Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arkeas 02-17-07, 04:54 AM	Well, I understand the arguement for both sides of the issue of whether monks can take impoved natural attack for their unarmed strike or not. This issue recently came up in my gaming group and as far as I can tell, it comes down to the definition of "effects". My thought process is that if unarmed strikes were a natural weapon to begin with, they would not get the extra attacks from an improved BAB. However, this is overcome by how their 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", which brings me back to the definition of "effects". I personally believe that feats have effects, and are not effects upon themselves, and thus this cannot be used. Am I completely wrong? Anyone have a more concrete definition? Any comments are appreciated.
Merestil Haye 02-17-07, 07:30 AM	According to the designers, you can.Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike? Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack. Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would deal 4d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 10:03 AM	This issue recently came up in my gaming group and as far as I can tell, it comes down to the definition of "effects".No it doesn't. An unarmed strike is a natural weapon. It has a bunch of exceptions applied to it for various reasons that make it significantly different from other natural weapons, but it's still a natural weapon. The only alternative is it being a manufactured weapon. The monk's unarmed strike is different because it benefits from effects that enhance both natural weapons and manufactured weapons. An 8th-level commoner can take Improved Natural Attack (unarmed), but he can't have align weapon cast on his fists; the monk can. Ask me about dual-wielding unarmed strikes.
Egres 02-17-07, 10:12 AM	No it doesn't. An unarmed strike is a natural weapon. It has a bunch of exceptions applied to it for various reasons that make it significantly different from other natural weapons, but it's still a natural weapon. The only alternative is it being a manufactured weapon. Uhm, no. An unarmed strikes is a completely different thing. Different rules, different uses, everything different. You aren't a rules lawyer, Tyler, bu you have done better than this in the past.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 11:04 AM	An unarmed strikes is a completely different thing.What is it, exactly? Is it a manufactured weapon? Is it just an anomalous exception to the normal order of things that nobody acknowledges? No. It's a natural weapon. It's a physical part of the creature, it benefits from magic fang and metaphysical claw and the kensai's ability to enhance natural weapons, and it does not benefit from magic weapon or align weapon unless you're a monk. There are three exceptions applied to the unarmed strike that I've explained repeatedly, but hey, I got time. 1) Unarmed strikes gain iterative attacks. This is to make the combat rules more consistent for new players. It may also be because the iterative attack system was devised before the natural attack system and they just never made a conversion. 2) Unarmed strikes draw attacks of opportunity. This is a realism measure; an untrained, unarmed human is at a severe disadvantage against an armed one. The AoO reflects this. 3) Unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage. This is also a realism measure; fist fights between to untrained slobs generally aren't lethal. They can be, but then an unarmed strike can deal lethal damage if you take a –4 to hit, just like any nonlethal weapon. A single feat, Improved Unarmed Strike, is used to represent the training necessary to level the playing field between an unarmed character and an armed one. Not completely; there's still the base damage disparity, but at least you don't draw AoOs anymore. You aren't a rules lawyer...Thank you, Egres. You're not a rules lawyer either.
Someone 02-17-07, 12:40 PM	It isn't even what the meaning of "effects" is. The whole phrase "spells and effects" is what's at issue here. Everywhere else such a term shows up, it is always preceded by a clarifier like "transmutation" or "enchantment" or even just "magical". So if the sentence in question were written similarly, it would go something like: "...is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of transmutation spells and effects that enhance or improve either”. That would cover both magic fang and magic weapon, which is the point of that sentence.
3DJutsu 02-17-07, 01:28 PM	I would say monk: yes, anyone else: DM call. Monk specifically states it counts as a Natural weapon for spells and effects, Imp Un Strike does not specify this. Thus my conclusion is that Monks can recive the training needed to make their usual mass and such to beat the unholy crap out of something as though they were 1 size category higher.
tiluvias99 02-17-07, 02:43 PM	No it doesn't. An unarmed strike is a natural weapon. It has a bunch of exceptions applied to it for various reasons that make it significantly different from other natural weapons, but it's still a natural weapon. The only alternative is it being a manufactured weapon. The monk's unarmed strike is different because it benefits from effects that enhance both natural weapons and manufactured weapons. An 8th-level commoner can take Improved Natural Attack (unarmed), but he can't have align weapon cast on his fists; the monk can.Uh... what? Egres is right. Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons. Unarmed Strikes are Unarmed Attacks, a category that also includes Natural Weapons. They are both in the same category, but they are not the same thing and ne is certainly not a subset of the other, regardless of what is printed in the Magic Fang spells and its ilk.
Arkeas 02-17-07, 04:58 PM	So, as I understand, this is pretty much the DM's call. Wow, thanks.
3DJutsu 02-17-07, 05:18 PM	No, read the Unarmed descripion for the monk, their unarmed atk is considered both manufactured and natural for all intents and purposes. Not saying that its wise to shove this in your DM's face and go 'hah, says so right there'...never a good idea.
Tsuul 02-17-07, 05:55 PM	So, as I understand, this is pretty much the DM's call. Wow, thanks. Merestil Haye's answered this in post 2. Yes, monks can take INA. The FAQ is clear on this. DM's can rule 0 as before.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 06:09 PM	Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons.Sure they are. Name one aspect of the rules that requires a distinction between them.
tiluvias99 02-17-07, 06:33 PM	Sure. Whenever something specifies "Unarmed Strikes", it does not also apply to natural weapons unless explicitly stated. Likewise, whenever something specifies "Natural Weapons", it does not also apply to Unarmed Strikes unless explicitly stated. On the other hand, if something applies to unarmed attacks, then it applies to both.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 06:40 PM	Sure. Whenever something specifies "Unarmed Strikes", it does not also apply to natural weapons unless explicitly stated. Likewise, whenever something specifies "Natural Weapons", it does not also apply to Unarmed Strikes unless explicitly stated. On the other hand, if something applies to unarmed attacks, then it applies to both.Show me an example.
tiluvias99 02-17-07, 06:47 PM	Can do. A Monk's increased Unarmed Damage only applies to Unarmed Strikes, and does not apply to Natural Weapons.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 06:48 PM	That doesn't mean an unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon. It just means an unarmed strike is a specific type of natural weapon and is the only one to which the monk class feature applies. Weapon Focus (longsword) applies only to longswords, but that doesn't mean a longsword isn't a weapon. That it?
Egres 02-17-07, 06:49 PM	What is it, exactly? An unarmed strike. A kind of unarmed attack, just like natural weapons. The fact that you don't understand that there is a third catgeory is meaningless: you are the only one here that doesn't understand it. It's a physical part of the creature, So, your ass is a natural weapon? Read the rules, please. t benefits from magic fang and metaphysical claw and the kensai's ability to enhance natural weapons, and it does not benefit from magic weapon or align weapon unless you're a monk. Funny. You have cited all examples of bad written spells that are corrected by the Primary Source rule. Tyler, there are so much arguments against your position: do you really want to get beaten in this meaningless debate? There are three exceptions applied to the unarmed strike that I've explained repeatedly, but hey, I got time. Bull***t. They follow completely different rules, and thus are completely different things. Heck, they are even listed separately in the unarmed attacks description. Not to mention that even the FAQ clearly states that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are two different things. A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon You say that they follow different rules: so, what kind of support do you have to state that they are the same thing, by the rules? Come on, come on.... Thank you, Egres. You're not a rules lawyer either. Actually, I am. Even you have tacitly recognized it. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7105637&postcount=2) By the RAW, grappling doesn't count as a monk weapon. I'm not sure if that's because you're not supposed to do a flurry of grapples or if they just forgot. I've never seen any official source that addressed this, but if there is one, Tarkin or Egres probably know about it.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 06:51 PM	So, your ass is a natural weapon? Mine is. Consider this. Even if you were right and I was wrong, would it affect the game mechanics in any way? Monks can still take INA (unarmed). Magic fang still affects a fist no matter who it belongs to. Fact is my interpretation is every bit as valid as yours and I submit it makes the rules feel a lot more consistent. I've actually been posting this view for a few weeks now as these threads come up; I'm surprised this is your first time seeing it.
Egres 02-17-07, 06:55 PM	That doesn't mean an unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon. It just means an unarmed strike is a specific type of natural weapon and is the only one to which the monk class feature applies. Weapon Focus (longsword) applies only to longswords, but that doesn't mean a longsword isn't a weapon. That it? Ridiculous. By your reasoning, we could apply the INA feat to every unarmed strike, since they all are natural weapons.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 06:56 PM	Exactly. It's not a new idea either; I first presented it way back in the last wave of big INA debate threads.
