Do all creatures have unarmed strikes? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Do all creatures have unarmed strikes? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Harleaquinn
11-29-04, 12:58 PM Hello everyone, I recently got into a rather heated discussions with some friends over the nature of unarmed strikes, so I figured I'd bring the question here.

My reasoning is that everything with locomotion can do an unarmed strike.

Theyre reasoning is that only a creature with the ability to use (manufactured) weapons has the ability to do unarmed strikes.

I'm willing to get any opinions on this matter, though if any body here knows of an actual ruling, could you please point me to it?
salamander
11-29-04, 01:15 PM What's the reasoning for them to conclude that, in order to make an unarmed strike, you need to be able to make an armed strike with a weapon first? You're not presenting reasonings, you're presenting conclusions. Personally, I agree with you. However, not many creatures with natural weapons will elect to make unarmed strikes instead of using those.
ieattrollsforbreakfast
11-29-04, 01:19 PM Yes, any creature that can move can make an unarmed strike. The core races' unarmed attacks deal 1d2 and 1d3 points of nonlethal damage for small and medium characters respectively, and using one provokes and AoO unless you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
Seeker95
11-29-04, 01:19 PM All creatures have unarmed strikes. (A cat doesn't have to keep his claws out).
Not all creatures have a reason to use them.
Harleaquinn
11-29-04, 01:26 PM The reasoning that they used was because those creatures atually specifically have natural attacks, and that natural attacks replace unarmed strikes.

It also nowhere says in anywhere we could find that they do indeed have unarmed strikes.

Also, since a creature with no PC levels has no proficiencies, they say the creatures would be inproficient with them, since unarmed strikes are simple weapons.

Me pointing out things like head butt's etc. seemed to simply make them more defencive. When I stated that all creatures have unarmed strikes was the intention of the rules as far as I could tell, they went off on the party's ranger's wolf being allowed to use a longsword.

Could any of you give me rules to back up opinions? Or a place where I can put this so I can get an official answer?
Escef
11-29-04, 02:13 PM Most creatures with natural attacks use them because they are vastly superior to an unarmed strike. While it is never explicitly stated that all creatures have unarmed strikes, I see no reason to deny them it. Heck, when I poke at my cat's belly she'll grab at my hand with her forepaws, gnaw at my hand a bit, and rake me with her hind legs. And she does no damage because she doesn't want to. (If she did I'd lose a good couple pints of blood a week.) So, I see no reason to say a dragon can't perform a headbutt, hip-check, or shoulder-rush.

I will say, however, that most animal intelligence creatures will only use natural attacks when threatened, as they don't understand any reason behind keeping the enemy alive.
Harleaquinn
11-29-04, 02:22 PM Thanks for the opinions and such so far.

I totally understand animals not understanding reasons to use their unarmed strikes, heck, it makes sense to me. My questions is not one of whether or not a creature will ever use its unarmed strike, its a question of whether or not they possess one.

The grappling rules are the closest ive got so far as to an official ruling though since it mentions "doing damage as an unarmed strike". Which can be taken in so many different ways I can feel the grenades turning my brain cells into chunky salsa.
salamander
11-29-04, 02:24 PM 1) Also, since a creature with no PC levels has no proficiencies, they say the creatures would be inproficient with them, since unarmed strikes are simple weapons. Monster class levels are not PC levels either: according to them, that means such a monster, even it's for instance an orc, can't use weapons either until it's completed its monster class and has taken at least one PC level.

2) When I stated that all creatures have unarmed strikes was the intention of the rules as far as I could tell, they went off on the party's ranger's wolf being allowed to use a longsword.
1) Then the same goes for monks. They never get given proficiency with unarmed strikes either.

2) :blink: Jumping to conclusions, aren't we? Longswords have nothing to do with unarmed strikes. Being or not being able to use the latter has no bearing on the former.

Question for them: do they allow monkeys to make unarmed strikes? Monkeys have a natural (bite) attack - I don't see why that'd replace an unarmed strike.

