. So while it is not natural weapon, it is treated as natural weapon for this purpose? I wouldn't, because the I consider that an effect of the vampire status, not an effect that imporve the "natural weapon". It isn't an effect targetted on the weapon. By the way, I admit that someone can think different
Anathema 06-25-07, 11:27 AM	It looks like the last three Rules of the Game articles actually covered this subject (which may be where you saw this info). http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a After reading this, I would say that a vampire that has monk levels, or a vampire with Improved Unarmed Strike (not sure why they would do that though) would be able to use their ability drain with unarmed strikes. It appears as if the intent is to allow magical bonuses that affect natural attacks will also affect unarmed strikes, even without IUS, though this is the only way that unarmed strikes seem to be treated as natural attacks.
Empiro 06-25-07, 04:08 PM	I would also agree that Vampire Monks can deliver a drain attack via their unarmed strikes. I believe the ruling in the FAQ about it not working for unarmed attacks was from back in 3.0, when Vampires didn't have the "once per round" limitation on energy drain.
weasel0 06-25-07, 05:22 PM	So then what about the FAQ(which is 3.5) that specifies that it doesn't work? I'd believe it should; I would rule it does work(once per round). But the FAQ clearly says it doesn't.
WolfHati 06-28-07, 04:07 AM	The FAQ and rules are all over the place with monks and natural weapons. I tend to ignore it if it directly contradicts what the rules say. The vampire's energy is definitely an effect. And it definitely improves natural weapons. Therefore a monk's unarmed strike is suitable for its effects. Whether a monk can use its natural attacks depends on whether it can use them in addition to a hand held weapon--this is stated in the FAQ, and honestly is more of an additional rule than a rules clarification. Of course in this section it lists a lizardfolk monk as not having the one additional claw attack it should have- an oversight due to the default lizardfolk using a shield, every beclawed creature using a one handed weapon uses its offhand claw as a secondary weapon, like troglodytes and trolls. Slam attacks are a bit less clear, but the elite vampire monk statted in the DMG gets no slam attack, and the entry for the slam attack says that a vampire with a weapon may use either the weapon OR a slam attack. So no slam attack in addition to monk attacks.
Eater_Of_Souls 06-28-07, 05:06 PM	From Monsters of Faerun (since my MM is at loan atm.), section Natural weapons: slap or slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage, hitting with a fist can therefore be considered as a natural = unarmed = slam attack. Since energy draining happens when using unarmed attacks there's really nothing that stops you from using energy drain with flurry of blows, only restriction is you have use to either monk weapons or be complitely unarmed. As others have stated in this thread, drain only works once per round so you may still perform the routine but only only one drain happens which in this case should be the first attack in your flurry routine that scores a hit.
Leilond 06-28-07, 05:12 PM	In short unarmed weapon is treated as same as a natural weapon when dealing with humanoid creatures. What? Men, goblin, bugbear are "humanoid", but their unarmed attack isn't a "natural weapon", unless they're "monks", in wich case it is a natural wapon "for some pourpose" Pheraps I miss something
weasel0 06-28-07, 05:55 PM	Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. *edit* Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20. *edit* Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.*edit* The SRD then lists out Bite, Claw or Talon, Gore, Slap or Slam, Sting, and Tentacle. However, please note my added emphasis on the SRD saying these are the most common. They are not exclusive.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. And the vampire's drain attack most definatly improves(read:makes more dangerous) the monk's unarmed attack. ...which may be any part of the body, not just a fist.
WolfHati 06-28-07, 06:52 PM	If you'll notice, the wording on magic fang indicates that it improves a natural weapon and lists fists as one of the options, and furthermore says that unarmed strikes are not made lethal damage automatically by the spell. So unarmed strikes are natural weapons, just ones to which special rules apply. No need for silly rules finagling.
Dragom 06-28-07, 10:57 PM	An unarmed strike is a natural weapon so: The Vampire deals his Level Drain. A natural weapon isn't an unarmed strike so: The Monk cannot flurry with slams.
Mystic Lemur 06-28-07, 11:28 PM	Well, the sample vampire in the MM is a monk. Said monk has an entry for attack and damage. Anyone want to take a wild guess what that entry says?
Dragom 06-28-07, 11:30 PM	You mean you won't tell us? To look at my MM I'd have to bend slightly to bring it within reach of my arm. Seriously, it's like an entire foot out of arms reach.
weasel0 06-29-07, 12:43 AM	WotC rules continuity FTW
Anathema 06-29-07, 01:32 AM	WotC rules continuity FTW Well to be fair it seems as if the only dissenting point is what seems to be an off-hand blurb in the FAQ in a question that doesn't even strictly relate to the issue at hand. It appears as if the rest of the rules concur with the notion that a vampire can deal its energy drain with unarmed strikes if they have the IUS feat.
