Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jaelis 11-17-07, 11:06 AM	Is there a problem with the reasoning? 1) Monks have a special rule allowing them to treat their unarmed strikes as both natural and manufactured weapons for the purpose of effects that enhance weapons. This suggests that non-monks must generally treat their unarmed strikes as one or the other, but not both. 2) The magic fang and magic weapon spells, along with the amulet of mighty fists, make it clear that non-monks treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for the purpose of those effects, which do enhance natural weapons. This resolves the possibilities from (1), and indicates that non-monks should generally treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for purposes of enhancements. 3) The FAQ ruled that the Improved Natural Attack feat is a form of weapon enhancement. Since any character treats their unarmed strike as a natural weapon for the purpose of enhancements, any character can take INA for their unarmed strike. :evillaugh:
strenoth 11-17-07, 11:08 AM	that is pretty much how I would treat it. It's a natural weapon for most purposes, but you only have it once and make iterative attacks with it unlike other natural weapons.
Tectorman 11-17-07, 11:39 AM	Yep, that's reasonable. Now, take note that some people take that phrase in the Monk's unarmed strike description as meaning that "Monks get to treat their unarmed strikes as both manufactured and natural, while everyone else doesn't get to do either (neither manufactured nor natural)". (Not me, of course; I believe otherwise. But some people do.)
Grumman 11-17-07, 12:13 PM	Although I agree with your conclusion, I'd like to point out a few errors in your reasoning which may be counter-productive if you ever need to argue the point. 1) Monks have a special rule allowing them to treat their unarmed strikes as both natural and manufactured weapons for the purpose of effects that enhance weapons. This suggests that non-monks must generally treat their unarmed strikes as one or the other, but not both. This argument is rather weak, as the monk entry makes no direct mention of what non-monk unarmed strikes count as. This argument could just as easily support a position that unarmed strikes count as manufactured but not natural weapons, as absurd as that is. 2) The magic fang and magic weapon spells, along with the amulet of mighty fists, make it clear that non-monks treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for the purpose of those effects, which do enhance natural weapons. This resolves the possibilities from (1), and indicates that non-monks should generally treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for purposes of enhancements. The amulet of mighty fists does not provide evidence supporting this position. It mentions unarmed strikes and natural weapons, but does not state that unarmed strikes are natural weapons. The magic fang and magic weapon spells do state that unarmed strikes are a subset of natural weapons, and do support this argument.
CryoSilver 11-17-07, 12:38 PM	In any case, taking Superior Unarmed Strike from ToB is probably a better deal.
blade265 11-17-07, 12:55 PM	This is from Wizards Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (part 2) http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weaponry Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons. Nor is a natural weapon a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. As we saw in Part One, unarmed strikes allow iterative attacks and natural weapons do not. A feat that requires natural weaponry as a prerequisite, such as Multiattack, doesn't work with unarmed strikes. Likewise, having a natural weapon is not a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. For example, you don't meet the Improved Unarmed Strike prerequisite for the Deflect Arrows feat if you just have a natural weapon. Remember, however, that magic weapon enhancements that work with natural weaponry, such as the magic fangspell, also work with unarmed attacks. This rule allows pugilists and martial artists access to some magic weapon enhancements (also see the next section). It also reflects the fact that a creature making an unarmed strike is using part of its body in the attack.
risner 11-17-07, 01:32 PM	Is there a problem with the reasoning? 1) Monks have a special rule allowing them to treat their unarmed strikes as both natural and manufactured weapons for the purpose of effects that enhance weapons. This suggests that non-monks must generally treat their unarmed strikes as one or the other, but not both. 2) The magic fang and magic weapon spells, along with the amulet of mighty fists, make it clear that non-monks treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for the purpose of those effects, which do enhance natural weapons. This resolves the possibilities from (1), and indicates that non-monks should generally treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for purposes of enhancements. 3) The FAQ ruled that the Improved Natural Attack feat is a form of weapon enhancement. Since any character treats their unarmed strike as a natural weapon for the purpose of enhancements, any character can take INA for their unarmed strike. :evillaugh: 1) Only Monks can treat them as Manufactured and Natural. Non Monk Unarmed Strikes are neither Manutfactured nor Natural weapons, as they are simply Unarmed Strikes. 2) A spell's effects can be and is often different than the norm. A spell granting Unarmed Strikes the benefit of being considered Natural Weapon should not be misinterpreted as Unarmed Strikes are normally Natural Weapons. 3) Can you show me the exact FAQ that indicates this? I can find no such line in the FAQ.