Question for you: exactly which creature would you have making unarmed strikes that the rest of your group has a problem with?
Harleaquinn
11-29-04, 02:36 PM Magical beasts, things like ankhegs bulletes etc.

Because the BBEG is throwing these types of creatures at them, and depending on some of the situations some of the creatures being thrown at them are "smarter" then usual.

It is mostly for flavor, but my group is especially harsh on flavor without backing. (I spent damn near an entire day trying to make a creature that could fly, be invisible, and not have a scent)

For example one of the magical beasts might attack the party's archer when he doesnt have a weapon out, and as such wont be able to make the AoO for the creature striking "unarmed".

The main reason for this is I really dont think I want to have the ankhegs etc. "biting" for subdual damage, I'd much rather them do an unarmed strike.
Harleaquinn
11-29-04, 02:41 PM I actually specificaly asked them about monkeys etc, likes apes and such. They said only if it gains classes level and the inteligence.

I looked similar to this.

:eek: :uh-huh: :surrender :banghead:
Thorak
11-29-04, 02:42 PM Boxers, a breed of dog, are so named because they tend to 'box' with their paws when fighting, whacking out with them before diving in for a bite. That'd be an unarmed strike.

And of course, the infamous boxing kangaroos.

And my cat, when they slap out at me playfully and decide, kindly, to keep their claws in.

All examples of non-humanoid unarmed strikes.

Nowhere does it state that a creature must be capable of using manufactured weapons, or not have natural weapons, to have an unarmed strike. Can a Lizardman headbutt you? Yes, and that's an unarmed strike, despite his claws and bite. Can a dog kick you? Sure, though if they're mad they'll just bite you instead because it's easier and better. They're certainly possible, there's just little reason to bother.

Unless you're a monk/druid in Wildshape form, of course.
Harleaquinn
11-29-04, 02:46 PM I hate to have to resort to such a low blow of a way to clarify this, but, does it actually state anywhere that monks have priciency with their unarmed strikes? Because, If it doesnt, I can at least use the logic that because of this all creatures, regardless of race/sex/class etc. are proficient in unarmed strikes.
salamander
11-29-04, 03:09 PM ... does it actually state anywhere that monks have priciency with their unarmed strikes?It doesn't.

Side questions: what do they do with creatures like the lizardmen Thorak mentioned, who have natural weapons *and* can wield manufactured weapons?
What do they do with creatures that have no natural weapons at first but acquire them later (by taking Dragon Disciple levels, for instance): do they lose the ability to make unarmed strikes?
Harleaquinn
11-29-04, 03:14 PM I honestly wish I could answer the lizardman/dragon disciple question.

But I fear it would make my rules lawyering groups head explode.
unconformist
11-29-04, 08:31 PM i am not a rules lawyer... and it would've made us look a lot better if you had presented the whole argument...

anyway, hi, i play in this game with ankhegs doing unarmed strikes...

the reason our ranger's player suggested that his wolf can use a longsword, is because of what our DM here read to us about unarmed strikes... he mentioned it as a way-out-there-not-to-be-taken-seriously comment...

also, about the monkeys... i thought they got a slam and a bite? maybe i'm just smoking crack...

i also want to mention that mr DM here said "if a golem is told to knock you out, it would know to use an unarmed strike" this was a horrible example imo... golems are always armed, if they hit you, it's with their fist, which is normally their slam... imo, animals and monsters can do slam attacks... and they can choose to deal subdual with this slam with a penalty since that's not what is easy for them to use... it's easier for a monkey to bite you, but it knows how to beat you into a bloody pulp with it's fist... you're not going to get an AoO against the monkey when it punches you in the face...

this whole topic is something that everyone is going to have a different opinion on, the other players in our group have even different opinions than me... which is why i eventually just gave up and said whatever... i'll let the DM rule on it... but i would like to know... is there actually anything anywhere stating an official ruling on this subject?
Thorak
11-29-04, 09:56 PM I hate to have to resort to such a low blow of a way to clarify this, but, does it actually state anywhere that monks have priciency with their unarmed strikes?
Like salamander said, it doesn't. But you can infer that it's an oversight by the way their unarmed strike section is worded; hard to be "highly trained" if you're not at least proficient.
Because, If it doesnt, I can at least use the logic that because of this all creatures, regardless of race/sex/class etc. are proficient in unarmed strikes.
There's a problem. The Simple weapon proficiency directs you to the table on pages 116-117 to see a list of Simple weapons. Unarmed strikes are on that list. Some classes, wizards, druids, and monks notably, are not proficient with all Simple weapons, and thus aren't proficient.

To add to this, all Humanoids are proficient with all Simple weapons, unless they have a class, in which case the class replaces that. So your average, no-class-level Orc is proficient due to his Type, but a human Wizard is not. Nor would an Orcish Wizard, for that matter.
Arcane Guyver
11-30-04, 12:14 AM About the monk without proficiency with Unarmed Strikes - that is circumvented by their gaining Improved Unarmed Strike at first level. For whatever reason, it doesn't state you need the Unarmed Strike simple weapon proficiency to take that feat. So, theoretically, wizards could learn how to hit well with a punch/kick -and- how to do so without letting down your guard, with the acquisition of just one feat. :clap:

More on topic, I always thought Unarmed Strike was meant as a way of attacking with no weapon, be it natural or not. And that's something every creature should be capable of doing (albeit not very well in some cases). I mean, what happens if a creature loses it's natural weapon somehow, like getting it hacked off or chewing it off to escape a trap. Suddenly they have absolutely no way of attacking at all? A good example is a declawed cat; sure, it may not survive very long if it can't scrounge in trashcans or rely on nice people for food, but it can still smack the crap out of mice until it can get a good bite in.
Harleaquinn
11-30-04, 01:12 AM Heres customer service

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wizards Customer Service" <custserv@wizards.com>
To: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:25 PM
Subject: RE: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback

Creatures with natural attacks are considered armed with those attacks,
so they would not be unarmed. Though all creatures have an unarmed strike
based off of their size category. A creature that is armed may still opt to do
an unarmed strike. I hope that clears things up. Have fun andgood gaming!

Trevor
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:15 AM
To: Wizards Customer Service
Subject: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms
Feedback

Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback
From: xxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

Do all creatures have unarmed strikes? The rules do not specifically say
whether or not creatures with natural attacks and the inability to use
weapons can make unarmed strikes.
Sent to: custserv@wizards.com
Escef
11-30-04, 07:53 AM Customer service can be tricky. Sometimes two different customer service reps will make opposing statements. Customer service does, in general, have more credability than the average gamer. Though they aren't The Sage, nor are they the FAQ nor the Errata.

In the end, it's the DM who has final say. Customer Service, The Sage, the FAQ, and Errata are all tools to help the DM reach a decision.
salamander
11-30-04, 08:41 AM ... you're not going to get an AoO against the monkey when it punches you in the face... Yes you are, unless that monkey has one or more monk levels or the IUS feat. A bite is a monkey's only natural weapon.

As for the golem example, it's really simple: the golem has two options. The first is to use its natural attacks but go for subdual damage, which will do more damage on a hit but will hit less often. The second is to use an unarmed strike, which will do less damage but will hit more often. Golems are able to use manufactured weapons, btw, which brings me back to some of my earlier questions. I really can't tell anymore how you'd rule (consistently) in all possible cases involving natural weapons and/or manufactured weapons being an option.
Zelphi
11-30-04, 08:46 AM An unarmed strike - as per the book, is a strike that doesn't use an armed weapon.

Any cat can headbut you instead of using a claw attack. So can any golem, or whatever.
pyk
11-30-04, 09:47 AM Think of the game term "Strike, Unarmed" as the character being trained in a certain martial style. Not necessarily an oriental art, but also boxing, or even simply street brawling would work. This could explain why unarmed strikes follow the same rules for manufactured weapons, and not natural weapons. Creatures are not 'trained' in how to use their natural weapons.

(Dragons and other highly developed creatures being the exception, of course.)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harleaquinn 11-29-04, 12:58 PM	Hello everyone, I recently got into a rather heated discussions with some friends over the nature of unarmed strikes, so I figured I'd bring the question here. My reasoning is that everything with locomotion can do an unarmed strike. Theyre reasoning is that only a creature with the ability to use (manufactured) weapons has the ability to do unarmed strikes. I'm willing to get any opinions on this matter, though if any body here knows of an actual ruling, could you please point me to it?
salamander 11-29-04, 01:15 PM	What's the reasoning for them to conclude that, in order to make an unarmed strike, you need to be able to make an armed strike with a weapon first? You're not presenting reasonings, you're presenting conclusions. Personally, I agree with you. However, not many creatures with natural weapons will elect to make unarmed strikes instead of using those.
ieattrollsforbreakfast 11-29-04, 01:19 PM	Yes, any creature that can move can make an unarmed strike. The core races' unarmed attacks deal 1d2 and 1d3 points of nonlethal damage for small and medium characters respectively, and using one provokes and AoO unless you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
Seeker95 11-29-04, 01:19 PM	All creatures have unarmed strikes. (A cat doesn't have to keep his claws out). Not all creatures have a reason to use them.
Harleaquinn 11-29-04, 01:26 PM	The reasoning that they used was because those creatures atually specifically have natural attacks, and that natural attacks replace unarmed strikes. It also nowhere says in anywhere we could find that they do indeed have unarmed strikes. Also, since a creature with no PC levels has no proficiencies, they say the creatures would be inproficient with them, since unarmed strikes are simple weapons. Me pointing out things like head butt's etc. seemed to simply make them more defencive. When I stated that all creatures have unarmed strikes was the intention of the rules as far as I could tell, they went off on the party's ranger's wolf being allowed to use a longsword. Could any of you give me rules to back up opinions? Or a place where I can put this so I can get an official answer?
Escef 11-29-04, 02:13 PM	Most creatures with natural attacks use them because they are vastly superior to an unarmed strike. While it is never explicitly stated that all creatures have unarmed strikes, I see no reason to deny them it. Heck, when I poke at my cat's belly she'll grab at my hand with her forepaws, gnaw at my hand a bit, and rake me with her hind legs. And she does no damage because she doesn't want to. (If she did I'd lose a good couple pints of blood a week.) So, I see no reason to say a dragon can't perform a headbutt, hip-check, or shoulder-rush. I will say, however, that most animal intelligence creatures will only use natural attacks when threatened, as they don't understand any reason behind keeping the enemy alive.
Harleaquinn 11-29-04, 02:22 PM	Thanks for the opinions and such so far. I totally understand animals not understanding reasons to use their unarmed strikes, heck, it makes sense to me. My questions is not one of whether or not a creature will ever use its unarmed strike, its a question of whether or not they possess one. The grappling rules are the closest ive got so far as to an official ruling though since it mentions "doing damage as an unarmed strike". Which can be taken in so many different ways I can feel the grenades turning my brain cells into chunky salsa.
salamander 11-29-04, 02:24 PM	1) Also, since a creature with no PC levels has no proficiencies, they say the creatures would be inproficient with them, since unarmed strikes are simple weapons. Monster class levels are not PC levels either: according to them, that means such a monster, even it's for instance an orc, can't use weapons either until it's completed its monster class and has taken at least one PC level. 2) When I stated that all creatures have unarmed strikes was the intention of the rules as far as I could tell, they went off on the party's ranger's wolf being allowed to use a longsword. 1) Then the same goes for monks. They never get given proficiency with unarmed strikes either. 2) :blink: Jumping to conclusions, aren't we? Longswords have nothing to do with unarmed strikes. Being or not being able to use the latter has no bearing on the former. Question for them: do they allow monkeys to make unarmed strikes? Monkeys have a natural (bite) attack - I don't see why that'd replace an unarmed strike. Question for you: exactly which creature would you have making unarmed strikes that the rest of your group has a problem with?