Eater_Of_Souls 06-29-07, 08:51 AM	Personally I would allow draining with flurry of blow routine but seems it up to your GM to decide since no rules seem to explicitly ban from using drain attack as a part of unarmed attack. That is in my opinion Drain attack is something that happens at will as a result from succesful unarmed attack, wich includes unarmed attacks with flurry of blows (but only 1 drain mind you ). Edit: new guys I just noticed that as drain is a supernatural ability (su) you cannot use drain with flurry of blows which is also a supernatural ability (su). So no draining with flurry or other supernatural attacks. And 3.5ed Monster manual also has a premade vampire monk with abilities and all :P
Mystic Lemur 06-30-07, 12:22 PM	Well my MM was at my other house, so I have an excuse. =P Also, my memory isn't good enough for me to put it in writing that "Yes it does", or "No. It doesn't".
Pegasos989 06-30-07, 02:04 PM	Edit: new guys I just noticed that as drain is a supernatural ability (su) you cannot use drain with flurry of blows which is also a supernatural ability (su). Flurry of Blows (Ex)
weasel0 06-30-07, 03:09 PM	How much would that suck? I enter an AMF and suddenly can no longer use Flurry O.o ¿¿?!
DrMorganes 07-01-07, 08:15 PM	Read this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12914397#post12914397) Essentially, a monk's unarmed strike (and ONLY the monk's) is in fact considered BOTH a manufactured weapon AND a natural weapon for purposed of spells and effects which enhance such. PHBII states this qualifies monks to take the Improved Natural Attack feat from the Monster Manual - and suggests monks do exactly that. Why? Because monks do better damage unarmed at higher levels. If their strikes were NOT natural weapons (and therefore enhancable by such as Greater Magic Fang), they'd be totally useless when attacking creatures vulnerable only to magic weapon. It's a balance thing, kids. ;)
weasel0 07-02-07, 02:22 PM	You get that as a class abil. at .... lv 4? Ki strike or somethin...
eamon 07-05-07, 02:59 AM	This has been pretty beaten to death, a vampire can use it's energy drain on any natural attack (only once per round) including the monks fists. The FAQ is wrong. I wanted to add that irrespective of any rules (which may or may not be important for balance), can you imagine the situation in which a vampire can hit with fists like "X" and get an energy drain effect, but when he hits like "Y" fail to do so? (X=slam, Y=monk fist) It would truly be ridiculous, and I'd rather up the challenge rating or level adjustment than follow _that_ rule. :-)
weasel0 07-05-07, 02:07 PM	Agreed.
Leilond 07-06-07, 06:30 AM	This has been pretty beaten to death, a vampire can use it's energy drain on any natural attack (only once per round) including the monks fists. The FAQ is wrong. I wanted to add that irrespective of any rules (which may or may not be important for balance), can you imagine the situation in which a vampire can hit with fists like "X" and get an energy drain effect, but when he hits like "Y" fail to do so? (X=slam, Y=monk fist) It would truly be ridiculous, and I'd rather up the challenge rating or level adjustment than follow _that_ rule. :-) I can agree with you on the rules, but it won't be ridicolous There are different ways to justify that. The simpliest is the "concentration" needed. The "energy drain" isn't a "touch related" power. In fact the vampire cannot drain energy with a simple "melee touch attack", he have to slam you. Thus can be freely interpreted with a particular concentration needed, a particular way to deliver the attack, that isn't "compatible" with the monks attacks... because we also must remember that monks unarmed attack AREN'T fist attack, but can be made with all his body... also with foot/knee, covered by boots/pants, that prevent (for instance) direct contact. We can argue until death, but there can be always a logical justification to admit or not admit the energy drain with unarmed attack We must chose the one we prefer, without trying to demostrate that the other is illogical, because it is very easy to make it logically work
Kuronue 07-06-07, 11:24 PM	I'm still confused as to the difference between a slam attack and an unarmed strike. Both are described exactly the same, but different rules apply. Stupid WoTC vaguaries.
Anathema 07-07-07, 02:09 AM	In the case of a monk's unarmed strike (which is also a natural attack), there is no functional difference. In the case of anyone else, the difference is a slam is a natural attack and treated with the natural attack rules, not the unarmed strike rules. Flavor-wise: An unarmed strike is like a boxer or martial artist attacking, when they have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. A slam is a creature with no regard to its personal being (usually from DR) simply flailing its limb at you; it can do this since it does not have to worry about guarding itself when attacking unarmed, even if they are inelegant in doing so.