Egres 02-17-07, 06:58 PM	Fact is my interpretation is every bit as valid as yours and I submit it makes the rules feel a lot more consistent. Fact? Ahahaha. You are the only one poor user in the world that doesn't know the differences between unarmed strikes and natural weapons. You didn't provide any counter argument to my points, and your assumptions are simply unsupported. Try again.
Egres 02-17-07, 06:58 PM	Exactly. It's not a new idea either; I first presented it way back in the last wave of big INA debate threads. And, did you notice that no one agreed with you?
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 07:08 PM	Try again.*sigh* Fine... The fact that you don't understand that there is a third catgeory is meaningless: you are the only one here that doesn't understand it.It's not that I don't understand it, it's that I don't think it exists. They follow completely different rules, and thus are completely different things.There are exceptions, I acknowledged and explained those. Heck, they are even listed separately in the unarmed attacks description.Again, there are exceptions, I acknowledged those. Not to mention that even the FAQ clearly states that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are two different things.Where? You say that they follow different rules: so, what kind of support do you have to state that they are the same thing, by the rules?The fact that just about everything in the game that affects natural weapons also affects unarmed strikes. Psionic Fist. Arcane Strike. Magic fang. Psychic vampire. The kensai's signature weapon ability. Not to mention the few things that affect manufactured weapons but not natural ones do not affect unarmed strikes, align weapon, magic weapon, and Two-Weapon Defense being the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. Even you have tacitly recognized it. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7105637&postcount=2)Oh, I didn't mean that. I was in a really dark place, you know? (Also, it's funny you should link to that particular post as I've since reversed the opinion presented therein, based on the FAQ.) You know, going through your post, you didn't have much in the way of points. You just sort of quoted me and went "NUH-UH!!!" I really don't have to convince you either way. It makes no difference in your games or mine. The only thing that changes if you adopt my interpretation is the fact that non-monks can take Improved Natural Attack (unarmed), which really isn't worth it now that Superior Unarmed Strike is available. Are we done?
Egres 02-17-07, 07:21 PM	It's not that I don't understand it, it's that I don't think it exists. Try your copy of the Players' Handbook. There are exceptions, I acknowledged and explained those. Again, there are exceptions, I acknowledged those. Exception to which rules? An excpetion would follow all the other rules. Unfortunately for you, unarmed strikes follow completely different rules. Heck, even manufactured weapons have more in common with unarmed strikes! Not to mention that, by your reasoning, you would be a piece of crap, with some exceptions. Where? Read above, lazy man. A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon Now? The fact that just about everything in the game that affects natural weapons also affects unarmed strikes. Only bad written spells, dear friend. Try to find something that isn't negated by the Primary Source rule. Not to mention that there are plenty of spells and feats that clearly treat natural weapons and unarmed strikes as different things. 1) They follow completely different rules (something that proves that unarmed strikes can't be considered exception) 2) Unarmed strikes are not listed in any monster description regarding natural weapons 3) They are expressely defined as different things in the Player's Handbook, and in the FAQ. 4) Your point of view is taken out of thin air: heck, even the monk description makes it clear that you are wrong: 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. By your reasoning this sentence would be meaningless. Listen: you are just appearing like a newbie here. No one will ever agree with you on this silly debate: concede the point.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 07:25 PM	No one will ever agree with you on this silly debate...Sure they will. I'm not here to debate anything with you. I'm presenting my interpretation of the rules and whoever reads it can do with it what they will. I'm not trying to shove it down your throat, I'm not trying to convert you and everyone you know, I'm just putting it out there. And as I already pointed out, the only aspect of the game it changes is miniscule and easily ignored. Why are you fighting this so hard?
Egres 02-17-07, 07:34 PM	Sure they will. Ahahah. I'm not here to debate anything with you. I'm presenting my interpretation of the rules and whoever reads it can do with it what they will. Interpretation? Do you really call your unsupported arguments "interpretation"? You take two completely different aspects of the game, that follow completely different rules, and say that they are the same thing, cuase the different rules governing them are "exceptions"? Not to mention that you call them excpetions, but you don't support this assumption. Please, at least try to be honest with yourself, even if you are so young. Why are you fighting this so hard? Necessity, and not delight, impels us.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 07:36 PM	You're in argument mode, I respect that. I understand where you're coming from. A lot of people hate me. Look at it hypothetically. In what way would the game be different if I was right? Is this a good change or a bad change? Why? How does it make you feel?
tiluvias99 02-17-07, 08:02 PM	You're in argument mode, I respect that. I understand where you're coming from. A lot of people hate me. Look at it hypothetically. In what way would the game be different if I was right? Is this a good change or a bad change? Why? How does it make you feel?Tyler, so you know, you have my respect. :P However, I just happen to be an ass about certain aspects of the RAW. I happen to be a rules-lawyer, I won't deny that. I have no problems at all with changing the RAW, but if anyone does, then they can't call it "RAW", even if the change is miniscule. Otherwise, people end up being totally misinformed about what the rules actually say, because so-and-so told them what the rules said when so-and-so wasn't actually correct, and they likewise spread that false information unaware that it is indeed false. If you were right (which is entirely possible, I could be misinformed... but I don't find it likely), then yes, it probably wouldn't change much of anything. It's simply a different means to the same end in 99% of most cases. But still: RAW is RAW. I don't think that this is one of those cases where there is significant room for interpretation (which there are quite a lot of, actually). In my opinion, the rules are pretty straight forward about how this works, that way being the way myself and many others have suggested. edit: man... whatever happened to Thorak? He used to know everything about these kinds of things. Anyone remember him?
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 08:21 PM	Tyler, so you know, you have my respect.You're a beautiful person. I happen to be a rules-lawyer, I won't deny that.Oh don't say that. I'm sure you're perfectly pleasant to game with. You know, up until this sentence, I never used the word RAW in this thread (assuming acronyms count as words). All I've been presenting is my interpretation which doesn't really require any changes in the RAW to work. The only line that really explicitly states that an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon is in the FAQ which isn't really RAW anyway. I'll give you a metaphor. You're walking to a town behind a mountain and you come to a fork in the road. There are two paths leading around the mountain (assume for this metaphor that you either lack climbing gear or are very frail. Actually, assume you're on a segway). The two paths are well known to you; they are both the same length and will get you to the town at pretty much the same time under pretty much the same conditions. The one to the right has a tree, and the one to the left has a duck. Which road do you take? The answer is, you take the one you like the best. I like the idea that an unarmed strike is just the black sheep of the natural weapon family. It makes certain interactions easier to understand and it has yet to cause me any problems. edit: man... whatever happened to Thorak? He used to know everything about these kinds of things. Anyone remember him?Yeah, he probably got a life. Look at me. It's Saturday night for god's sake. Anyway, there it is. For what it's worth, if an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, then an unarmed single-class fighter with SUS and INA becomes sort of viable as a primary damage dealer. Sadly, I'd still rather play a warblade.
3DJutsu 02-17-07, 08:30 PM	So, your ass is a natural weapon? Didn't Sakura from Street Figther pull that one? No one will ever agree with you on this silly debate: concede the point. In Tyler we trust...what? Also just so I can justify for posting here: Read the MMI pg312 it gives a specific list of appendages that are considered 'natural attacks'. Unarmed strikes count as just that 'Unarmed strikes', a monks fist is the exception to this rule due to the wording in their class. A Natural weapon can't make a more benificial number of attacks due to its' nature, and again, the monk is the exception here, why? Simple, for all effects and intents it is both manufactured and natural, allowing feats for both to take hold. Thus a monk could take INA, but a Fighter with Imp Un Strike could not, again why? A Monks' unarmed is pretty much an extension of her/himself because, well, the Monk IS the weapon, and they got that way through a lifetime of training or one level of multiclassing. Whereas a Fighter with the feat nows how to f*ck you up without opening himself up for AoO. Now look, this debat between Tyler and Egres can go on until the Prime Materia collapses in on itself. Both of you have made your points, the question has been answered, now shut up and stop trying to inflate your e-peen by making the other guy look like an imbecile before I start rolling sneak attacks in those dark places you don't talk about...yes, THOSE places. Grow up fer christs' sake, and learn everyone will interpret things differntly, run your games the way you want to, they are yours, quit shoving this nonsential crap onto the forums. Very few people care now... if any.
tiluvias99 02-17-07, 08:40 PM	Yeah, he probably got a life. Look at me. It's Saturday night for god's sake.Ouch, right. Ah well. The night is still young where I am; but this is a decent way to kill time until the fun starts.The answer is, you take the one you like the best. I like the idea that an unarmed strike is just the black sheep of the natural weapon family. It makes certain interactions easier to understand and it has yet to cause me any problems.I have no doubt of that at all. You are completely free to do as you will. I happen to get a little annoyed when people say that the duck path is what the books (or whatever else WotC publishes) say to take when the books actually say to take the tree path, though. Still, people (especially on my side of the arguement) are getting a tad too heated on this. Ain't that big of a deal, guys.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 08:45 PM	I happen to get a little annoyed when people say that the duck path is what the books (or whatever else WotC publishes) say to take when the books actually say to take the tree path, though.Well see that's thing thing. The book never really says "stay away from the duck," in so many words. It says things like "trees are great" and "trees provide us with oxygen" and "I think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree." I think this metaphor is starting to break down. They usually do that when you take them too far. That's usually when I whip out a Family Guy reference.