Harleaquinn 11-29-04, 02:36 PM	Magical beasts, things like ankhegs bulletes etc. Because the BBEG is throwing these types of creatures at them, and depending on some of the situations some of the creatures being thrown at them are "smarter" then usual. It is mostly for flavor, but my group is especially harsh on flavor without backing. (I spent damn near an entire day trying to make a creature that could fly, be invisible, and not have a scent) For example one of the magical beasts might attack the party's archer when he doesnt have a weapon out, and as such wont be able to make the AoO for the creature striking "unarmed". The main reason for this is I really dont think I want to have the ankhegs etc. "biting" for subdual damage, I'd much rather them do an unarmed strike.
Harleaquinn 11-29-04, 02:41 PM	I actually specificaly asked them about monkeys etc, likes apes and such. They said only if it gains classes level and the inteligence. I looked similar to this. :eek: :uh-huh: :surrender :banghead:
Thorak 11-29-04, 02:42 PM	Boxers, a breed of dog, are so named because they tend to 'box' with their paws when fighting, whacking out with them before diving in for a bite. That'd be an unarmed strike. And of course, the infamous boxing kangaroos. And my cat, when they slap out at me playfully and decide, kindly, to keep their claws in. All examples of non-humanoid unarmed strikes. Nowhere does it state that a creature must be capable of using manufactured weapons, or not have natural weapons, to have an unarmed strike. Can a Lizardman headbutt you? Yes, and that's an unarmed strike, despite his claws and bite. Can a dog kick you? Sure, though if they're mad they'll just bite you instead because it's easier and better. They're certainly possible, there's just little reason to bother. Unless you're a monk/druid in Wildshape form, of course.
Harleaquinn 11-29-04, 02:46 PM	I hate to have to resort to such a low blow of a way to clarify this, but, does it actually state anywhere that monks have priciency with their unarmed strikes? Because, If it doesnt, I can at least use the logic that because of this all creatures, regardless of race/sex/class etc. are proficient in unarmed strikes.
salamander 11-29-04, 03:09 PM	... does it actually state anywhere that monks have priciency with their unarmed strikes?It doesn't. Side questions: what do they do with creatures like the lizardmen Thorak mentioned, who have natural weapons and can wield manufactured weapons? What do they do with creatures that have no natural weapons at first but acquire them later (by taking Dragon Disciple levels, for instance): do they lose the ability to make unarmed strikes?
Harleaquinn 11-29-04, 03:14 PM	I honestly wish I could answer the lizardman/dragon disciple question. But I fear it would make my rules lawyering groups head explode.
unconformist 11-29-04, 08:31 PM	i am not a rules lawyer... and it would've made us look a lot better if you had presented the whole argument... anyway, hi, i play in this game with ankhegs doing unarmed strikes... the reason our ranger's player suggested that his wolf can use a longsword, is because of what our DM here read to us about unarmed strikes... he mentioned it as a way-out-there-not-to-be-taken-seriously comment... also, about the monkeys... i thought they got a slam and a bite? maybe i'm just smoking crack... i also want to mention that mr DM here said "if a golem is told to knock you out, it would know to use an unarmed strike" this was a horrible example imo... golems are always armed, if they hit you, it's with their fist, which is normally their slam... imo, animals and monsters can do slam attacks... and they can choose to deal subdual with this slam with a penalty since that's not what is easy for them to use... it's easier for a monkey to bite you, but it knows how to beat you into a bloody pulp with it's fist... you're not going to get an AoO against the monkey when it punches you in the face... this whole topic is something that everyone is going to have a different opinion on, the other players in our group have even different opinions than me... which is why i eventually just gave up and said whatever... i'll let the DM rule on it... but i would like to know... is there actually anything anywhere stating an official ruling on this subject?