Leilond 07-09-07, 03:17 AM	I'm still confused as to the difference between a slam attack and an unarmed strike. Both are described exactly the same, but different rules apply. Stupid WoTC vaguaries. RULES The slam attack is a "natural attack", while the unarmed strike isn't The most important consequence is that using a natural attack you do not obtain "iterative" attacks, that means: if your BAB is +6 you don't get a second attack with +1 BAB Another is that you can use "magic fang" with a slam attack but not with an unarmed strike Monks are exceptions to most of these rules COMMON SENSE Unarmed strike is a "trained" way to use a part of your body that isn't designed to deliver damage because of your very nature Slam attack is an "untrained" way to hit your opponent with a part of your body designed (animal's claws) or changed by your new nature (vampire slam attack) to delive lethal damage The two attacks can appear similar, but the difference is in the very nature of the attacker
eamon 07-09-07, 11:01 AM	RULES The slam attack is a "natural attack", while the unarmed strike isn't The most important consequence is that using a natural attack you do not obtain "iterative" attacks, that means: if your BAB is +6 you don't get a second attack with +1 BAB Another is that you can use "magic fang" with a slam attack but not with an unarmed strike Monks are exceptions to most of these rules You can use Magic Fang on unarmed attacks. I usually simply consider Unarmed attacks to be natural weapons for most purposes. The only exception being that unarmed attacks use the rules for weapons concerning iterative attacks (extra attacks owing to a high BAB) and two-weapon fighting etc. It's probabaly merely confusing to differentiate too much between natural attacks and unarmed attacks. It doesn't make any in-game sense; it doesn't help balance. Just consider unarmed attacks to be natural weapons which follow the rules for manufactured weapons when it comes to iterative attacks. I think that's pretty much the only difference.
Leilond 07-09-07, 11:29 AM	You can use Magic Fang on unarmed attacks. I usually simply consider Unarmed attacks to be natural weapons for most purposes. The only exception being that unarmed attacks use the rules for weapons concerning iterative attacks (extra attacks owing to a high BAB) and two-weapon fighting etc. It's probabaly merely confusing to differentiate too much between natural attacks and unarmed attacks. It doesn't make any in-game sense; it doesn't help balance. Just consider unarmed attacks to be natural weapons which follow the rules for manufactured weapons when it comes to iterative attacks. I think that's pretty much the only difference. [/Quote] And you're not playing by the rules, nothing wrong in it, you're perfectly in the right to play as you want It is a balance issue to not let creature benefit of magic fang with unarmed strike. It is a monk and only a monk power... You find the definition of natural weapon here http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons As you see (for example) you threaten with natural weapon, but you don't do it with unarmed strike (as you surely know), so the difference are a bit more than simply "iterative attack" It is summarized a list of common "natural weapons" and the unarmed attack is so common that isn't belivable they simply "forgot it" Also the ROTG and the FAQ clarify it. There are so much resource that clarify the rules that we cannot make mistake on that... we can hose rule, but for sure an unarmed strike isn't a natural attack
eamon 07-09-07, 11:53 AM	I believe the PHB version of Magic Fang explicitly allows unarmed strikes. Regardless, the SRD version clearly intends to allow unarmed strikes: Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.) Further, consider two "rules of the game" articles posted by WOTC: Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons. Nor is a natural weapon a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. As we saw in Part One, unarmed strikes allow iterative attacks and natural weapons do not. A feat that requires natural weaponry as a prerequisite, such as Multiattack, doesn't work with unarmed strikes. Likewise, having a natural weapon is not a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. For example, you don't meet the Improved Unarmed Strike prerequisite for the Deflect Arrows feat if you just have a natural weapon. Remember, however, that magic weapon enhancements that work with natural weaponry, such as the magic fangspell, also work with unarmed attacks. This rule allows pugilists and martial artists access to some magic weapon enhancements (also see the next section). It also reflects the fact that a creature making an unarmed strike is using part of its body in the attack. In conclusion, I think we're mostly arguing semantics here (except for one point). I'll grant you that calling Unarmed Strikes Natural weapons is confusing because the rules surrounding them aren't identical at all. The following is definitely the case (being explicitly stated in the rules): Vampires can use unarmed strikes and not only slam attacks to energy drain Magic fang can be used on unarmed strikes "fists" Unarmed strikes do not count as a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting any prerequisites Unarmed strikes are considered manufactured weapons for the purposes of determining iterative attacks So you're right, from a technical point; unarmed strikes are not a natural weapon. However, the only concrete difference is that they use a different iterative attack rules, I tend to ignore the difference as much as possible.