Jaxgaret 02-17-07, 10:28 PM	That's usually when I whip out a Family Guy reference. I will do it for you, Tyler. And it applies quite well to your current discussion/argument/disagreement or what have you with Egres. "Chicken... gave me a bad coupon..." The fight that just would not end. And for what reason?
3DJutsu 02-17-07, 10:30 PM	I will do it for you, Tyler. And it applies quite well to your current discussion/argument/disagreement or what have you with Egres. "Chicken... gave me a bad coupon..." I'd call it a 'spat' if anything...
Pajaul 02-20-07, 09:59 PM	Eh... logically, when you have no weapons, you use your fists or your elbow, or your feet, or your butt. Which you were born with. Which is a natural weapon. Improved unarmed strike lets you deal lethal damage, and it keeps you from being AoO. Improved Natural attack means you have a beefy fist and that hurts more. or a beefy butt. That hurts more. Its kind of like that Robin Hood quote. "Brother, why a spoon(Improved Natural Attack)? Why not a knife?(Improved Unarmed strike)?" "Because its dull you idiot, it'll hurt more!" ... ... "Yes brother, but he gets an attack of opportunity on you." "I don't care I want to HURT him, WORSE THEN I COULD IF I WAS PROFICIENT WITH SPOONS!" But that’s just me. Agree or disagree if you like.
runestar 02-20-07, 10:25 PM	Your ass would be an unarmed strike actually.:)
Pajaul 02-20-07, 10:44 PM	"Brother, why a spoon(Improved Natural Attack)? Why not a knife?(Improved Unarmed strike)?" Your ass would be an unarmed strike actually.:) "I can kill with Rock/Paper/Scissors. Don't make me slash you with my butt." -My Monk with Versatile Unarmed Strike. I know.
Argo 02-20-07, 11:26 PM	I agree with Tyler on this one. Unarmed Attacks are Natural Weapons. I think the big thing that people seem to be missing is the distinction between an Unarmed Attack and other Natural Weapons. Certain entries in the Monster Manual say "Creature X is considered armed even when unarmed". This is because the creature possesses a Natural Weapon. When a PC has the feat Improved Unarmed Strike, they too are considered armed even when unarmed and now possess a true Natural Weapon. Until they get Improved Unarmed Strike, they're unarmed. After that, their fists are a weapon.
jaelis 02-20-07, 11:34 PM	Hmm, I like lists. Here are lists of the similarities and differences between unarmed strike and all other natural weapons. (Many have been mentioned already, but I'll put them all.) Differences: - Deals nonlethal damage - Provokes AoO - Can be used for iterative attacks - Can be used for off-hand attacks - Cannot be used for secondary attacks - Can be modified/enhanced by wearing gauntlets - Can be used in a flurry - Can deliver ki attacks - Does not help to qualify for multiattack (one assumes) - Can be made with any part of your body Similarities (that are different from manufactured weapons): - Can be used to deliver touch spells - Does not require any equipment (and cannot be disarmed) - Acts as a light weapon but benefits from power attack - Benefits from magic fang and similar spells - Benefits from an amulet of mighty fists It seems to me that the list of differences is long enough that considering unarmed strikes as natural weapons is kind of unappealing. I'd probably consider them as a special type of manufactured weapon first, but I think the best is calling them a third weapon type of their own.
Tsuul 02-21-07, 01:55 AM	Unarmed Strikes are affected by where the attack hits an opponent. Natural Weapons are not hampered in such a way. (PHB 139, Dealing Lethal Damage) Which very much mimics martial arts. Punch to the temple (crit), punch to a locked joint (leathal), punch to unlocked joint (subdual). Tiger claws you in the throat (crit), claw to gut (lethal), claw to rump (lethal).
Izlyn 02-21-07, 04:20 AM	Personally I have the outmost RESPECT for Tyler AND Egres or Egres AND Tyler (if you prefer Egres). But, Egres I am disappointed by your manners. Take it easy. We are all "friends" and we all enjoy playing the same game! :( No need to insult each other.
Egres 02-21-07, 08:28 AM	Personally I have the outmost RESPECT for Tyler AND Egres or Egres AND Tyler (if you prefer Egres). But, Egres I am disappointed by your manners. Take it easy. We are all "friends" and we all enjoy playing the same game! :( No need to insult each other. It's hard to take it easy, when people like Tyler doesn't respect the newbies on this forum, that could get confused by his house rules.
Feroz 02-21-07, 08:59 AM	I can't see how the unarmed strike even remotely resembles a natural weapon, at least by the rules mechanics. 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. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions. Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20. Okay, now, taking the natural weapons rules part by part. Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. Okay, makes sense, since neither natural attacks or unarmed strikes use manufactured weapons. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Unarmed Strike does not do this. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Unarmed Strike does not do this. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. Unarmed Strike does receive multiple attacks. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Unarmed Strike does not do this, otherwise the monk would recieve one attack per fist/elbow/foot/knee/head/whatever other body part he cared to use. Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20. Aha! Unarmed Strike does do this! So, on the major rules, you've got nothing, the only parts of the natural weapon entry that go even remotely your way are the natural threat range of the weapon, and the fact that both are weapons that are parts of the user's body. So when you say that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon with a few exceptions to the natural weapons rules, what you mean is that it's a natural weapon with an exception to basically every natural weapon rule? And if you're looking for even more: If a creature has only one natural weapon, that natural weapon adds the 1.5 times the creature's strength bonus, instead of only the creature's strength bonus, as stated in the Monster Manual's 'Creating a new monster' chapter, determining Attack section.
starfire311 02-21-07, 09:04 AM	Tyler, I see were you are going, and I like where you are going, I just think you may be a bit ahead of your time here. I certainly hope that 4th ed will have a better and more unified unarmed attack/unarmed strike/natural weapon mechanic, but it just isn't wuite there in 3.5.
runestar 02-21-07, 09:37 AM	I can't see how the unarmed strike even remotely resembles a natural weapon, at least by the rules mechanics. It is more apt to say that natural weapons are a subset of unarmed strikes, but governed by their own rules. Unarmed attacks consist of many categories. Natural attacks is just one of many. :)
Tyler Do'Urden 02-21-07, 11:05 AM	Differences: - Deals nonlethal damage - Provokes AoO - Can be used for iterative attacks - Can be used for off-hand attacks - Cannot be used for secondary attacks - Can be modified/enhanced by wearing gauntlets - Can be used in a flurry - Can deliver ki attacks - Does not help to qualify for multiattack (one assumes) - Can be made with any part of your bodyWell hang on now, the first two should really be paired because they're mitigated with a single feat. The second two should be paired because they're part of the same exception; that unarmed strikes function under the iterative attack rules instead of the multiattack rules. The fifth one I'm not entirely sure about, so I'm leaving it alone for now. The sixth one... ehh... Sage... changing his mind... you don't improve a sledgehammer by wrapping it with tin foil... meh. The seventh one shouldn't count. The monk class has a very specific list of weapons you can flurry with and sadly "claw" and "wing buffet" are nowhere to be seen (although, that would be an interesting half-dragon substitution level or something). I have mixed feelings about the last one. The whole "you attack with your whole body thing" is decent, it's nice when you're tied up, but you don't have to attack with your whole body, it's just an option, and I think in situations like this, it creates more problems than it solves. But that's not why I'm omitting it. I'm omitting it because the same thing could be said of slams. This leaves us with...Differences: - Deals nonlethal damage and provokes AoO without Improved Unarmed Strike - Can be used for iterative attacks and off-hand attacks - Cannot be used for secondary attacks - Can be modified/enhanced by wearing gauntlets if you catch the Sage on a good day. - Can deliver ki attacks - Does not help to qualify for multiattack (one assumes) Otherwise yeah, that's about it. Thank you by the way for not simply screaming infidelities at me.