jaelis 11-17-07, 03:00 PM	1) Only Monks can treat them as Manufactured and Natural. Non Monk Unarmed Strikes are neither Manutfactured nor Natural weapons, as they are simply Unarmed Strikes. I can't deny that possibility, but the rules do in fact seem to consistently treat them as working like one or the other in most respects. 2) A spell's effects can be and is often different than the norm. A spell granting Unarmed Strikes the benefit of being considered Natural Weapon should not be misinterpreted as Unarmed Strikes are normally Natural Weapons. But if every spell that can affect natural weapons also says it affects unarmed strikes, then it is undeniably true that unarmed strikes are treated like natural weapons for the purpose of spells. Extrapolating that to more general effects does run into the problem you pointed out with (1). 3) Can you show me the exact FAQ that indicates this? I can find no such line in the FAQ. You don't think that is what this means? 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.
Legdiwena 11-17-07, 03:08 PM	But, nomral classes without IUS, do not threaten with their unarmed strikes and provoke AoO with using them. This is contrary to being a manufactured or natural weapon.
Duzzle 11-17-07, 03:18 PM	There is another thread on the exact same subject right next to this one you know. Anyways, as was pointed out in the other older thread 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.) Fists are shown on equal ground with things we know to be natural weapons for sure, then theres the statement of "or other natural weapons" implying that all of the previous are in fact natural weapons. And even more decisive Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.) 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. There, it specifically says an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, and as you can tell by the later sentence it is referring to non-monk unarmed strikes when it calls them natural weapons.
jaelis 11-17-07, 06:09 PM	But, nomral classes without IUS, do not threaten with their unarmed strikes and provoke AoO with using them. This is contrary to being a manufactured or natural weapon. So a whip is not a manufactured weapon either? How interesting. The point being that neither natural nor manufactured weapons have "don't provoke AoOs" as an essential part of their definition. Normally they don't, but individual weapons might as their individual descriptions specify. If you ask me, the essential difference between natural and manufactured weapons is how they are used in combat: natural weapons can't make iterative attacks, while manufactured weapons can. But if you or Duzzle or anyone wants to say that the essential difference is whether they are affected by magic fang or magic weapon, that's fine with me. (Or, more reasonably, you could pretty sensibly argue any weapon which is physically part of a creature is a natural weapon.) Just be sure to keep in mind that unarmed strikes use the manufactured rules for weapons in combat, not the natural weapons rules. The point of my OP is that arguably, even if you don't take unarmed strikes to be natural weapons, you might be convinced that they are treated as such for purposes of enhancement effects, and therefore INA would still work.
risner 11-18-07, 01:48 AM	I can't deny that possibility, but the rules do in fact seem to consistently treat them as working like one or the other in most respects. But if every spell that can affect natural weapons also says it affects unarmed strikes, then it is undeniably true that unarmed strikes are treated like natural weapons for the purpose of spells. Extrapolating that to more general effects does run into the problem you pointed out with (1). You don't think that is what this means? The rules seem to consistently spell out they can sub for Natural Weapons in spells, that isn't the same thing as the rules saying they are the same thing. The text you posted from the FAQ seems to clearly say this is for Monks only. At least to me it does. There, it specifically says an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, and as you can tell by the later sentence it is referring to non-monk unarmed strikes when it calls them natural weapons. Again, something written in a spell is an indication that by RAW the feature is not allowed. So if it is included in the spell means it is not included normally.