Leilond 07-10-07, 04:07 AM	I believe the PHB version of Magic Fang explicitly allows unarmed strikes. Regardless, the SRD version clearly intends to allow unarmed strikes: Further, consider two "rules of the game" articles posted by WOTC: In conclusion, I think we're mostly arguing semantics here (except for one point). I'll grant you that calling Unarmed Strikes Natural weapons is confusing because the rules surrounding them aren't identical at all. The following is definitely the case (being explicitly stated in the rules): Vampires can use unarmed strikes and not only slam attacks to energy drain Magic fang can be used on unarmed strikes "fists" Unarmed strikes do not count as a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting any prerequisites Unarmed strikes are considered manufactured weapons for the purposes of determining iterative attacks So you're right, from a technical point; unarmed strikes are not a natural weapon. However, the only concrete difference is that they use a different iterative attack rules, I tend to ignore the difference as much as possible. Here is the differences between the two attacks - Unarmed strike: cannot do any attack of opportunity - Natural attack: can do attack of opportunity - Unarmed strike: cannot provide flanking bonus to ally - Natural attack: you provide flanking bonus to ally - Unarmed strike: non lethal damage - Natural attack: lethal damage - Unarmed strike: iterative attack - Natural attack: no iterative attack - Unarmed strike: has no relation with the improved grab feat - Natural attack: with the "improved grab" feat you deliver your "lethal natural attack" during a grapple with the "damage your opponent action" The last difference is THE MOST IMPORTANT. If a creature has "improved grab" he can deliver the "natural attack lethal damage" with a "damage your opponent action", while a creature without "improved grab" deal the "unarmed non lethal damage" (based on size) as all other creatures without natural attack. Those creatures (without Improve grab) must use "attack your opponent" action to use they're natural weapon lethal damage in a grapple instead of "damage your opponent" This demostrate that creature with "natural attack" has also an "unarmed damage" As you see, the difference aren't so "few" as you want to say us. And those difference are also big and really important to game mechanics. The two attacks are completely different
Nom 07-10-07, 04:46 AM	As you see, the difference aren't so "few" as you want to say us. And those difference are also big and really important to game mechanics. The two attacks are completely differentAs soon as you add some variety of IUS, over half your list vanishes.
Leilond 07-10-07, 06:01 AM	As soon as you add some variety of IUS, over half your list vanishes. IUS doesn't change the nature of your attack. Or do you say that with IUS the unarmed strike become a "natural attack"? A such change would be specified. A special power/feat/spell simply "override" the general rules. The general rules have all that list of differences. You can "override" some of them (not all) with feat that give you special way to use your unarmed attack, but do not change the nature of your armed attack If it is a natural attack before you take the feat it remain a natural attack If it isn't a natural attack before you take the feat it won't be a natural attack after you take the feat The differences are too much and too important to consider them both the same type of attack You are saying that unarmed strike is a natural attack except: - Unarmed strike: cannot do any attack of opportunity - Unarmed strike: cannot provide flanking bonus to ally - Unarmed strike: non lethal damage - Unarmed strike: get iterative attack - Unarmed strike: has no relation with the improved grab feat Don't you think there are too much exception to call them "the same"? Unarme strike isn't a natural attack nor a manufactured weapon. It has is definition in the manual. It is an "unarmed attack" with his rule and his specific issues
eamon 07-10-07, 09:58 AM	@Leilond: most of those differences are due to the fact that a basic unarmed attack does not threaten others. There are weapons and natural attacks with this limitation too, and unarmed strikes (such as the monk's or any other IUS-user) without this limitation. If you exclude that difference, there remains: - Unarmed strike: iterative attack vs. Natural attack: no iterative attack - certain feats and abilities explicitly require the one or the other as prerequisite. Most of these different prerequisites can be houseruled to be considered identical without impacting game balance (but not all, such as improved grapple) Notice that improved grab doesn't do what you think. Are you thinking of constrict? just look at MM page 310... Improved grab only requires a hit with "a melee weapon", it doesn't mention natural weapons at all. You could build a monster with improved grab with dancing chains or something... In a grapple you can use natural weapons and unarmed attacks identically, namely as light weapons.