Argo 02-22-07, 12:43 AM	Thank you by the way for not simply screaming infidelities at me. Tyler, I said earlier that I agree with you, but now I would like to take this opportunity to distance myself from you and your shameless quotation of Dashboard Confessional. Ahem... I agree with Tyler in that Unarmed Attacks are Natural Attacks. I disagree that Dashboard Confessional is worth quoting in conversation. ... Man... now that crappy song is stuck in my head. Thanks, Tyler.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-22-07, 01:14 AM	Hey, it's not my fault you've actually heard it. I just had it described at me by exes. Heh... battle ex.
Tempest Stormwind 02-22-07, 01:38 AM	Heh... battle ex.Does that compare to the broadsword or the gentlemen's club, perchance? For what it's worth, Tyler, I'm with you on this one, for all the reasons that have already been cited.
Light_Colonel 02-22-07, 02:38 AM	Interesting discussion all around, however, I would have to throw my bets down on the Tyler et.al. camp of "Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Weapons". Here are a few points as I see them, from the SRD: Magic Fang (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsMtoO.html#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.) Magic Weapon (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsMtoO.html#magic-weapon)on the other hand... You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell. Both spells seem to rather explicitly state that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon. If as people seem to be saying the Unarmed Strike is /NOT/ a natural weapon, then what is it? The choices would seem to have to be that it is either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon. If it is manufactured, can I buy masterwork fists? Adamantium fists? Unarmed strike does appear on the "Weapons" table...
Egres 02-22-07, 03:10 AM	If as people seem to be saying the Unarmed Strike is /NOT/ a natural weapon, then what is it? An unarmed strike. What impedes you to understand that something can be neither a manufactured weapon nor a natural weapon? What does stop you from seeing that there's a third category? I really can't see why your brain is limited to only two options. Not to mention that there is no support to the "there's no third category" camp. Just read Feroz's posts, that greatly lists the reasons why unarmed strikes can't be considered natural weapons. Besides, please, note that this debate is meaningless. I'm arguing from the RAW point of view. Read what Tyler wrote in a PM: What're you arguing for? For showing the RAW to the forum users. K. Did I ever say what I was posting was RAW?
Tyler Do'Urden 02-22-07, 03:18 AM	[My out-of-context PMs]Wow. That's dick. The point was I was trying to make in those "private" messages was that I was posting an interpretation of the RAW, one which I feel works well and creates fewer conflicts and less confusion than the one Egres is professing. After all, that's all any of us can talk about or play. I dig that you hate me, but that's really low. I mean, even you should be insulted by what you just did. You didn't even quote yourself verbatim. *sigh* Magic Weapon (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsMtoO.html#magic-weapon)on the other hand...You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang).They always throw that quote out based on the primary source rule. It's kind of like the 300 kg of crack the cops found in the dealer's house that couldn't be admitted as evidence because they didn't have a warrant. 'Course the primary source rule assumes that there's a disagreement between the rules and I don't think there is one in this case.
Kas 02-22-07, 03:45 AM	Besides, please, note that this debate is meaningless. I'm arguing from the RAW point of view. Then stop debating. More-so, realize that Tyler is right simply by stating that his interpretations of RAW are simply that: interpretations. Hence, this makes all your baseless accusation utterly void.
Egres 02-22-07, 08:12 AM	You didn't even quote yourself verbatim. What did I miss? Cite, please. Then stop debating. More-so, realize that Tyler is right simply by stating that his interpretations of RAW are simply that: interpretations. Hence, this makes all your baseless accusation utterly void. Nonsense. You say that I should stop debating, then state that Tyler interprets the rules. As you can see, that's a contradiction, since the RAW aren't open to every interpretation, or they would not be RAW. In fact, Tyler has nothing to support his interpretation as RAW: maybe you don't know that an interpretazsion must be based on something, not on your personal taste. A a lawyer and a Law University teacher I know the rules that govern interpretation: can you say the same? Heck, he even said that he's not arguing from the RAW point of view in the PM, and now is shamelessly trying to say the opposite. Note that no one here tried to say anything against Feroz's points, not to mention the FAQ that clearly states that the unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons. The point is: Tyler says that unarmed strikes are natural weapons with some exceptions. The problems are: 1) there is no general rule that governs natural weapons that could be applied to unarmed strikes 2) in fact, we have the opposite: there are too many differences between them, and Tyler interpretation leads to too many problems, like many feats that can be applied only to natural weapons and not to unarmed strikes, and viceversa. I can't really see why Tyler's interpretation could be supported, aside the fact that he's a funny guy, and he likes to be a jester on these boards.
jaelis 02-22-07, 08:47 AM	I can't really see why Tyler's interpretation could be supported, aside the fact that he's a funny guy, and he likes to be a jester on these boards. That's a bit disingenuous. The best reason to support his position is quite simple: in "ordinary" language, a natural weapon would typically be considered a weapon that is a part of your body. A fist, head, or foot are parts of your body... they are weapons, they are natural, so it's easy to think of them as natural weapons. Now, I totally agree with you on this... the game rules for natural weapons and unarmed strikes are different enough that I think unarmed strikes need to be considered as their own category of thing. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that fists, feet and heads aren't weapons at all... the weapon is an "unarmed strike," which is some kind of abstract thing that you can attack with using fists feet and heads. (Kind of like how you hold a sword in your hand, but not exactly.) That best describes how the rules work, but I can see why Tyler and others might find it unsatisfying.
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 08:58 AM	I'm going to have to say that I agree with the "Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon" group. Several reasons (in addition to the major differences between the two) are included below: 1) Feat "Improved Natural Attack": This feat has a prerequisite of "Natural Weapon," which would be pretty meaningless if Unarmed Strike (something anyone can do) qualified for the feat. There has already been much debate on whether a monk could take the feat (it is allowed by the way), but only because the monk's Unarmed Strike is considered both a manufactured and natural weapon (special case). The FAQ specifically mentions this case as well. 2) Natural Weapon: The definition of Natural Weapons includes a list of common Natural Weapons. This list does not include "Unarmed Strike" or "fists" in any sense. One would think that if a common weapon like a fist or Unarmed Strike were a natural weapon it would be listed here (in the primary source on what a natural weapon is). 3) Weapon Table: The Unarmed Strike is listed as an "Unarmed Attack," which clearly identifies what it is. It is neither a manufactured weapon nor a Natural Attack. It is an Unarmed Strike, which for most is a clumsy, AoO provoking non-lethal damage dealing last ditch attack. 4) Damage (Under Combat Section): When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures. Listing those separately continues to illustrate that they are not the same. 5) Under Standard Actions (Attack): They specifically categorize Unarmed Attacks to include Unarmed Strikes (for non-lethal damage), and "Armed" Unarmed Attacks to include Natural Weapons, Monk Unarmed Strikes, etc). They are listed separately, meaning that Unarmed Strike does not equate to Natural Weapon, however they are both Unarmed Attacks. The strata of attacks would look like this based on this reading of the rules: 1) Weapons A) Unarmed Attacks i) Unarmed Strike ii) Gauntlet B) "Armed" Unarmed Attacks i) Natural Weapons ii) Monk Unarmed Strike (Or Improved Unarmed Strike) iii) Spell Touch Attack C) Armed Attacks i) Manufactured Weapons Harliquinn
Zumarai 02-22-07, 08:59 AM	An 8th-level commoner can take Improved Natural Attack (unarmed), I thought only a monk could take this due to their "for the purposes of spells and effects" clause? Until PHB II came out most people said even a monk could not take INA. ...Lets talk about grappling…
Kas 02-22-07, 10:15 AM	Nonsense. You say that I should stop debating, then state that Tyler interprets the rules. As you can see, that's a contradiction, since the RAW aren't open to every interpretation, or they would not be RAW. You're stating your contradiction on a nonexistent claim: that RAW aren't open to interpretation. Yes, they are. If they weren't, then we wouldn't have house-rules or home brewed races and campaign settings. Mind you, though, I'm not arguing the validity of those rules being written, published and sold as official errata for D&D. I'm simply stating that those rules are subject to the DM's, and sometimes player's, varying definition. Whether that definition be wrong or correct in accordance to the rest of the rules is irrelevant. In fact, Tyler has nothing to support his interpretation as RAW: maybe you don't know that an interpretazsion must be based on something, not on your personal taste. I know how to spell the word at least. Zing! Seriously though, an interpretation is by definition in accordance to the individual's conception. Pertaining to D&D rules? Well, it makes sense that a monk's fists and feet would qualify as "Natural Weapons". Is it game balancing in terms for qualifying for this feat? Not so much. In fact, I'm more inclined to agree with you simply by the fact that it would be a bit overpowering for monks to be able to take INA, despite my own belief that it's completely logical that a monk's attacks could be considered Natural. A a lawyer and a Law University teacher I know the rules that govern interpretation: can you say the same? Can I say I'm a lawyer? Nope. I can say that grounding your argument on judicial law when discussing a FANTASY role-playing game is quite unwise. Also, there aren't any particular "rules" that govern interpretation. Reference my earlier statement about the very definition of the word. Heck, he even said that he's not arguing from the RAW point of view in the PM, and now is shamelessly trying to say the opposite. Note that no one here tried to say anything against Feroz's points, not to mention the FAQ that clearly states that the unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons. The point is: Tyler says that unarmed strikes are natural weapons with some exceptions. The problems are: 1) there is no general rule that governs natural weapons that could be applied to unarmed strikes 2) in fact, we have the opposite: there are too many differences between them, and Tyler interpretation leads to too many problems, like many feats that can be applied only to natural weapons and not to unarmed strikes, and viceversa. I can't really see why Tyler's interpretation could be supported, aside the fact that he's a funny guy, and he likes to be a jester on these boards. You talk about shame when you were posting PMs earlier? Strange. And yeah, being a funny guy over being antagonistic usually has it's merits.