Thorak 11-29-04, 09:56 PM	I hate to have to resort to such a low blow of a way to clarify this, but, does it actually state anywhere that monks have priciency with their unarmed strikes? Like salamander said, it doesn't. But you can infer that it's an oversight by the way their unarmed strike section is worded; hard to be "highly trained" if you're not at least proficient. Because, If it doesnt, I can at least use the logic that because of this all creatures, regardless of race/sex/class etc. are proficient in unarmed strikes. There's a problem. The Simple weapon proficiency directs you to the table on pages 116-117 to see a list of Simple weapons. Unarmed strikes are on that list. Some classes, wizards, druids, and monks notably, are not proficient with all Simple weapons, and thus aren't proficient. To add to this, all Humanoids are proficient with all Simple weapons, unless they have a class, in which case the class replaces that. So your average, no-class-level Orc is proficient due to his Type, but a human Wizard is not. Nor would an Orcish Wizard, for that matter.
Arcane Guyver 11-30-04, 12:14 AM	About the monk without proficiency with Unarmed Strikes - that is circumvented by their gaining Improved Unarmed Strike at first level. For whatever reason, it doesn't state you need the Unarmed Strike simple weapon proficiency to take that feat. So, theoretically, wizards could learn how to hit well with a punch/kick -and- how to do so without letting down your guard, with the acquisition of just one feat. :clap: More on topic, I always thought Unarmed Strike was meant as a way of attacking with no weapon, be it natural or not. And that's something every creature should be capable of doing (albeit not very well in some cases). I mean, what happens if a creature loses it's natural weapon somehow, like getting it hacked off or chewing it off to escape a trap. Suddenly they have absolutely no way of attacking at all? A good example is a declawed cat; sure, it may not survive very long if it can't scrounge in trashcans or rely on nice people for food, but it can still smack the crap out of mice until it can get a good bite in.
Harleaquinn 11-30-04, 01:12 AM	Heres customer service ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wizards Customer Service" <custserv@wizards.com> To: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback Creatures with natural attacks are considered armed with those attacks, so they would not be unarmed. Though all creatures have an unarmed strike based off of their size category. A creature that is armed may still opt to do an unarmed strike. I hope that clears things up. Have fun andgood gaming! Trevor Customer Service Department Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 -----Original Message----- From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:15 AM To: Wizards Customer Service Subject: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback From: xxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) Do all creatures have unarmed strikes? The rules do not specifically say whether or not creatures with natural attacks and the inability to use weapons can make unarmed strikes. Sent to: custserv@wizards.com
Escef 11-30-04, 07:53 AM	Customer service can be tricky. Sometimes two different customer service reps will make opposing statements. Customer service does, in general, have more credability than the average gamer. Though they aren't The Sage, nor are they the FAQ nor the Errata. In the end, it's the DM who has final say. Customer Service, The Sage, the FAQ, and Errata are all tools to help the DM reach a decision.
salamander 11-30-04, 08:41 AM	... you're not going to get an AoO against the monkey when it punches you in the face... Yes you are, unless that monkey has one or more monk levels or the IUS feat. A bite is a monkey's only natural weapon. As for the golem example, it's really simple: the golem has two options. The first is to use its natural attacks but go for subdual damage, which will do more damage on a hit but will hit less often. The second is to use an unarmed strike, which will do less damage but will hit more often. Golems are able to use manufactured weapons, btw, which brings me back to some of my earlier questions. I really can't tell anymore how you'd rule (consistently) in all possible cases involving natural weapons and/or manufactured weapons being an option.
Zelphi 11-30-04, 08:46 AM	An unarmed strike - as per the book, is a strike that doesn't use an armed weapon. Any cat can headbut you instead of using a claw attack. So can any golem, or whatever.
pyk 11-30-04, 09:47 AM	Think of the game term "Strike, Unarmed" as the character being trained in a certain martial style. Not necessarily an oriental art, but also boxing, or even simply street brawling would work. This could explain why unarmed strikes follow the same rules for manufactured weapons, and not natural weapons. Creatures are not 'trained' in how to use their natural weapons. (Dragons and other highly developed creatures being the exception, of course.)