Leilond 07-10-07, 10:03 AM	@Leilond: most of those differences are due to the fact that a basic unarmed attack does not threaten others. There are weapons and natural attacks with this limitation too, and unarmed strikes (such as the monk's or any other IUS-user) without this limitation. If you exclude that difference, there remains: - Unarmed strike: iterative attack vs. Natural attack: no iterative attack - certain feats and abilities explicitly require the one or the other as prerequisite. Most of these different prerequisites can be houseruled to be considered identical without impacting game balance (but not all, such as improved grapple) Notice that improved grab doesn't do what you think. Are you thinking of constrict? just look at MM page 310... Improved grab only requires a hit with "a melee weapon", it doesn't mention natural weapons at all. You could build a monster with improved grab with dancing chains or something... In a grapple you can use natural weapons and unarmed attacks identically, namely as light weapons. No, I'm talking about improved grab. If you correctly read the "improved grab description" you'll notice that if you've this feat you'll inflict the natural weapon damage with a grapple check, instead of the "unarmed damge". It is plain written in the improved grab description Each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold Without this feat a monster that win a grapple check deliver "unarmed non letal damage". Thus a creature with natural attack, has a "unarmed damage" too, that is different from his natural attack. But let's ignore improved grab and constrict too The difference between unarmed strike and natural attack are - Unarmed strike: do not threaten (merged the two) - Unarmed strike: non lethal damage - Unarmed strike: get iterative attack I think the difference are more than enought to not consider it a natural attack, without considering the ROTG that say it explicity
eamon 07-10-07, 02:01 PM	Well, at this point, it's just syntax. There's a difference, and if you want to call it natural weapon vs. unarmed strike, that's cool :cool:. --Eamon
Leilond 07-11-07, 03:30 AM	Well, at this point, it's just syntax. There's a difference, and if you want to call it natural weapon vs. unarmed strike, that's cool :cool:. --Eamon It's not a syntax difference It is a matter of rule. Natural attacks are defined in their proper rule section, while unarmed strike is defined in another section of the rules. Nowhere in this two section you can refer from one to another. The rules are different and the official site clarify this, cleary writing that unarmed strike isn't a natural attack You can ignore it and say "they're the same things". You've the right to do it, but you know that no rules support that If unarmed strike was a natural attack, there wasn't any need in the monk description to write that his unarmed attack is considered "natural attack". Only the monk unarmed attack is considered to be a natural attack, and only for some pourpose (those spell and effect that improve the effectiveness of the attack)
eamon 07-11-07, 04:13 AM	No, really, I agree with you :)! I'm just saying that once you account for the differences we spoke of, they are the same. So viewing it as a "special" natural weapons with the above oddities has exactly the same effect as the rules as written. So yes, in RAW, natural attacks are NOT unarmed strikes and vice versa! However, it's possible to reclassify them as such if you wish to, and then you must account for the differences we spoke of (how did we get to this discussion anyway? I better reread this thread sometime ;)).
Leilond 07-11-07, 04:31 AM	No, really, I agree with you :)! I'm just saying that once you account for the differences we spoke of, they are the same. So viewing it as a "special" natural weapons with the above oddities has exactly the same effect as the rules as written. So yes, in RAW, natural attacks are NOT unarmed strikes and vice versa! However, it's possible to reclassify them as such if you wish to, and then you must account for the differences we spoke of (how did we get to this discussion anyway? I better reread this thread sometime ;)). Not quite. You cannot take, for instance, improved natural attack to improve your "unarmed damage", if you're not a monk You cannot use on your unarmed strike ANYTHING that work on natural attack, unless otherwise stated This mens that if in the next D&D manual they create a spell that make your natural attack "+1d6 fire damage", it won't work on your unarmed attack, if you're not a monk And so on So, saying "unarmed attack is natural attack except this and that" is incorrect, because it opens the issue to future abuse By the RAW "unarmed strike isn't a natural attack"
eamon 07-11-07, 07:38 AM	Yes... which is exactly what I said... except for the aforementioned differences which definitely exist, they're the same. And if you're a monk, which is really the only time you're ever likely to actually use your unarmed strike, then they're even more similar ;-). The original posters confusion about natural weapons and monk-unarmed strikes is thus not at all odd. In his specific case, namely the energy drain ability of a vampire, they have the same effect. I hope in D&D 4.0 they just clarify this whole bit by making unarmed strikes strikes non-lethal damage dealing (and thus non-threatening) natural weapons. Then, IUS can make the unarmed strike more like weapons allowing manufactured weapon enhancements and iterative attacks. In such a rule set, we wouldn't need this obscure discussion. However currently, there is a distinction in text, where it in gameplay rarely occurs (except for iterative attacks).