SilverEyes 02-22-07, 10:59 AM	The point for the OP is that, yes, you can get INA for an unarmed strike (and really, this only improves your damage by 1-2 points, meaning that if you're hitting, weapon focus (due to PA) is actually better, which doesn't really make this overpowered at all). SIDE NOTE: This came up in my game with a vampire (which have a slam attack) monk (which have unarmed attacks) who was had TWF and Improved TWF (for unarmed), then with the energy drain and which attacks it applies to... My players seriously disagreed, it got ugly, I referred to the FAQ and more than one sage advice columns (honestly, I couldn't tell you which one atm). And yes, you can TWF / ITWF / GTWF with unarmed attacks. It gives you a second attack at your highest attack bonus. I realize this wasn't the topic of the thread, but I wanted to throw this out there. An example: A monk with a BAB of +9 (I believe monks do not suffer a penalty for flurrying at this BAB, correct me if I'm wrong) can make a full attack at +9/+4. Or he can flurry for +9/+9/+4. If the monk now has TWF, he can make a full attack at +7/+7/+2, or flurry and TWF for +7/+7/+7/+2. If the monk has ITWF; he can make a full attack at +7/+7/+2/+2, and flurry and TWF at +7/+7/+7/+2/+2. Tyler's Manner: For all those saying he didn't support his arguments, read above, Tyler quoted the FAQ and "primary sources" (PHB; which, naturally, should be superceded by a FAQ/errata) supporting his claims? (Also, his manner is much better :P)
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 11:19 AM	For all those saying he didn't support his arguments, read above, Tyler quoted the FAQ and "primary sources" (PHB; which, naturally, should be superceded by a FAQ/errata) supporting his claims? (Also, his manner is much better :P) Unfortunately, other than a bad reference in a couple of spells, most of the primary sources support the alternate view that Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Attacks. Harliquinn
Tyler Do'Urden 02-22-07, 01:57 PM	A [sic] a lawyer and a Law University teacher I know the rules that govern interpretation: can you say the same?Oh whaddya gonna do, have me disbarred? Teaching law doesn't make you any better at D&D than teaching kindergarten. The fact is the line "an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon" does not exist anywhere in your precious RAW whereas the opposite statement does. You, I, and everybody else who plays this game can interpret that however they please. Now, I've tried to be civil with you and I feel I've succeeded to some extent. You can keep yelling if it makes you happy, but I really don't think you're going to achieve whatever goal it is you've defined for yourself, so have fun being frustrated. Peace out, cub scouts.
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 02:22 PM	The fact is the line "an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon" does not exist anywhere in your precious RAW whereas the opposite statement does. You, I, and everybody else who plays this game can interpret that however they please. The absence of a specific line does not mean that the opposite is true, particularly when many primary source rules and definitions support the statement (See my post above). The only places I can find that even remotely imply that an Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon are the spells "Magic Fang" and "Magic Weapon." The psionic powers you mentioned have nothing to do with this discussion as they specifically mention Claws or Bites and never mention Unarmed Strikes. Even then, Magic Fang is a tenuous support at best and really only Magic Weapon explicitly says that an Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon. However, all other primary references (definitions of Natural Weapons, Attacks in combat, etc.) do not imply or state that an Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon and actually show that they are in fact different. They are both considered "Unarmed Attacks", though Natural Weapons are 'armed' Unarmed Attacks. Harliquinn
Egres 02-22-07, 02:36 PM	Oh whaddya gonna do, have me disbarred? Teaching law doesn't make you any better at D&D than teaching kindergarten. Maybe I know how to interpret rules, you know. The fact is the line "an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon" does not exist anywhere in your precious RAW whereas the opposite statement does. You, I, and everybody else who plays this game can interpret that however they please. It exists in the FAQ, and is implied in so many rules that stating the opposite is, at best, foolish. In fact, I'm still waiting for your "general rule" about natural weapons, to which the unarmed strikes rules would be exceptions to. I'll admit one thing, though: I started this thread looking at you like a time-wasting troll, and I acted accordingly. Now, I'm convinced you genuinely think that your position could be supported. The problem is: I don't see anything supporting your side. There are too many differences between unarmed strikes and natural weapons: there's no way one could be considered a subset of the other, just with "some exceptions". Besides that, ignoring the clear statement of the FAQ, that states that unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons, doesn't make your argument very solid.
gelalshawr 02-22-07, 02:44 PM	The absence of a specific line does not mean that the opposite is true, particularly when many primary source rules and definitions support the statement (See my post above). However, all other primary references (definitions of Natural Weapons, Attacks in combat, etc.) do not imply or state that an Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon and actually show that they are in fact different. They are both considered "Unarmed Attacks", though Natural Weapons are 'armed' Unarmed Attacks. Harliquinn I like how you condemn him for assuming that the lack of one denotes the presence of another, and then in the same post you do it yourself. All Tyler has said is that the RAW states (albeit only in the description of those two spells) that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, and adversely, no matter how many disparities you find between the effects of each, there is no RAW that states as blatantly, that unarmed strikes are NOT natural weapons. Oddly enough, I am of the mind that an unarmed strike really isn't a natural weapon unless you have the Improved unarmed strike feat or Monk class feature. and in my games would house-rule the feat to read thus: Improved Unarmed Strike [General] Benefit: your unarmed strikes are equivalent to natural weapons and therefore deal lethal damage and do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed foes. Unarmed foes without this feat that you threaten do provoke attacks of opportunity from you. This is all just my opinion, and not necessarily supported by RAW, just to get that out in the open now.
Egres 02-22-07, 02:50 PM	I like how you condemn him for assuming that the lack of one denotes the presence of another, and then in the same post you do it yourself. All Tyler has said is that the RAW states (albeit only in the description of those two spells) that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, and adversely, no matter how many disparities you find between the effects of each, there is no RAW that states as blatantly, that unarmed strikes are NOT natural weapons. I see your point. The fact is, however, that, talking about rules, you can't simply base your assumption on two non primary defintions that bash with all the other rules. You can't define a lion, and define a stone bridge, and then say that they are the same thing, with some "exceptions", just because you erroneously say so. Improved Unarmed Strike [General] Benefit: your unarmed strikes are equivalent to natural weapons and therefore deal lethal damage and do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed foes. Unarmed foes without this feat that you threaten do provoke attacks of opportunity from you. What would this feat do? Would I be able to do iterative attacks with my unarmed strikes after that? Would I be able to use them in TWF attacks? Can you see where I'm going?
gelalshawr 02-22-07, 02:57 PM	I see your point. The fact is, however, that, talking about rules, you can't simply base your assumption on two non primary defintions that bash with all the other rules. You can't define a lion, and define a stone bridge, and then say that they are the same thing, with some "exceptions", just because you erroneously say so. What would this feat do? Would I be able to do iterative attacks with my unarmed strikes after that? Would I be able to use them in TWF attacks? Can you see where I'm going? yes but I can define a Lynx, and a Lion, and say they are both felines. and as to your questions about my feat, Yes, and Yes, because the Improved unarmed strike, while now a natural weapon, is still an unarmed strike. Multiattack would not be of any use because an unarmed strike is an unarmed strike is an unarmed strike, no matter what part of your body you strike with. but I can see your point in that it could get confusing.