jaelis 11-18-07, 07:57 AM	The text you posted from the FAQ seems to clearly say this is for Monks only. At least to me it does. Well, it is certainly only monks who specifically have the ability to treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for the purpose of spells and effects, but I would have said that "for the purpose of meeting feat prereqs" was either an "effect" or not, independently of who is asking the question.
risner 11-18-07, 01:49 PM	Well, it is certainly only monks who specifically have the ability to treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for the purpose of spells and effects, but I would have said that "for the purpose of meeting feat prereqs" was either an "effect" or not, independently of who is asking the question. I didn't follow you. I don't understand what you mean, could you explain it again?
jaelis 11-18-07, 03:32 PM	The thought was this: - Monk have the special ability to treat their unarmed strike as a natural weapon for certain purposes. - For a long time, everyone argued about whether one of those purposes was the ability to satisfy feat prereqs. - The FAQ came along, and said yes, it does work for feat prereqs. - But if you go back again and look at the monk ability, it seems like what it is really granting is the ability to treat your unarmed strike as a manufactured weapon. All the enhancing effects in the rules that specifically do work with unarmed strikes also work with natural weapons anyway. - So one might conclude that everyone's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of enhancing effects. In that regard, a monk's unarmed strike would be just like anyone else's. - So since a monk qualifies for INA, so would anyone else. (I agree with your's and other's point that this argument only works if you require that unarmed strikes are treated as either natural weapon or manufactured weapons, and not as some sui generis category of their own.)
risner 11-18-07, 08:49 PM	- But if you go back again and look at the monk ability, it seems like what it is really granting is the ability to treat your unarmed strike as a manufactured weapon. All the enhancing effects in the rules that specifically do work with unarmed strikes also work with natural weapons anyway. Ic Well, by my reading of PHB p136, I don't see how it can be argued that Unarmed Strikes are not in the same class as "Manufactured Weapons." Taking that and the MM classification separating Manufactured and Natural into different classes plus the fact that no place in the rules does it say that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons. Only inside Monk's does it provide for qualifying for Manufactured or Natural weapons as Unarmed Strikes.
jaelis 11-18-07, 09:59 PM	Well, by my reading of PHB p136, I don't see how it can be argued that Unarmed Strikes are not in the same class as "Manufactured Weapons." I agree (though I can understand the other side). But even if one accepts that unarmed strikes really are manufactured weapons, you might still reasonably conclude from the evidence that they are treated as natural weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance natural weapons. That is not a contradiction, it just says that they are a special kind of manufactured weapon, which we already knew.
Duzzle 11-18-07, 11:23 PM	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. You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike I'm not sure how much more obvious it can get. I also fail to see why a spell description that specifically says unarmed strike is a natural weapon, should be discounted simply because it is a spell description.
jaelis 11-19-07, 12:08 AM	No one says you have to discount it, but I do because, as you say, it is a spell description. I'll take that as the definitive source for rules about that spell, but for unarmed strikes and natural weapons, I will turn to the unarmed strike and natural weapon rules. And spell descriptions are not uncommonly wrong. Would you let vampires be subject to mind-affecting spells because antipathy says they are? Does break enchantment work on flesh to stone?
Duzzle 11-19-07, 12:34 AM	Alright, if we choose to ignore the one thing which specifically answers the question at hand, leaving only those which give incomplete or unclear answers then why don't we move on to the back of the PHB then? According to the glossary in the PHB a natural weapon is "A creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages." I assume you will now say the glossary is isn't a reliable enough source. Whatever, I'm done, I've shown RAW that says I'm correct and been pointed towards such things as PHB 136 which is about AC modifiers, touch attacks, hitpoints, speed, saving throws and initiative. Page 139 talks about unarmed attacks (perhaps what risner meant) which mentions how claws and fangs count as "armed" unarmed attacks. I've been told unarmed attacks are manufactured weapons...which is completely illogical. By this point I'm also fairly certain that we're arguing over semantics. I'm saying unarmed strikes are natural weapons with certain restrictions, and I'm being told unarmed strikes are manufactured weapons with the exact same restrictions plus they count as natural weapons for enchanting/magic. Edit:And spell descriptions are not uncommonly wrong. Would you let vampires be subject to mind-affecting spells because antipathy says they are? Does break enchantment work on flesh to stone? Just checked the SRD, antipathy says nothing that implies it can affect vampires and break enchantment also has nothing saying it can break flesh to stone. If you plan on discrediting what I've said, try to use actual facts.
risner 11-19-07, 07:54 AM	I'm not sure how much more obvious it can get. I also fail to see why a spell description that specifically says unarmed strike is a natural weapon, should be discounted simply because it is a spell description. You must be new to D&D? No, it absolutely does not say it is a natural weapon, period. What something is or isn't inside a spell or specific ability has no bearing on what it is or isn't outside the context of that spell or ability. At no time have I argued that Unarmed Strikes are consider a substitute for Natural Weapons inside a select few spells, but this does not mean they are considered a substitute for spells or abilities that they are not called out specifically as allowed.
jaelis 11-19-07, 08:59 AM	I'm saying unarmed strikes are natural weapons with certain restrictions, and I'm being told unarmed strikes are manufactured weapons with the exact same restrictions plus they count as natural weapons for enchanting/magic. The thing is that unarmed strikes don't act like natural weapons with certain restrictions... they don't act like natural weapons at all. It's sort of a formal vs operational approach. Formally, unarmed strikes are unambiguously natural weapons. Operationally, they function as manufactured weapons. Which one you think is primary is probably a question of personality or something. Edit: Just checked the SRD, antipathy says nothing that implies it can affect vampires and break enchantment also has nothing saying it can break flesh to stone. If you plan on discrediting what I've said, try to use actual facts. You might want to check your PHB when you get a chance.
Duzzle 11-19-07, 10:43 AM	No, it absolutely does not say it is a natural weapon, period.See, this is why its impossible to have a debate with you, some how "a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike" as "absolutely" not "a natural weapon, period". I'm sure they decided to throw in "a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike" to a spell description because its actually some kind of lie or did I miss some earlier rule in the book that says "nothing in spell descriptions can ever be taken into account beyond that exact specific spell". You don't even give a logical reason as to why spell descriptions should be ignored, instead you question my experience in the game and say that unarmed strikes only count as natural weapons for the strict purpose of not being affected by magic weapon, wouldn't they then just say "unarmed strikes, except those of the monk cannot be affected by magic weapon". It just seems to me that they wouldn't say it was a natural weapon if it weren't. You might want to check your PHB when you get a chance. I've been using the SRD for all of my statements because it gets updated.
jaelis 11-19-07, 10:53 AM	I've been using the SRD for all of my statements because it gets updated. The srd is also incomplete in several ways, so the actual books have to take priority. Neither of the issue I mentioned have been addressed in an errata or FAQ, so the misstatements are real. You're welcome to take them as irrelevant, because their existance doesn't mean that the natural attack text is in error. But they can't be dismissed out of hand.
risner 11-19-07, 02:16 PM	You don't even give a logical reason as to why spell descriptions should be ignored How about this zinger, it isn't the primary text for Unarmed Strikes. In the primary text for Unarmed Strikes it says they are Manufactured weapons and they have iterative attacks. A Natural Weapon's primary text says it isn't a Manufactured weapon and they don't have iterative attacks. I don't know how more plain it needs to be, but you do not come from a position of strength with any of the rules quotes you have shown. You may be right, but you certainly haven't shown anything in the rules that backs it up. Edit: Just checked the SRD, antipathy says nothing that implies it can affect vampires and break enchantment also has nothing saying it can break flesh to stone. If you plan on discrediting what I've said, try to use actual facts. Not to mention being absolutely wrong and then coming out with an attack on jaelis when he was right all the time on the Antipathy point makes you look all the less knowledgeable on the subject.