Leilond 07-11-07, 11:12 AM	Well.. the differences between unarmed strike and natural attack are more than the differences beween unarmed strike and manufactured weapons I think you will have less problems defining "unarmed strike is like a normal light weapon, except that you do not threaten any square and you can apply power attack" If A differ from B by 2 thing and A differ form C by 4 things Why do you say A is like C except this 4 things Instead of A is like B except this 2 thing? It think A is more similar to B than C
pawsplay 07-12-07, 03:07 PM	For this purpose, is unarmed strike (monk's or otherwise) concidered a natural weapon? An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. A monk's, however, is, because they have a special ability that states their unarmed strike can be treated as a natural or manufacted weapon for effects.
Anathema 07-12-07, 07:53 PM	The argument is that "Except for the differences, they're the same"? :confused:
Leilond 07-13-07, 03:28 AM	The argument is that "Except for the differences, they're the same"? :confused: YEs, it sounds strange but this is the point someone is bringing on
eamon 07-13-07, 06:44 AM	"Somebody" here is me. I think you're right, and further, that any literal interpretation of the rules can only conclude that an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon in the strict sense of the word. However, my feeling is that the words "natural weapon" are often used where they mean "body-part used as a weapon". A natural weapon is a game term, and the latter is not. The monk text stating that the unarmed attack can sometimes be considered a natural weapon reflects that; namely that actually the difference between an unarmed strike and a natural weapon is smaller than it seems. They (WoTC) chose conservatively, stating that only for effects that improve a natural weapon is the monk's unarmed strike to be considered a natural weapon. That's unfortunate; as far as I can tell the goal is to have the unarmed strike be considered a manufactured weapon for the purposes of determining the number and type of attacks, and as both for all other purposes - which might just come down to the same thing; but might not. Thematically, an unarmed strike strikes me as being more similar to a natural weapon than to a manufactured weapon. To be perfectly clear, I'm mostly interesting in the monk's case as that's the only situation in which the unarmed strike is really used in any frequency. Therefore, I was interested in looking at what exactly the differences are between a natural weapon and an unarmed strike. Notice that the OP was curious whether a particular effect intended for natural weapons applied also to unarmed strikes. It is in this context that this comparison is being made! It is in this context that you should interpret my remark that you might as well consider an unarmed strike to be a natural weapon - it is, for all intents and purposes, except for a few small issues. The iterative nature of monk attacks is utterly obvious, and in fact so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning. The question then is - how many effects which affect natural weapons pertain equally to unarmed attacks? My observation is - almost all, as long as they don't concern the primary difference (that of iterative vs. fixed number of attacks). In other words, multi-attack is a no-no, improved natural weapon and energy drain are go. So I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying you're right, but that the rules are complex, and if you're trying to simplify them for a player asking "Gee, what kind of things can I do to my fists, DM?", you're pretty safe saying "99% of anything you could do to a natural weapon." The rules aren't just complex, a literal interpretation seems to exclude certain effects which should be included according to the "spirit" of the rules. Many references to "natural weapons" actual refer to "weapons which are part of your body" (think of the vampire's energy drain here). It's obtuse to require each and every reference to weapon's based on body parts to include not just natural weapons but also unarmed strikes explicitly which you can simply classify unarmed strikes as a natural weapon "w1th sp3cial f3atures yay!" Unarmed strikes are interesting because of the monk class, and rules discussions concerning them unsurprisingly concern what exactly you can do with them. Many rules which affect body-part weapons need exact rules, and thus they refer to the exactly defined term "natural weapon" - a term which does not include unarmed attacks! Inevitable this leads to the conclusion that unarmed attacks somehow need to be considered natural weapons - and that's exactly what WoTC does when they consider a monk's unarmed strike a natural weapon for the purposes of effects which improve it! Despite the fact that Leilond seems shocked to the core at the suggestion that unarmed strikes and natural attacks are "same but different", in a very real sense, that precisely what they are by being "considered natural weapons for certain purposes". I understand that WoTC wants a clear-cut rule, and as such they decided on the phrasing stating that stated that monk unarmed strikes are (considered) natural weapons when it comes to effects which enhance them. It's my opinion that that doesn't actually quite cover it however. An effect which enhances them is OK, but a penalty is not, for instance? If a creature had a "repel living matter" spell which rendered it immune to being struck by natural weapons of living creatures, then this is clearly not an "enhancement" of said natural weapons, and the monks fists should not fall in that category (counter-intuitively). A spell which instead of improving the natural weapons, reduced their damage dealt by a bit (soften natural weapon, say) would also fall outside of a strict reading but within what I think is the spirit of the rule. Conversely, consider Improved Natural Attack and Energy Drain. Both are effects which improve natural attacks somehow - and notice that improve is not a game term! These both apply to the monk's unarmed fists therefore. Multiattack is another improvement for natural weapons. Clearly, multiattack, given its effect, cannot apply to a monk's fists. Based on the two previous paragraph's I hope you realize that I don't think the official rule is very good. I agree, it is the rule, but this is motivation to try to present the rule differently while maintaining the same in-game effect. Viewing a monk-unarmed strike as a natural weapon "with modifications" can achieve the same effect as viewing it as something entirely different "but considered a natural attack sometimes". In fact, it's almost the same thing. In those cases where a difference arrises (such as when concerning penalties)... ...well, let's say I hope to never encounter those situations in-game, because I don't think the official rules are at all intuitive in those situations. It's just an unfortunate distinction (the distinction between unarmed strikes and natural weapons) - necessary, perhaps, because of the rules on iterative attacks, but unfortunate nontheless. I hope this long post has sufficiently clarified my position. I'm guessing it's obvious by now, but I find it offensive that your posts suggest I'm slightly slightly crazy, and I don't want to speak more of the matter.