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 02:58 PM	I like how you condemn him for assuming that the lack of one denotes the presence of another, and then in the same post you do it yourself. All Tyler has said is that the RAW states (albeit only in the description of those two spells) that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, and adversely, no matter how many disparities you find between the effects of each, there is no RAW that states as blatantly, that unarmed strikes are NOT natural weapons. Actually while the sentence "Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons" does not appear verbatim, that is the result of reading many of the rules,particularly under the definition of Natural Weapons. Natural Weapons have a list and nowhere on that list does it list Unarmed Strike, fists, or anything resembling those. In the absence of said inclusion, it is therefore the rule that Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons (Since if they were suppose to be and are common to almost every creature in existence, they would be listed). Technically only one of the spells specifically says that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons, the other spell just mentions fists, bite, and other natural weapons. This implies loosely but does not state the premise, since 'other natural weapons' could modify Bite and not the whole list. Also I haven't condemned anyone. Harliquinn
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 02:59 PM	yes but I can define a Lynx, and a Lion, and say they are both felines. Yes, but then that still doesn't show that a Lynx IS a Lion, and in fact we know the converse to be true, even if somewhere, someone stated erroneously "And we know that lions, including lynxes, live on savannahs." In your analogy, both natural weapons and unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks (with natural weapons being classified as 'armed' unarmed attacks). However, that does not make them the same. Harliquinn
Egres 02-22-07, 03:02 PM	yes but I can define a Lynx, and a Lion, and say they are both felines. What would be the rules defining a "feline" in our debate? You'll find rules regarding lions and stone bridges, but not about felines.
gelalshawr 02-22-07, 03:05 PM	Also I haven't condemned anyone. Harliquinn granted, but that doesn't make you any less a hypocrite, if you have a problem with The absence of a specific line does not mean that the opposite is true then you shouldn't do the same thing yourself.
Egres 02-22-07, 03:08 PM	gelalshawr, you might want to answer to my question. What would be the rules defining a "feline" in our debate? You'll find rules regarding lions and stone bridges, but not about felines.
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 03:16 PM	granted, but that doesn't make you any less a hypocrite, if you have a problem with then you shouldn't do the same thing yourself. My references actually mean that Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons. Just look at the definition for Natural Weapon, it does not mention, nor included in its list Unarmed Strike or anything resembling one. Therefore, it is not. If you'll look up at my longer post, I listed 5-7 references that support that they are different, whereas only one spell supports they are.
gelalshawr 02-22-07, 03:29 PM	My references actually mean that Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons. Just look at the definition for Natural Weapon, it does not mention, nor included in its list Unarmed Strike or anything resembling one. Therefore, it is not. If you'll look up at my longer post, I listed 5-7 references that support that they are different, whereas only one spell supports they are. and again, you are assuming that because unarmed strike is NOT on the list, therefore it can't possibly be a natural weapon, you're listing supporting statements, that all make sense, true, but none of them actually come out and SAY it, do they?
gelalshawr 02-22-07, 03:31 PM	gelalshawr, you might want to answer to my question. What would be the rules defining a "feline" in our debate? You'll find rules regarding lions and stone bridges, but not about felines. fine, instead of "Feline", use "Animal" a swarm of bats is not the same as a swarm of beetles, but they both are swarms
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 03:31 PM	and again, you are assuming that because unarmed strike is NOT on the list, therefore it can't possibly be a natural weapon, you're listing supporting statements, that all make sense, true, but none of them actually come out and SAY it, do they? No, and the only place it says otherwise is in the supporting material for a single spell. To me, when multiple primary references (including the FAQ) that establish the rule in one way are up against a single secondary source that says it is another way, the primary sources win. Natural Weapons don't list Shortswords as a natural weapon but that certainly doesn't mean they are. Harliquinn
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 03:32 PM	fine, instead of "Feline", use "Animal" a swarm of bats is not the same as a swarm of beetles, but they both are swarms Yes, and Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons are both "Unarmed Attacks" but they are not the same.
gelalshawr 02-22-07, 03:35 PM	No, and the only place it says otherwise is in the supporting material for a single spell. To me, when multiple primary references (including the FAQ) that establish the rule in one way are up against a single secondary source that says it is another way, the primary sources win. Natural Weapons don't list Shortswords as a natural weapon but that certainly doesn't mean they are. Harliquinn You seem to think that I'm arguing with you about your sources, i'm just not fond of hypocrisy, making a statement about something and then changing your mind is one thing, but telling someone they shouldn't do something and then doing that same thing in the same post is hypocrisy.
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 03:38 PM	You seem to think that I'm arguing with you about your sources, i'm just not fond of hypocrisy, making a statement about something and then changing your mind is one thing, but telling someone they shouldn't do something and then doing that same thing in the same post is hypocrisy. Lighten up. Hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion. This is hardly that.
gelalshawr 02-22-07, 03:44 PM	The absence of a specific line does not mean that the opposite is true, particularly when many primary source rules and definitions support the statement (See my post above). The only places I can find that even remotely imply that an Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon are the spells "Magic Fang" and "Magic Weapon." The psionic powers you mentioned have nothing to do with this discussion as they specifically mention Claws or Bites and never mention Unarmed Strikes. Even then, Magic Fang is a tenuous support at best and really only Magic Weapon explicitly says that an Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon. However, all other primary references (definitions of Natural Weapons, Attacks in combat, etc.) do not imply or state that an Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon and actually show that they are in fact different. They are both considered "Unarmed Attacks", though Natural Weapons are 'armed' Unarmed Attacks. Harliquinn ok, let's try this again, so, by that definition of Hypocrisy, can you honestly tell me that your entire post is not hypocritical? Not even just hypocritical, but downright contradictory.
Egres 02-22-07, 03:49 PM	fine, instead of "Feline", use "Animal" a swarm of bats is not the same as a swarm of beetles, but they both are swarms True, but both follow the general rule that governs swarms. Can you find a general rule that governs natural weapons, and make unarmed strikes a subset of them in some way? Can you find the "feline" rules? If you can't, Tyler point of view will lose any support, since, without a general rule, there can't be any "exceptions", but only two different set of rules governing two different aspects of the game.
Egres 02-22-07, 03:51 PM	Just another question, suggested elsewhere: can a baboon attack with an unarmed strike?
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 03:53 PM	No it's not. Tyler's argument appears to be: "If the line 'Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons' does not appear in the SRD verbatim, then 'Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons.' This is not a valid argument, as I stated. The above argument is used in conjunction with a single source (secondary and contradicted by primary sources) that says Unarmed Strikes are a type of Natural Weapon. If any other rule supported this claim, there would be a case for it. However, there are no other rules that directly support this claim. My argument is: "If multiple primary sources, including a FAQ entry, infer that Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons, then Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons." While they do not state explicitly (I've conceded this before) the argument, the presence of a List of Natural Weapons, the differentiation of Unarmed Strikes from Natural Weapons on many levels (AoOs, non-lethal damage, categorization in the SRD, etc), and the answer in the FAQ all support the argument above. There is a difference. Hope that clears up the confusion. Harliquinn
Harliquinn 02-22-07, 03:53 PM	Just another question, suggested elsewhere: can a baboon attack with an unarmed strike? Sure, but he would provoke an attack of opportunity and deal non-lethal damage. Harliquinn
tiluvias99 02-22-07, 05:26 PM	Damn, I thought this thread had died already...Sure, but he would provoke an attack of opportunity and deal non-lethal damage.Seconded.Differences: - Deals nonlethal damage - Provokes AoO - Can be used for iterative attacks - Can be used for off-hand attacks - Cannot be used for secondary attacks - Can be modified/enhanced by wearing gauntlets - Can be used in a flurry - Can deliver ki attacks - Does not help to qualify for multiattack (one assumes) - Can be made with any part of your bodyJust so you know, the above bolded statements are false. With the gauntlet, there is absolutely no reason* to suggest that wearing a gauntlet modifies an unarmed strike in any way aside from allowing the wearer of one to deal lethal damage with no penalty. Gauntlet strikes are unarmed attacks, not unarmed strikes. Likewise, any modifications to an unarmed strike, such as the monk's improved damage, do not apply to gauntlet strikes for the exact same reason. *Aside from what is written in the FAQ, which actually contradicts both itself and the PHB. And, given that it conflicts with a primary source (the PHB), it is inapplicable and false. edit: I also agree with Tyler about the "wrapping a sledgehammer in tin foil" bit. The Monk's Ki Strike ability does indeed apply to Natural Weapons, because, unlike every other ability in the monk description, Ki Strike specifies that it applies to unarmed attacks, which includes natural weapons (in addition to unarmed strikes and gauntlet strikes). Also, as for dealing damage with any part of the body, I am pretty sure (not 100%) that this is also false. I believe only monks can do that, and any other character is restricted from doing anything except punches, kicks, and headbutts. edit: So, actually, to update Tyler's already updated list, we have:Differences: - Deals nonlethal damage and provokes AoO without Improved Unarmed Strike - Can be used for iterative attacks and off-hand attacks - Cannot be used for secondary attacks - Does not help to qualify for multiattack (one assumes)Even though the differences are being whittled away, note that my position that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons has not changed. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate and nit picking :D
jaelis 02-22-07, 05:27 PM	Can you find a general rule that governs natural weapons, and make unarmed strikes a subset of them in some way? Yes, you can: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. If one interprets that as the primary defining characteristic of natural weapons, then unarmed strikes are a subset of them.
tiluvias99 02-22-07, 05:36 PM	If one interprets that as the primary defining characteristic of natural weapons, then unarmed strikes are a subset of them.While I cannot diagree that you make a good point, I find whether or not "natural weapons being weapons that are physically part of a creature" is the defining characteristic to be extremely shaky. It could easily be arued that such a line is either a summary of simply fluff- in both cases non-mechanical descriptions which renders them moot for a RAW discussion.
jaelis 02-22-07, 05:40 PM	With the gauntlet, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that wearing a gauntlet modifies an unarmed strike in any way aside It's easy to argue about gauntlets, but here is a reason to suggest that they modify your unarmed strike: Gauntlet This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. The Monk's Ki Strike ability does indeed apply to Natural Weapons, because, unlike every other ability in the monk description, Ki Strike specifies that it applies to unarmed attacks, which includes natural weapons (in addition to unarmed strikes and gauntlet strikes). Wow, Stunning Fist does too! I never noticed that. So for two feats, any natural weapon can be used to stun. Huh. Also, as for dealing damage with any part of the body, I am pretty sure (not 100%) that this is also false. I believe only monks can do that, and any other character is restricted from doing anything except punches, kicks, and headbutts. That's a restrictive reading of the rules, but even so, you can deliver it with any limb, which is quite different from other natural weapons.
jaelis 02-22-07, 05:42 PM	While I cannot diagree that you make a good point, I find whether or not "natural weapons being weapons that are physically part of a creature" is the defining characteristic to be extremely shaky. It could easily be arued that such a line is either a summary of simply fluff- in both cases non-mechanical descriptions which renders them moot for a RAW discussion. I agree and I wouldn't interpret it that way, for the reasons that have been discussed. But does that mean Tyler can't?
hat 02-22-07, 06:56 PM	Isn't there a feat in arcent book (PHBII maybe???) that does something similar to "improved natural attack" but definately applies to monks?
Tempest Stormwind 02-22-07, 07:52 PM	Isn't there a feat in arcent book (PHBII maybe???) that does something similar to "improved natural attack" but definately applies to monks? Superior Unarmed Strike: in the context of a monk, that's +4 effective monk levels for unarmed damage right there. It's in the Tome of Battle. (For non-monks, it provides a pseudo-monklike unarmed damage progression.)
Egres 02-22-07, 08:26 PM	Sure, but he would provoke an attack of opportunity and deal non-lethal damage. Harliquinn But that would mean that he has more than one natural weapon. Thus, the baboon can't apply 1.5 his Str bonus to his bite attack. This, of course, if Tyler's theory is right. Unfortunately, we know that this isn't true.
Egres 02-22-07, 08:27 PM	Yes, you can: If one interprets that as the primary defining characteristic of natural weapons, then unarmed strikes are a subset of them. The fact that apples are red fruit doesn't mean that all red fruits are apples.
jaelis 02-22-07, 08:33 PM	No, but if you look in the dictionary under apple, and it happens to say: "apple (n) - a red fruit" then you could reasonably conclude that "apple" and "red fruit" are synonyms, so any red fruit is an apple. You could also reasonably think that an apple is a particular sort of red fruit. Your dictionary just isn't very good. Anyway, my comment was in response to your request for a way in the rules to interpret unarmed strikes as natural weapons "in some way." You didn't ask for "a conclusive way."
Coutts 02-22-07, 08:38 PM	You can get the feat, and I suggest doing so. I got it with my monk and he was almost unstoppable, well there were other factors... but it helped.
Egres 02-22-07, 08:50 PM	No, but if you look in the dictionary under apple, and it happens to say: "apple (n) - a red fruit" then you could reasonably conclude that "apple" and "red fruit" are synonyms Reasonably?
jaelis 02-22-07, 09:00 PM	Now how did I know you might ask that? Here are some random definitions from dictionary.com: bachelor - an unmarried man. widow - a woman who has lost her husband by death and has not remarried. teenager - a person in his or her teens. sow - an adult female swine. lawyer - a person whose profession is to represent clients in a court of law or to advise or act for clients in other legal matters. I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that all unmarried men are bachelors, any unmarried woman with a dead husband is a widow, any person in his or teens is a teenager, all adult female swine are sows, and all people who professionally represent clients in a court of law are lawyers. You would dispute this?
tiluvias99 02-22-07, 09:08 PM	I would dispute that. Definitions as such are not "complete" definitions- the word itself is not a synonym with it's definition. To go along with your apple example, by what you're saying, any red fruit would be an apple- which is definitely false. In addition, by what you're saying, anything that wasn't a red fruit couldn't be an apple- which, again, is false. Believe me, I made the exact same arguement that you're making once, actually, about generally the same sort of things- how Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons interacted. I was arguing that the monk's unarmed damage should apply to natural weapons, because, by the glossary, an "unarmed strike" was "a successful blow... from a character without weapons." But that did not mean that any successful blow from a character without weapons was an "unarmed strike", even if it "qualified for the definition". I was wrong before, just as you are wrong now. edit: Man... that was back in the old days... it was Thorak that shot me down. Huh.
jaelis 02-22-07, 09:18 PM	Look, I'm not saying that all red fruits are apples. Nor that all apples are red fruits. I'm just saying that if you didn't know any better, looked up "apple" in the dictionary and it said "a red fruit," then it would be reasonable to think that all red fruit are apples. That doesn't mean that the dictionary is wrong if you find a strawberry, you've just used the wrong interpretation. But I wouldn't go around getting on someone's case for making the assumption... nothing in that dictionary entry itself would tell you it is wrong if you didn't already know. In the actual case of natural weapons, a few people here seem to read the definition of natural weapons as being a physical part of the creature as the key point. I think it is wrong for them to assert that this proves that unarmed strikes are natural attacks (just like it would be wrong to assert the dictionary has proven that strawberries are apples). But neither is it correct for Egres to say that there is zero basis in the rules for thinking that they are. Also, you are aware that you are disputing the fact that all unmarried men are bachelors, right? I think I actually could win that argument. (Though it could be a long story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism) :))
Light_Colonel 02-22-07, 09:19 PM	While I disagree with this answer I got back... CustServ would seem to agree that Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons.... Response (Sam) 02/22/2007 06:04 PM Hi there XXXX, No. Unarmed attacks are not natural weapons. An unarmed attack is not a punch. It is the act of damaging your opponent with your body, via headbutt, knee, elbow, kick, or even punch. There is however, the Superior Unarmed Strike feat in the Tome of Battle (pg.33) that can increase the damage dealt by an unarmed attack. Take Care and Good Gaming! :) Sam Customer (XXXXX) 02/22/2007 05:50 PM Does a normal humanoids "Unarmed Strike" count as a Natural Weapon for the purposes of the "Improved Natural Attack" feat? Note that this not referring to a Monk's Unarmed Attack, but rather for the sake of arguement a 20th level commoner. (Note that the above was edited for brevity, removing things like "Did this help?" "Take a survey?" Etc. that are auto added to the message) I must say... that was a fast response. Fairly impressive, even if it was not the answer I wanted to hear. So for the time being I concede that Unarmed Strike is, inexplicably, not a natural weapon (despite being listed as such by spells...)
tiluvias99 02-22-07, 09:35 PM	Also, you are aware that you are disputing the fact that all unmarried men are bachelors, right? I think I actually could win that argument. (Though it could be a long story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism) :))Holy crap :eek: Regardless, I think in that specific case the definition and word itself are synonomous- however, that is not true of all words and their respective definitions. ...I think we're both arguing the same side with this. I'll stop :P edit: Wow, 100th post. It can't be a "real" INA thread unless you break 100 posts. Then again, back in the day, I recall these kinds of threads hitting >15 pages. ...Damn. Memories...
Pajaul 02-22-07, 10:26 PM	I think we are getting into splitting hairs here but I’d like to, if I may, add in a little something… I think the reasoning behind Natural Attack and Unarmed Strike are based on intent. Okay we shall use a lion and a human for my example. Now, the lion has claws and the human does not. Now by reasoning then, as claws are a natural weapon designed and intended to be used as weapons, claws are Natural Attacks. Humans do not have claws they have fingers, and in this way their hands are not designed as a natural attack, in the same sense that claws are. Claws are in this way a specialty item used to claw. Fingers are not. However, a human can ball up his fingers and then use his strength and momentum to hit something, or by force use his feet, elbows, any body part. These body parts were not designed to do this, but using them this way is a weapon. But not a natural attack. (out of game biological reasoning referenced only to speculate on in-game WotC reasoning) In this way the reasoning that an Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon because it was not intended nor designed to be, as it is generally ineffective (hence the penalty for making an unarmed strike without the feat). Okay. However. With training, be it martial arts and or resistance training, the hands or any body part can be conditioned be effective as a weapon. That is, they can be elevated above their status, as we see with hands that can shatter brick, or a head butt that can shatter boards etc. This level of training is represented by Improved Unarmed Strike. It means that the direct application or training of an Unarmed Attack into an actual weapon makes it then a ‘natural weapon’. (One could argue that this type of training was more of a ‘manufacturing’ of a sufficient use of body to make a weapon, but I would rather not go down that road.) In any case. I am therefore of the opinion that the Unarmed Strike is NOT a Natural Attack unless trained to be so and thus infused with Improved Unarmed Strike. Therefore, I would think an Improved Unarmed Strike would count as a Natural Attack since it changes the intent of the natural body of a being into an unintended purpose. I think Versatile Unarmed Strike supports this by forcing the user to first have Improved Unarmed Strike, which changes the intent and design of his body into a Natural Attack or a Weapon in itself, and can therefore do Slashing, Piercing, Bludgeoning damage. If however you wish to have a Core rule that supports this claim, (the claim being that Improved Unarmed Strike turns Unarmed Strikes into Natural Weapons) I would point to the Monk class that states Improved Unarmed Strike as a main feature. However, I realize that the wording in the PHB for Monks is specifically designed for monks therefore could also be used against my argument stating proof that Improved Unarmed Strikes outside of Monks are not Natural Attacks. However, as further feats and such –like Versatile Unarmed strike and Superior Unarmed Strike- are not Monk only, I think it is alright to assume those who take these feats outside of the Monk class receive their benefit. Or Rather I can argue against my point by saying Superior Unarmed Strike is meant in place of Improved Natural Attack, but as it does not say that anywhere (at least that I am aware of) then I will boldly if foolishly assume that they can be taken together as long as the perquisite of Improved Unarmed Strike it taken as well. On the other (unarmed) hand, as Improved Natural Attack does not state a perquisite for Improved Unarmed Strike in the rules I can not say it is fully supported that Improved Unarmed Strike makes Unarmed Strikes Natural Weapons. But I still will hold with the opinion, for now anyway, that: Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Attacks, however taking Improved Unarmed Strike is the process of making an Unarmed Strike into a Natural Attack and therefore once one has Improved Unarmed Strike they may take Improved Natural Attack. Like Monks. I apologize for the Lack of clarity in my ‘thinking out loud’ and welcome any civil debate or criticism against my argument. I only logically followed a path that was created by my own thinking supported by what few WotC rules I know of. I do not claim superiority in rule known nor total experiences with rules, I only make my claim based on fair reasoning with what materials I have on hand. Thank you for reading.
Dragoon2112 02-23-07, 12:49 AM	This can come down to one thing and that is the fact Monks unarmed strike is the same as an attack from a non monk or even a monster. The difference in a monk is they are trained to use their natural weapon more effectively. As far as the manufatured fact on a monk unarmed strike only refers to the use of spell being cast on a monks hands to do addtional damage or attack bonuses. So using this feat to improve upon a monk would be the same as their natural bonus for obtaining higher levels which basicaly comes down to being trained even better than they were before. Treat feats as skills that are constantly active and do not require any action to activate or even a role to see if it works.
Toptomcat 02-23-07, 01:35 AM	Everyone here should keep in mind that Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) is listed as a reccomended feat for monks in the PHB II.
Egres 02-23-07, 03:11 AM	Everyone here should keep in mind that Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) is listed as a reccomended feat for monks in the PHB II. Only for monks, due to their special clause. No answers to my baboon example?
Mediator 02-23-07, 12:53 PM	The whole discussion is a bit pointless due to 2 reasons: 1.) It seems a lot of people are assuming that whoever wrote the RAW is/are master linguist(s). My guess is, the aren't; they did not evaluate every single word what it could mean and what it shouldn't mean. So getting semi-religiously hysterical about single words and definitions only leaves a bad feeling with me. 2.) The main point is missed (though it is a rather old one): "If everybody everybody of a certain class will take this feat, it is probably overpowered". If a DM allows INA for monks, every monk will have it which should make the feat a class feature and not a feat (same is true for natural spell and druids, but that is a different issue).
BW0222 02-23-07, 01:28 PM	Folks, >Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons. Sure they are. Name one aspect of the rules that requires a distinction between them. Let's see... 1. Unarmed strikes provoke an AoO unless you have the improved unarmed strike feat. Natural weapons do not. 2. You do not threaten anyone with unarmed strikes, unless you have the improved unarmed stike feat. With natural weapons you are always considered armed -- even without the improved unarmed strike feat. 3. Unarmed stike damage is based solely on the creature's size - except for special rules of monks. Natural weapon attacks are based on the creature's physical charateristics. 4. Unarmed strikes always do bludgeoning damage. Natural weapon attacks do various types of damage depending upon the attack. 5. Unarmed strikes normally do subdual damage unless you have the improved unarmed strike feat. You can do sudual damage without any penalty when making an unarmed strike. With natural weapons you take a -4 penalty to attack roles when attempting to do subudal damage. You can't attempt to do sudual damage with natural weapons which do only piercing damage. 7. You use your BAB to determine the number of unarmed stikes you get per round. With natural weapons the number of attacks you get are based solely on your body type (and MM description of the creature). You are stickly forbidden from gaining further attacks based on a high BAB. A 3HD leopard gets 2 claws and a bite even with a +2 BAB. A 16hd snark still only gets one bite attack despite a high BAB. 8. Natural weapons define primary and secondary weapons. Unarmed strikes have no such concept. Some will say TWF rules of an off-hand are the same, but they aren't. You can have multiple primary natural weapon attacks (say claws) and you can't have multiple primary unarmed attacks. Secondary natural weapons are at -5. (or -2 with the right feat) while TWF rules are completely different. In the case of unarmed stikes, they make no sense because of kicks, elbows, head-butts, etc. 9. Natural weapon attacks are stictly forbidden from being combined with manufactured weapons -- except in the specific case where the monster entry lists both a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon in the same full attack sequence. A troll (by the RAW) can attack with claw/claw/bite or a club. It can't do claw/club/bite. A centaur could do hoof/hoof/spear - but only because the entry says so. However, any creature can combine unarmed strikes and normal weapons, using the TWF rules -- or freely as a monk using monk weapons. Sword/punch or punch/punch/dagger. 10. FAQ covers the fact that only creatures normally able to combine natural weapon attacks and manufactured weapon attacks (as listed in the MM) are permitted to combine natural weapon attacks and unarmed strikes. For example, a troll can't use unarmed strike/claw/bite, while a centaur could use hoof/hoof/unarmed strike. 11. Unarmed strikes are defined in the PHB. Natural weapons are defined in the MM. The text is completely different. Anyone saying there are no differences is simply not looking.