Leilond 07-13-07, 07:11 AM	It was clear before this post too And I find it completely unnecessary Things that "lower the power of a natural attack" do not affect the monk unarmed strike. It is RAW and perfectly logical, because his "unarmed strike" isn't a natural attack, it is an unarmed strike that for his very nature can be powerd but not lowered by "natural attack effects". It's a matter of training and inner power, not a matter of "logic" For this reason I think that your ruling "They're the same except when they're different" open the issue to a bounch of unusefull discussion. If, in the next manual, they'll create another power that affect natural weapon (without powering it), they'll assume that it won't work on unarmed strike. They know that and so they won't specify "this power cannot be applied to unarmed strike". You'll apply that power to unarmed strike, but the creators designed that power to not work on unarmed strike The rule definition insted ("They're different except for those spell/effect that improve it") will never end in a "wrong application" So, I perfectly understand you. I simply find totally unjustified the need to define an unarmed strike "They're the same, except the difference" It is a conceptual, very important, difference that pheraps do not refer to "actual existing power" but will surely end in a wrong use in the future
eamon 07-13-07, 07:49 AM	What would you do with a spell "Wild Swing" which causes a natural weapon to take a -2 penalty on attack rolls but a +3 bonus to damage? Only apply the bonus?
Leilond 07-13-07, 07:58 AM	What would you do with a spell "Wild Swing" which causes a natural weapon to take a -2 penalty on attack rolls but a +3 bonus to damage? Only apply the bonus? Obviously not. The spell work, or don't work. Choose wich you prefer. Does it "enanche" the unarmed strike? If you answer "yes" you can apply this I think that, for the very nature of the spell, it is designed to be used on allies and not enemies, so the rule intention are very clear. It enanches the attack
eamon 07-13-07, 12:28 PM	The question of whether it's an enhancement is one you'd be forced to ask yourself with the current rules - agreed. I just think it's a little odd. I completely agree with you on the interpretation of the current rules. I just think they're... a little odd. I mean, how often do you get effect that negatively impact natural weapons? Changing the interpretation to always interpreting a monk unarmed strike to be a natural weapon would never have an in game effect in most D&D games! But it would be simpler and cleaner... and even though that's not how it actually works now, I like to explain it that way when players wonder, cause it's not worth the bother (the difference has yet to be relevant in-game anyhow) to differentiate.
eamon 07-13-07, 12:30 PM	In any case... this is getting pretty pointlessly specific, so I'll try to shut up now (knowing that'll like... never work ;) ).
Anathema 07-13-07, 04:19 PM	I think I see where the confusion is. The Monk's description does not say that "an unarmed strike is sometimes a natural weapon", it says that the Unarmed Strike (class feature) is treated as both a manufactured weapon and natural weapon. Unarmed Strike (class feature) is different than an unarmed strike (game mechanic). The only way to gain Unarmed Strike (class feature) is to take a level of Monk; and then and only then are your unarmed strikes (mechanic) treated as both a manufactured weapon and natural weapon.
Leilond 07-16-07, 03:00 AM	I think I see where the confusion is. The Monk's description does not say that "an unarmed strike is sometimes a natural weapon", it says that the Unarmed Strike (class feature) is treated as both a manufactured weapon and natural weapon. Unarmed Strike (class feature) is different than an unarmed strike (game mechanic). The only way to gain Unarmed Strike (class feature) is to take a level of Monk; and then and only then are your unarmed strikes (mechanic) treated as both a manufactured weapon and natural weapon. [/quote] The rules do not say what you point. The rules say 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. The first effect of this COMPLETE definition is that, for example, the monk unarmed strike cannot be used as "natural weapon" to qualify for a feat that do not directly improve the unarmed strike
Anathema 07-16-07, 03:24 AM	You know what, man, sometimes you are way too picky.
Leilond 07-16-07, 03:41 AM	You know what, man, sometimes you are way too picky. Pheraps, and I'm sorry that it creates you problems, but when talking about rules, I've learned to be very detailed
Eater_Of_Souls 07-18-07, 07:31 AM	Why don't you guys just pick the vampire from MM and check it, it even has monk character levels as example ... Since it's a vampire with slam attack and also a monk case closed. In that entry slam = natural weapon for what ever monk is doing, so truth is that slam, unarmed and natural are a same thing as long as we're talking about humanoid arms.
Leilond 07-18-07, 08:00 AM	Why don't you guys just pick the vampire from MM and check it, it even has monk character levels as example ... Since it's a vampire with slam attack and also a monk case closed. In that entry slam = natural weapon for what ever monk is doing, so truth is that slam, unarmed and natural are a same thing as long as we're talking about humanoid arms. And that is valid ONLY FOR MONKS A pure fighter unharmed strike isn't considered a natural weapon
eamon 07-18-07, 08:22 AM	Why don't you guys just pick the vampire from MM and check it, it even has monk character levels as example ... Since it's a vampire with slam attack and also a monk case closed. In that entry slam = natural weapon for what ever monk is doing, so truth is that slam, unarmed and natural are a same thing as long as we're talking about humanoid arms. For most purposes it is indeed. There are needlessly complex corner-cases however which you're better off ignoring in which the current rules text would treat monk fists as something different. Fortunately, almost all cases in which the "normal" rules would make a difference, the specific rules explicitly include monk fists or unarmed strikes. If you want a simple game: completely ignore the normal unarmed attack (nobody ever uses it anyway), and consider monk fists to be natural weapons which use iterative attack rules, and you'll be a happy camper. If you want 100% accuracy: Be prepared to distinguish between natural attacks and monk fists and make a case-by-case decision for all effects (are they negative or not?), and consider whether an improvement is valid for monk fists (improved natural weapon: yes, multiattack: no). This has no effect whatsoever in game... but it is close to the text, if not the intent, of the rules.
eamon 07-18-07, 08:24 AM	And that is valid ONLY FOR MONKS A pure fighter unharmed strike isn't considered a natural weapon :D - look you're right. But obviously I'm not the only person who considers the rules complex and doesn't want to bother with something that'll never occur in-game anyway - and if it does occur, seems more consistent and won't break your game at all. Ahh, pointless summer vacation discussions :cool:.
Egres 07-18-07, 07:20 PM	I have a question for the "unarmed strikes are natural weapons" crew. Can a baboon attack with an unarmed strike?
Leilond 07-19-07, 03:08 AM	I have a question for the "unarmed strikes are natural weapons" crew. Can a baboon attack with an unarmed strike? Every creature can do it. The damage will be non-lethal and will be based on the creature size Small -> 1d2 Medium -> 1d3 And so on
danyc 07-19-07, 03:51 AM	I brought this up in another thread on a similar topic - rules wise, there's nothing stopping any creature with IUS or Monk levels from utterly abusing it. Both generic IUS and the Monk version allow any body part to be used. So, on a dragon, for example, it is perfectly valid to: Take a full 'unarmed' sequence (based on BAB, gaining all iteratives), doing unarmed damage based on your size or monk damage based on size, adding full strength AND Claw/Claw/Bite/Wing/Wing/Tail, each at -5 as secondary natural attacks (penalty decreased/removed by multiattack feats) doing standard damage + 1/2 str PLUS potentially benefit from additional attacks from rapidstrike/improved rapidstrike However, most DMs will probably want to houserule this in some way, because even if one PC is abusing it, its just as valid to make nearly every monster out there take IUS and do it right back.
Egres 07-19-07, 03:59 AM	Every creature can do it. The damage will be non-lethal and will be based on the creature size Small -> 1d2 Medium -> 1d3 And so on Exactly. So, if an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, the baboon has more than one natural weapon. Thus, it couldn't add 1,5 times its Str to its bite attack. But that's not what the MM says.
Leilond 07-19-07, 04:01 AM	Exactly. So, if an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, the baboon has more than one natural weapon. Thus, it couldn't add 1,5 times its Str to its bite attack. But that's not what the MM says. This is another evidence that the unarmed strike isn't a natural attack.
Egres 07-19-07, 04:04 AM	This is another evidence that the unarmed strike isn't a natural attack. Well, "natural attack" is not a well defined term in D&D. We can say that an unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon.