Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ProjectA 11-16-07, 04:42 PM	My friend who is currently dming says that only a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon. Characters without monk class levels who took the improved unarmed strike feat do not count and so can't get improved natural attack(unarmed strike). I say that unarmed strike is obviously a natural attack because you are using your body. He says that that is only RAI and not RAW since we've only found any mention of unarmed strike counting as a natural weapon in the monk class features of the PHB. I say I'm going turn into the HULK if he keeps this up. Does unarmed strike count as a natural weapon only if it is "monk's unarmed strike"?
dman11235 11-16-07, 05:00 PM	Any unarmed strike is a natural attack. Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#unarmedStrike) is the text on it. They would not mention that it counts as a weapon for some things if it was not a natural weapon. They would have said that it is not a natural weapon if it wasn't. The fact is that it is different from both a weapon and a natural weapon, it is a combination of both.
Duzzle 11-16-07, 05:08 PM	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. Unarmed Attacks Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following: Attacks of Opportunity Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe. An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below). "Armed" Unarmed Attacks Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. I'm gonna have to side with your DM, its not a natural attack unless you know how to use it without provoking an attack of opportunity. Though you could still take Improved Unarmed Strike as a non-Monk and probably get it to count as a natural attack...but why would you? Why on earth spend a feat getting your punches to go from 1d3 to 1d4 damage? Also, note the bold, it makes a clear separation between unarmed attacks and natural attacks.
NoldorForce 11-16-07, 05:46 PM	Magic Weapon explicitly states that the unarmed strike (monk's or not) is a natural weapon, and Magic Fang implies the same. So you're right, though taking Improved Natural Attack on the unarmed strike as-is is a poor choice. Though it's a natural weapon, it doesn't get some qualities associated with them; this is an example of specific text overriding more general stuff.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.)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.
Duzzle 11-16-07, 05:52 PM	Magic Weapon explicitly states that the unarmed strike (monk's or not) is a natural weapon, and Magic Fang implies the same. So you're right, though taking Improved Natural Attack on the unarmed strike as-is is a poor choice. Though it's a natural weapon, it doesn't get some qualities associated with them; this is an example of specific text overriding more general stuff. Fair enough, your right.
The_Shaman 11-16-07, 06:04 PM	By the way, I've had a question about unarmed attacks: if you have improved TWF or greater TWF and deliver an off-hand unarmed attack when using a two-handed weapon, would you get itirative attacks?
blade265 11-16-07, 06:25 PM	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. Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (part 2) http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a part 1 http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a part 2 http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a Part 3
blade265 11-16-07, 06:31 PM	By the way, I've had a question about unarmed attacks: if you have improved TWF or greater TWF and deliver an off-hand unarmed attack when using a two-handed weapon, would you get itirative attacks? Have a look through these, especially part 3: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a part 1 http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a part 2 http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a Part 3
NoldorForce 11-16-07, 06:35 PM	The Rules of the Game articles are not rules themselves, but instead exist to explain the current rules. And the current rules explicitly note that (as above) unarmed strikes are natural weapons (though with some exceptions). Besides, Skip Williams has been known to bend/get confused about the rules in those articles before. @ The_Shaman: They get treated like any other iterative attack. Which means yes.
The_Shaman 11-16-07, 06:48 PM	Yeah, I had seen those articles, but wanted to be sure. This is just too nice for anyone with a TWF style and good unarmed damage - swinging a two-hander and making unarmed strikes as off-hand attacks - so I had to check :) .
dman11235 11-16-07, 06:53 PM	No you can't. (Oh no, not again). You need something other than just the unarmed strike to TWF. But it looks like that's not what you're asking. Yes you can make iterative attacks with an unarmed strike (that's one part that's similar to weapons), but you cannot TWF with only unarmed strikes.
The_Shaman 11-16-07, 07:03 PM	Can't you? Weird. So you can do more attacks with two hands holding knives than 2 hands, 2 feet, and a plethora of other body parts :rolleyes: ? Anyway, I was asking if you could TWF a two-handed weapon as a main attack and unarmed strike as the off-hand one. It could be great for multi/prestige-classed rangers, for example, who get the TWF feat tree for free.
strenoth 11-16-07, 10:08 PM	I think Dman misread you to say the you were going to TWF with unarmed strikes on both sides. I do believe that technically, you can TWf with a THW and your unarmed strike.
Tectorman 11-16-07, 11:19 PM	No you can't. (Oh no, not again). You need something other than just the unarmed strike to TWF. But it looks like that's not what you're asking. Yes you can make iterative attacks with an unarmed strike (that's one part that's similar to weapons), but you cannot TWF with only unarmed strikes. Oh, no, not this again. :banghead: Wizards: Hey, do you hear that? It sounds as though some players aren't quite sure whether you can two-weapon fight using only unarmed strikes. Do you have that question in the FAQ stack? All right, put an affirmative to that in the next FAQ update. *Time passes.* Wizards: What? They still don't believe us. Get Skip Williams over here. Skip, which part of the Rules of the Game are you working on right now? Well, when you're done with that, cover two-weapon fighting next, and make sure you put it in there that yes, you can two-weapon fight with only unarmed strikes. Huh? The next issue of Dragon magazine needs ideas for the class acts article? Okay, which two classes is it? Paladin and Barbarian... Um, put in a alternative ability for the Barbarian to two-weapon fight, but only when he's using only unarmed strikes. There. If that doesn't convince those players that when we say "yes, you can two-weapon fight with only unarmed strikes", we mean "yes, you can two-weapon fight with only unarmed strikes", then I don't know what will. What do you mean "put it in an official errata"? We don't use the errata unless we're correcting something we printed earlier. If something is unclear, we use the FAQ. If something is left open to interpretation (whether we did it deliberately or not), we use the FAQ. But we only use the errata to say "yes, when we said 'this', we meant 'this', but now we are convinced that was a mistake and now we mean 'this'". ... Why am I reminded of the Family Guy episode where Peter becomes president of the El Dorado cigarettes company? "The last thing we want is for kids to start smoking." "Then why does that chart say 'The first thing we want is for kids to start smoking'." "Oh, that was just something my son made in art class." "Well, then why does that poster right next to it say 'The chart was not made in art class, we really want kids to start smoking'." :banghead:
risner 11-17-07, 12:11 AM	My friend who is currently dming says that only a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon. Characters without monk class levels who took the improved unarmed strike feat do not count and so can't get improved natural attack(unarmed strike). Does unarmed strike count as a natural weapon only if it is "monk's unarmed strike"? Yes, only Monk's get the "counts as Natural weapon." The RAW is clear on this, but I have no opinion on the RAI.
Tectorman 11-17-07, 12:23 AM	Yes, only Monk's get the "counts as Natural weapon." The RAW is clear on this, but I have no opinion on the RAI. So the two SRD quotes mentioned above don't count? I can understand the fact that only a Monk's unarmed attack is specifically mentioned as being a natural weapon and no word on anyone else's and thus it's ambiguous. The wording of the Magic Fang and Magic Weapon spells may only be referring to the Monk's unarmed attack (it being the only fist that counts as a natural weapon). On the other hand, the specific wording is "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects [and so on and so forth]." Well, to me, this means one of two things: 1.) A monk's unarmed strike is a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon and no one else's is. 2.) A monk's unarmed strike is a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon; everyone else has to make do with their unarmed strikes only being considered natural and not manufactured. Both are plausible and neither are denied in the RAW.
Duzzle 11-17-07, 01:09 AM	Um, put in a alternative ability for the Barbarian to two-weapon fight, but only when he's using only unarmed strikes. There. If that doesn't convince those players that when we say "yes, you can two-weapon fight with only unarmed strikes", we mean "yes, you can two-weapon fight with only unarmed strikes", then I don't know what will. Actually if it requires an alternative ability to do it then that means its not normally possible. Doesn't unarmed strike represent using your body as a whole as a weapon (punching if you can, but maybe elbowing if thats better), if thats the case then it seems completely illogical to two-weapon fight with one weapon. It would be like two-weapon fighting with a bite attack and nothing else, or a single longsword.
ProjectA 11-17-07, 02:43 AM	You can two weapon fighting with a single quarterstaff and attack with the two ends. But let's not get distracted, folks. To say that your body is not a natural attack unless you have a level in monk is just silly. Maybe that is RAW, but it can't be what was intended. I'm just going to have to try to convince him that RAI is what rule zero is for and that it's pretty much built into the game. There's no need to always follow RAW if something is that untouched in the rules, in my opinion.
Tectorman 11-17-07, 02:46 AM	Actually if it requires an alternative ability to do it then that means its not normally possible. Doesn't unarmed strike represent using your body as a whole as a weapon (punching if you can, but maybe elbowing if thats better), if thats the case then it seems completely illogical to two-weapon fight with one weapon. It would be like two-weapon fighting with a bite attack and nothing else, or a single longsword. I bolded the pertinent part. And if it's not the case (I don't see why it would), then you'd be perfectly capable of two-weapon fighting with two weapons. Edit: the above post said it better than I could. A quarterstaff is a single weapon, but allows for multiple attacks. The human body is the same way (multiple methods of striking, kicks, punches, etc.). Humanoids with less than three limbs don't get Multi-Weapon Fighting, so what we're left with is Two-Weapon Fighting. Thus, two fists (or two kicks, or a punch and a kick, etc.). And before anyone mentions the fact that the unarmed strike table doesn't mention the damage as being 1d3/1d3, I'd like to ask all the non-two-handed weapons in the room to please stand up. No one? That's because an unarmed strike isn't a two-handed double weapon, it is one of two light weapons that everyone is naturally born with. A dagger isn't automatically assumed to be paired with another dagger, otherwise, it'd have 1d4/1d4 in it's entry. But weapons aren't automatically assumed to usable with TWF unless they're double (daggers aren't listed as being 1d4/1d4 as part of TWF, so are they unusable with TWF? No). (I'll admit I had to jump through a few hoops in order to justify that bit, but it's still valid.)
Duzzle 11-17-07, 02:47 AM	You can two weapon fighting with a single quarterstaff and attack with the two ends. But, let's not get distracted folks. To say that your body is not a natural attack unless you have a level in monk is just silly. Maybe that is RAW, but it can't be what was intended. I'm just going to have to try to convince him that RAI is what rule zero is for and that it's pretty much built into the game. There's no need to always follow RAW if something is that untouched in the rules, in my opinion. NoldorForce showed RAW that said unarmed strikes were natural attacks. I bolded the pertinent part. And if it's not the case (I don't see why it would), then you'd be perfectly capable of two-weapon fighting with two weapons. Because it seems to me that a persons entire body is one natural weapon (monk states this pretty explicitly), being able to fight effectively with two fists seems to be represented by the monks flurry of blows. Edit: In the monk's unarmed strike description "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." So monk's can't off-hand unarmed, being that they're the undisputed master's of unarmed combat I fail to see why others would be able too, until I actually see something official that says otherwise.
Tectorman 11-17-07, 03:09 AM	Because it seems to me that a persons entire body is one natural weapon (monk states this pretty explicitly), being able to fight effectively with two fists seems to be represented by the monks flurry of blows. Huh? Nowhere in the FoB description is it implying crunchwise or fluffwise that it's alternating between fists (or special monk weapons, for that matter). You ever watch Iron Monkey? You remember the Shadow Kick? That was all done with one leg and it's as good a visual description of an FoB as any one-two punch combo. Edit: In the monk's unarmed strike description "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." So monk's can't off-hand unarmed, being that they're the undisputed master's of unarmed combat I fail to see why others would be able too, until I actually see something official that says otherwise. Hey, now. Put in the full description. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. [Next sentence] A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes." If you take that phrase out of context, then yeah, I can agree. But the whole description would seem to indicate that the whole monks-not-getting-offhand-unarmed-attacks thing is just another way of saying "Monks get offhand unarmed attacks just like everyone else; it's just that they get to apply their full Strength bonus to damage as surely as if they were their primary unarmed attacks."
jaelis 11-17-07, 10:01 AM	Look, there are really two different questions that need to be distinguished here. First is: are unarmed strikes natural weapons? The answer is no. The are listed on the regular weapons table, and the definition of natural weapons in the Monster Manual clearly doesn't include them. If they were natural weapons, you wouldn't be able to make iterative attacks with them, they would give you an extra attack (at -5 penalty) any time you make a full attack with a natural weapon. The second question is: do unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for magical effects that enhance natural weapons? The answer is yes. (If you're a monk, they count as manufactured weapons too.) You can see this from the previously quoted text for magic weapon and magic fang, the amulet of mighty fists, and the special monk rule.
blade265 11-17-07, 01:16 PM	The main differences between a monk's unarmed srike and anyone else's are : A) A monk doesn't get a AoO against it's unarmed attack and most other's do. B) A monk does lethal and non-lethal damage where as other's only do non-lethal damage. C) A monk does 1d6 damage and other's do 1d3 unless they take Improved Unarmed Strike.
risner 11-17-07, 01:25 PM	NoldorForce showed RAW that said unarmed strikes were natural attacks. Not quite, he showed a passage in a spell which doesn't add to nor change the definition of Unarmed Strike as defined in the rules. So there is direct RAW to support the notion that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons and there is a considerable amount to reject the thought.
Duzzle 11-17-07, 02:13 PM	Huh? Nowhere in the FoB description is it implying crunchwise or fluffwise that it's alternating between fists (or special monk weapons, for that matter). You ever watch Iron Monkey? You remember the Shadow Kick? That was all done with one leg and it's as good a visual description of an FoB as any one-two punch combo. I'm not saying FoB is strictly using two fists or some such, but it could be. Hey, now. Put in the full description. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. [Next sentence] A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes." If you take that phrase out of context, then yeah, I can agree. But the whole description would seem to indicate that the whole monks-not-getting-offhand-unarmed-attacks thing is just another way of saying "Monks get offhand unarmed attacks just like everyone else; it's just that they get to apply their full Strength bonus to damage as surely as if they were their primary unarmed attacks." I disagree, that extra sentence just implies that when a monk uses some part of his body that isn't his right arm (in most cases) he doesn't get a penalty to damage as they are supposed to use fists, elbows, and legs interchangeably. Not quite, he showed a passage in a spell which doesn't add to nor change the definition of Unarmed Strike as defined in the rules. So there is direct RAW to support the notion that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons and there is a considerable amount to reject the thought. The spell passage clearly states that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, Magic Weapon being the most telling of all directly calling an unarmed strike a natural attack and then making a separate statement about monk unarmed strikes. I haven't seen any other RAW that actually contradicts that, there have been Rules of the Game quoted, but those are written by the same guy that said you could apply templates when polymorphing (so I don't have a very high opinion of him). I think unarmed strikes count as natural attacks, they just have more restriction than a normal natural attack (no iterative attacks and such), but the OP could still make the horrible decision of taking Improved Natural Attack.
egotistical_maniac 11-17-07, 05:09 PM	This should, I suppose, be on another board, but why would improved natural attack be a horrible decision? I've never played a monk, but it was always on my feats list for any hypothetical monk I did play.
The_Shaman 11-17-07, 05:47 PM	The main differences between a monk's unarmed srike and anyone else's are : A) A monk doesn't get a AoO against it's unarmed attack and most other's do. B) A monk does lethal and non-lethal damage where as other's only do non-lethal damage. C) A monk does 1d6 damage and other's do 1d3 unless they take Improved Unarmed Strike. If by "anyone else" you mean "anyone who hasn't taken the IUS feat," you are perfectly right. If you mean "anyone else", then I'm afraid it's only C), presuming lvl 1 monk and both characters being medium and not having taken the Improved Natural Attack feat.
dman11235 11-17-07, 06:00 PM	This should, I suppose, be on another board, but why would improved natural attack be a horrible decision? I've never played a monk, but it was always on my feats list for any hypothetical monk I did play. Because it's not worth it to waste a feat on. There's the Fanged Ring from either the Draconomicon or Races of the Dragon (I think it's draconoicon), which grants it anyway, and that's pretty much the only why most people would take the feat, by buying it. It usually not that much gain for your loss of a feat, same as monkey grip. If you have a feat to spare or are fairly large (I think at large it starts getting good for high level monks) then go right ahead, a little extra damage never hurt anyone.
risner 11-18-07, 01:40 AM	The spell passage clearly states that unarmed strikes are natural weapons ... I haven't seen any other RAW that actually contradicts that I think you are confused. You seem to be taking a explicit chunk of text from a spell and using that to extrapolate the "default" case, when in reality the fact that explicit text exists in the spell in the first place is to override the default case when used with that spell. In other words, the fact that line exists in the spell is evidence the RAW clearly doesn't allow that to work without the spell.
egotistical_maniac 11-18-07, 02:41 AM	Because it's not worth it to waste a feat on. There's the Fanged Ring from either the Draconomicon or Races of the Dragon (I think it's draconoicon), which grants it anyway, and that's pretty much the only why most people would take the feat, by buying it. It usually not that much gain for your loss of a feat, same as monkey grip. If you have a feat to spare or are fairly large (I think at large it starts getting good for high level monks) then go right ahead, a little extra damage never hurt anyone. Great, one less feat to use! (Fanged Ring is in Dragon Magic, fwiw.) Thanks!
dman11235 11-18-07, 03:30 AM	Dang it! I forgot that there were magic items in there.
blade265 11-18-07, 05:01 AM	The spell passage clearly states that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, Magic Weapon being the most telling of all directly calling an unarmed strike a natural attack and then making a separate statement about monk unarmed strikes. I haven't seen any other RAW that actually contradicts that, there have been Rules of the Game quoted, but those are written by the same guy that said you could apply templates when polymorphing (so I don't have a very high opinion of him). I think unarmed strikes count as natural attacks, they just have more restriction than a normal natural attack (no iterative attacks and such), but the OP could still make the horrible decision of taking Improved Natural Attack.[/QUOTE] Taken from the FAQ's Update Version: 09/14/07 p19 A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you can’t use it along with a flurry.
Tectorman 11-18-07, 10:49 AM	Because I don't know how to quote multiple posts in the same post, this will be a double post. Sorry. I disagree, that extra sentence just implies that when a monk uses some part of his body that isn't his right arm (in most cases) he doesn't get a penalty to damage as they are supposed to use fists, elbows, and legs interchangeably. Uh, yeah, that's basically what I said. So what are you disagreeing with?
Tectorman 11-18-07, 10:50 AM	I think you are confused. You seem to be taking a explicit chunk of text from a spell and using that to extrapolate the "default" case, when in reality the fact that explicit text exists in the spell in the first place is to override the default case when used with that spell. In other words, the fact that line exists in the spell is evidence the RAW clearly doesn't allow that to work without the spell. All right, then where is the explicit chunk of text that actually defines the default case?
risner 11-18-07, 01:43 PM	All right, then where is the explicit chunk of text that actually defines the default case? In the Monster manual where it differentiates between Manufactured weapons (unarmed strikes) and Natural weapons (claws.) In the Players Handbook where it defines Unarmed Strike.
NoldorForce 11-18-07, 05:33 PM	risner, you're either misinterpreting things or outright lying. Seriously, the Monster Manual's definitions of manufactured and natural weapons make absolutely no mention of unarmed strikes. And the PHB never defines their general type either, except within the descriptions of Magic Weapon and Magic Fang.
jaelis 11-18-07, 06:12 PM	I'm sure risner is talking about the text in the Monster Manual that differentiates the way you use natural weapons and manufactured weapons: 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. Unarmed strikes don't follow any of those rules, so if you take those rules as the definition of a natural weapon, unarmed strikes are not one. He is overlooking the fact though, that you could just as well take this Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. as the basic definition, in which case they would be natural weapons, but ones with special rules. Or you could say that they are neither natural weapons nor manufactured weapons, but their own independent thing.
NoldorForce 11-18-07, 07:12 PM	risner was making a stronger statement than that, however, that those lines defined the default case. You can induce (infer though not prove) any of those three ways excepting the Magic Fang/Weapon text, but you can't properly deduce (prove) any of them without it. They're all vague evidence relative to the spell texts, which are quite clear and blunt.
risner 11-18-07, 08:41 PM	risner was making a stronger statement than that, however, that those lines defined the default case. You can induce (infer though not prove) any of those three ways excepting the Magic Fang/Weapon text, but you can't properly deduce (prove) any of them without it. They're all vague evidence relative to the spell texts, which are quite clear and blunt. The spells are clear and blunt and irrelevant, and it is not wise to deduce any meaning of unarmed strikes from any text inside a spell. I could say you are being dishonest by reading PHB p139 and then claiming Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons. I won't quite go as far as you do against me. But the rules clearly (no way to refute) that Unarmed Strikes are like manufactured weapons with a few alterations.
NoldorForce 11-19-07, 12:03 AM	But the rules clearly (no way to refute) that Unarmed Strikes are like manufactured weapons with a few alterations.Quote actual text that states that they function as a specific weapon type by default. Yes, they do function "like manufactured weapons with a few alterations". But they also function like natural weapons "with a few alterations". That doesn't mean that they are manufactured or natural weapons for all purposes except when given otherwise in either case. All this means is that we can't rule out them perhaps being one or the other if nothing says otherwise. There really isn't any explicit text that says "unarmed strikes are manufactured weapons by default", "unarmed strikes are natural weapons by default", or "unarmed strikes are neither by default" (or equivalent statements) besides the two spell texts. They do make general comments about the mechanics of both types...but unarmed strikes don't fit either set of mechanics exactly. They're iterative...but they're made with the character's body, rather than with a separate weapon. You can channel touch spells with them, something manufactured weapons can't do. In any case, I'm going to try clearing this up by asking CustServ.
Qube 11-19-07, 11:23 AM	it isn't a natural attack. 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.humans provoke AoO's if they use their fists, and gain multiple attacks if BAB >5. the monk also gets multiple attacks (+15/+10/+5, or +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 if they use their class abilities). for those who like calculus: [natural attack] AND [high BAB] => NOT [mulitple attacks] > thus [mulitple attacks] => NOT [high BAB] OR NOT [natural attack] > if [high BAB is true] [mulitple attacks] => NOT TRUE OR NOT [natural attack] [mulitple attacks] => NOT [natural attack] simple enough? case closed.
risner 11-19-07, 02:09 PM	Quote actual text that states that they function as a specific weapon type by default. In any case, I'm going to try clearing this up by asking CustServ. I'd ask you the same, since I have already quoted sufficient to satisfy most. Quote any place that it says they are natural weapons and don't try to quote irrelevant sections like inside spells or special effects.
Qube 11-20-07, 02:49 AM	I'd ask you the same, since I have already quoted sufficient to satisfy most. Quote any place that it says they are natural weapons and don't try to quote irrelevant sections like inside spells or special effects.read "natural weapons" block or at least the previous post, where I explained why fists / the monks fists aren't natural weapons.
risner 11-20-07, 12:02 PM	read "natural weapons" block or at least the previous post, where I explained why fists / the monks fists aren't natural weapons. Good post
Tectorman 11-20-07, 12:17 PM	All right, let’s try this with quotes and with explications on what they all mean. My point here is to explain why it is not inaccurate to claim that unarmed strike count as natural weapons. Whether they do under a certain interpretation and don’t under another and both are legally correct, or whether “unarmed strikes are natural” is the only correct interpretation is not my point. Please don’t confuse the two. PHB, page 41 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. A monk’s unarmed strike is both manufactured and natural. Anyone else’s is either manufactured, natural, or neither. No text one way or the other about which of those three is the right one. PHB, page 96 Improved Unarmed Strike [General] Benefit You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option. Anyone with IUS (or a Monk), is considered armed, does not provoke attacks of opportunity for using an unarmed strike, and can use his unarmed attacks to conduct an attack of opportunity on someone else. PHB, page 121 Unarmed Strike A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Nowhere in here (or in fact, in the entire chapter) does it say the first word about whether unarmed strikes are manufactured, natural, both, or neither. PHB, page 137 You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity (but see Unarmed Attacks, page 139). (Italics part {in the book but not the SRD} added by me). If you can make a melee attack into the square, then you threaten it. If it’s an unarmed attack, then you don’t. This point is immediately followed up by… PHB, page 139 "Armed" Unarmed Attacks Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity) A Monk or a character with IUS is counted as being armed, and thus can make attacks of opportunity. (Incidentally, we also have a sentence {a relevant one, IMO} that groups both unarmed attacks and natural weapons as being the same.) PHB, page 250 (Note: this is under the standard format description for 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 fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell. Yet another grouping that considers an unarmed strike to be a natural weapon. You’ll notice the lack of “An unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for the purposes of this spell” or “Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject (or his unarmed strikes)…” and so forth. (But it’s considered irrelevant, so let’s continue.) PHB, page 251 (Note: this is under the standard format description for Magic Weapon.) 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. “A natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike” has a different meaning from the phrase “a natural weapon or an unarmed strike.” Again, they are considered to be the same thing. MM, page 312 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. Unarmed strikes? Physically a part of the creature: check. Considered armed: (without Monk or IUS) no check, (with Monk or IUS) check. Does not provoke attacks of opportunity: (without Monk or IUS) no check, (with Monk or IUS) check. Threatens the spaces it can reach: (without Monk or IUS) no check, (with Monk or IUS) check. Uh, oh. Unarmed strikes aren’t considered natural unless they can threaten and attack without an AoO. This is further complicated by the next part. (Same page) Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. Looks like trouble for the whole “unarmed strikes are natural weapons” crowd. But we’re not done yet. PHB, page 141 (not an exact quote, but I wrote this in Word before I put it up here and copying a part of a table didn’t work out so well, but you know what this pseudo-graph is representing) Actions in Combat Standard Action: Attack (melee)-----Attack of Opportunity: No Standard Action: Attack (unarmed)-----Attack of Opportunity: Yes Melee attacks (not taking into account unarmed attack with Monk or IUS, do not provoke attack of opportunity. The only non-unarmed melee attacks that exist are either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. There is nowhere in either this graph, the accompanying text, or indeed the entire of chapter eight that allows for exceptions. PHB, page 121 Using a whip provokes an attack of opportunity, just as if you had used a ranged weapon. Ah, an exception to the rule that was not accounted for in the primary relevant text. Warning: Opinion: And if there’s one here, there may be others (such as an unarmed strike, or at the very least, one that’s considered armed, also being a natural attack even though you do get iterative attacks with it). The above opinion is as valid/invalid as the one that says that melee weapons never provoke attacks of opportunity (and not taking into account whips) and that this act of primary weapons rules doesn’t extend to natural weapons (they got it wrong in the first case, but the second case took into account everything it was supposed to). Warning: Opinion: Selective, aren’t we? I could also mention the big, big 2d8 dealing weapon from Frostburn (the one that shock, gasp, doesn’t allow for iterative attacks like all manufactured weapons are supposed to do), but it is not Core (more importantly, not postable on the forum boards), so I’ll just leave it as a pseudo-point. Hope that helps.
jaelis 11-20-07, 12:24 PM	"Armed" Unarmed Attacks Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity) A Monk or a character with IUS is counted as being armed, and thus can make attacks of opportunity. (Incidentally, we also have a sentence {a relevant one, IMO} that groups both unarmed attacks and natural weapons as being the same.) Actually, I would tend to put that part in the "not a natural weapon" evidence pile, because the sentence is actually distinguishing unarmed strikes and natural weapons. (Just like it distinguishes touch spells and natural weapons.)
NoldorForce 11-20-07, 11:31 PM	For whatever bizarre reason, I haven't heard back from CustServ yet. Maybe they don't like my email address - I've asked them stuff before from the same address and hadn't received any replies before. But in any case, I'll try looking in the Rules Compendium tomorrow -maybe that will state something more definitive.
Qube 11-21-07, 04:06 AM	A monk’s unarmed strike is both manufactured and natural. As, Jealis said: speculation. I got a question: Anyone pro-'unarmed strike = natural attack' still persent? and what are your arguments?
blade265 11-21-07, 11:30 AM	IMO an unarmed strike is a natural weapon by the fact that it is made with a body part i.e. fist, kick, head butt etc. This would be a literal statement but the damage dealt is weapon damage for the purpose of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. So an unarmed strike can be considered both or neither, I think that it is somewhere in between the two, it's both a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon. So why argue so much, no one is going to win until Wizards gets off their *sses and explain the difference to everyone. So everyone get over it and treat it as you will.
Qube 11-22-07, 02:43 AM	IMO an unarmed strike is a natural weapon by the fact that it is made with a body part i.e. fist, kick, head butt etc.there's a flaw in that: what you are saying is: - all natural weapons are part of the body ... - an unarmed strike is part of the body => an unarmed strike is a natural weapon. translating to something simple - all fish are animals - an elephant is an animal => hence an elephant is a fish RAW defines what an natural attack is (I quoted it: see a few post back) unarmed strike does not follow the rules of natural attacks, nore does it say somewhere that it is a natural attack which has special rules. then why in havens blazes would it be an natural attack? ___________________________________ / attacks that are part of the body \ | _________ _______ | | / \ /unarmed\ | || natural | | strike | | || attacks | | | | | \_________/ \_______/ | \___________________________________/ Anyone other pro-'unarmed strike = natural attack' arguments?
jaelis 11-22-07, 10:06 AM	there's a flaw in that: I don't think your argument is entirely fair. When it says "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature," it can be read as a definition, not a description. In other words, you could read "are" as "are defined as". No fault to your logic, but in normal language we use "is" for true definitions all the time. For instance, if I told you that even numbers are integers divisible by two, I would intend for you to assume the converse as well. Or to take your example, if I really intended to provide a definition of elephants, I might say "Elephants are animals in the family elephatidae." Or I might say more loosely, "Elephants are very large mammals with trunks, tusks, and grayish skin, occurring naturally in Africa and South Asia." But in either case, I wouldn't hesitate about using the same verb "are." To me, the remaining text of the natural weapons section suggests that the first sentence is a description, not a definition. But I wouldn't say that taking the sentence as a definition is impossible.
Qube 11-22-07, 10:29 AM	I don't think your argument is entirely fair. When it says "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature," it can be read as a definition, not a description. In other words, you could read "are" as "are defined as".then how about the fact that a character with BAB +6 gets 2 unarmed strikes, while, if it were a natural attack, it would only get 1 ...No fault to your logic, but in normal language we use "is" for true definitions all the time.so basicly, if I use the rules, as I think they were ment, an unarmed strike also: Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below. Bite The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage. Claw or Talon The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage. Gore The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage. Slap or Slam The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage. Sting The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage. Tentacle
jaelis 11-22-07, 12:00 PM	then how about the fact that a character with BAB +6 gets 2 unarmed strikes, while, if it were a natural attack, it would only get 1 ...so basicly, if I use the rules, as I think they were ment, an unarmed strike Well, clearly if they are natural attacks, they are very special ones that work more like manufactured weapons. But on the other hand, they are rather special manufactured weapons too. I really think it comes down to whether you think of things operationally or formally. Operationally, unarmed strikes are much more like manufactured weapons than natural weapons. But formally (in the sense that they are (a) part of the creature and (b) not manufactured), they are more like natural weapons. So how you think of them depends on how you prioritize those aspects. Personally, I tend to agree with you and would classify them as manufactured weapons. But people are starting to convince me that they should really be treated as neither. They could just be their own thing.
blade265 11-22-07, 12:15 PM	there's a flaw in that: what you are saying is: - all natural weapons are part of the body ... - an unarmed strike is part of the body => an unarmed strike is a natural weapon. translating to something simple - all fish are animals - an elephant is an animal => hence an elephant is a fish RAW defines what an natural attack is (I quoted it: see a few post back) unarmed strike does not follow the rules of natural attacks, nore does it say somewhere that it is a natural attack which has special rules. then why in havens blazes would it be an natural attack? ___________________________________ / attacks that are part of the body \ | _________ _______ | | / \ /unarmed\ | || natural | | strike | | || attacks | | | | | \_________/ \_______/ | \___________________________________/ Anyone other pro-'unarmed strike = natural attack' arguments? Actually fish are not animals they are fish so your translation is wrong, try another one. My statement was to be taken literally and why didn't you add the rest as well "IMO an unarmed strike is a natural weapon by the fact that it is made with a body part i.e. fist, kick, head butt etc. This would be a literal statement but the damage dealt is weapon damage for the purpose of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. So an unarmed strike can be considered both or neither, I think that it is somewhere in between the two, it's both a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon."
Qube 11-23-07, 04:43 AM	Actually fish are not animals they are fish so your translation is wrong, try another one. My statement was to be taken literally and why didn't you add the rest as well "IMO an unarmed strike is a natural weapon by the fact that it is made with a body part i.e. fist, kick, head butt etc. This would be a literal statement but the damage dealt is weapon damage for the purpose of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. So an unarmed strike can be considered both or neither, I think that it is somewhere in between the two, it's both a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon."(1) about the fish: I hope you're being sarcastic ... (2), plz don't bold entire quotes, some might find that agressive looking ... (3) oh, since it neither, woud it follows the rules of natural attacks, or the rules of normal attacks ? or a combination of both (and please give an extensive list of rules and if they apply to unarmed strike or not (I'm thinking, what about BAB+6, inpr natural weapon, ...), and a reason why this list is not published in the WotC books?)
blade265 11-23-07, 09:47 PM	(1) about the fish: I hope you're being sarcastic ... (2), plz don't bold entire quotes, some might find that agressive looking ... (3) oh, since it neither, woud it follows the rules of natural attacks, or the rules of normal attacks ? or a combination of both (and please give an extensive list of rules and if they apply to unarmed strike or not (I'm thinking, what about BAB+6, inpr natural weapon, ...), and a reason why this list is not published in the WotC books?) 1) Would I do that. 2)SO and it wasn't the whole quote. 3)It follows it's own rules. It doesn't matter what you and I think, it's up to everyone to make up their own minds in the long run.:P
thktanuki 11-24-07, 01:04 PM	I don't see why this has gone on so long... The in-depth rules on Unarmed Fighting clearly stated that it only counted as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells that affected it. The rest of the time it is NOT a NATURAL WEAPON. But would scratching someone with sharp fingernails count?
Novem 11-24-07, 01:55 PM	I would like to congratulate the Pro-Unarmed Strike camp for their argument, and the Anti- camp for their victory. I personally as a DM have houseruled Unarmed Strikes as Natural Attacks thanks to the arguments in this thread. No for the real question- Not what they are, but what do you think they should be. As a martial artist, I know the kinds of serious damage a person can inflict with an unarmed strike (the Monk class fails epically at being a martial artist, by the way...) and think that taking Improved Natural Attack: Unarmed Strike could be a good way to simulate training with it for those who want to be core martial artist without having the suckage that is the Monk class.
NoldorForce 11-24-07, 05:32 PM	I don't see why this has gone on so long... The in-depth rules on Unarmed Fighting clearly stated that it only counted as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells that affected it. The rest of the time it is NOT a NATURAL WEAPON.Eh, the Rules of the Game articles are even more suspect as rules sources than spell descriptions. Still haven't gotten the Rules Compendium (store is out of copies), still haven't heard from CustServ...perhaps someone else should ask. Then we can have a definitive answer for one side to wave in the other's face. ;)
risner 11-25-07, 10:43 PM	Eh, the Rules of the Game articles are even more suspect as rules sources than spell descriptions. Still haven't gotten the Rules Compendium (store is out of copies), still haven't heard from CustServ...perhaps someone else should ask. Then we can have a definitive answer for one side to wave in the other's face. ;) Rules Compendium page 100: "Natural attacks forms in two forms ... Natural weapons such as fangs or claws. Special attacks are special ways a creature can use its inborn attributes to harm ..." "The number of attacks a creature can make ... depend on the type of attack -- a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack." It then goes on to provide a list of the Natural Weapon Types: Bite Claw or Talon Gore Slap or Slam Sting Tentacle It then lists 14 Special attacks (like Rake.) In none of it does it say, suggest, or otherwise leave any room to believe Unarmed Strikes could be a Natural weapon.
NoldorForce 11-26-07, 12:55 AM	Are there entries for unarmed strikes and manufactured weapons? The one you quoted for natural weapons just keeps the debate where it was by saying similar stuff to that in Monster Manuals and so on.
blade265 11-26-07, 07:23 AM	Are there entries for unarmed strikes and manufactured weapons? The one you quoted for natural weapons just keeps the debate where it was by saying similar stuff to that in Monster Manuals and so on. PHB p121 "Strike, unarmed: Blah, Blah, The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage of the purposes of effects that gives you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.", this is in weapon descriptions in the PHB, which I believe is for manufactured weapons as there are no natural weapons in there. AS I said before it's more of a natural weapon which Wizards in their infinite wisdom(LOL) have also given it manufactured weapons abilities.
Tordak 11-26-07, 10:34 AM	I read most post in diagonal so I'm not sure the main problem as been resolved, it doesn't seem so, but this is how I understand the rule. Unarmed strikes are neither manufactured weapons or natural weapons : they are unarmed strikes. They have their own set of rules, which are the following (roughly): - A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. -The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. - An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. - You usually make an unarmed attack with a free hand. - If you have a high enough BAB you get iterative attack (which also make them similar to manufactured weapon). - For purpose of weapon enhancement (and that only), unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons. - An unarmed attack provokes an attack of opportunity. - You do not threaten the area around you. - You can deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes by taking -4 penalty to attack roll. The last 3 apply if you don't have the improve unarmed strikes feat. There's more, but that's enough. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapon in term of game mechanic. It is part of the body, and as such it is part of your 'natural weaponary', but not in the sense of the rules of combat, only in 'reality' common sense. You do not qualify for a feat that requires natural attack, nor do natural attack qualify you for a feat that requires the improved unarmed strikes feat. When it does, it will be specify in the description (like the monk unarmed strikes). When it comes to spell, it is also generally specified that it affect both natural weapons and unarmed strikes; this is to reflect the fact that unarmed strikes are part of your body. To get this clear, go on the WOTC page and search for 'Unarmed Strikes', you'll find Skip Williams' rules of the game that should clarify most of the issues. Here's the link to one of them http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a As an additional example, any creatures with natural attacks with the approrpiate appendage (any part that is not a natural weapon) can choose to make unarmed strikes (I suppose provide it has sufficient intelligence, probably int 3+). It will get iterative attacks from high BAB and get to use it's natural as secondary attack (-2 on all secondary attacks, 1/2 str bonus to damage). It will deal non lethal bludgeoning damage approriate for the creature's size, unless it has a specific feat or ability that says otherwise. It just so happen that most creature you fight wants you dead and find using their natural weapon to the fullest more effective.
NoldorForce 11-26-07, 10:48 AM	To get this clear, go on the WOTC page and search for 'Unarmed Strikes', you'll find Skip Williams' rules of the game that should clarify most of the issues. Here's the link to one of them http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327aDo not cite Rules of the Game as a rules source. It is intended to be an explanation of the existing rules, and has been known to get a few things wrong. Besides, I've cited spell descriptions as rules sources (Magic Weapon/Fang). If we can't trust them to be authoritative...why then do we consider Rules of the Game (not a rules source at all) to be an authority?
Tordak 11-26-07, 11:03 AM	Besides, I've cited spell descriptions as rules sources (Magic Weapon/Fang). If we can't trust them to be authoritative...why then do we consider Rules of the Game (not a rules source at all) to be an authority? Spell description apply for spell. You cannot infer general rules from them, unless it is specify; and when it is so there's an errata. Or rather, you can infer rules from spell description, but then it's house rules, not rules. Unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes, and it's only through interpretation and extrapolation of some specific effects that they could be mixed with natural weapon. Rulewise of course, because it is understanable to mistake them for natural weapon for a from a sensible, realistic point of view. As for Rules of the games, they are clarification of the rules. They don't add to the rules, and they are not errata or faqs (the later are more like jurisprudence). The rules of the game are simply a clarification of the rules so that we can understand them as they were meant to be. Skip Williams is a writer of many books for D&D, like Monster Manual, Deity and Demigod, Races of the wild, etc. I think he has a pretty good inside view of the game, and what is in the Rules of the game are rules of the game, as they are meant to be.
risner 11-26-07, 11:55 AM	Besides, I've cited spell descriptions as rules sources (Magic Weapon/Fang). If we can't trust them to be authoritative...why then do we consider Rules of the Game (not a rules source at all) to be an authority? Spells apply only to the spells. If you take anything in a spell as a rules source for outside the spell, then you have seriously violated everything. You end up with Undead no longer immune to mind effecting spells among other nasty consequences. I frankly don't understand this debate. There is an exhausted three pages discussing Natural Weapons in the Rules Compendium. Do you honestly believe in those whole three pages they simply forgot to include a line saying "oh and by the way Unarmed Strikes are natural too?" Seriously? Instead they seem to make a conscious effort to list every existing Natural Weapon and somehow it slipped their minds about Unarmed Strikes? No. Why? Because Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons and they feel the text (RAW) is sufficient to get that point across.
Blastarr 11-26-07, 10:39 PM	Spells apply only to the spells. If you take anything in a spell as a rules source for outside the spell, then you have seriously violated everything. You end up with Undead no longer immune to mind effecting spells among other nasty consequences. I frankly don't understand this debate. There is an exhausted three pages discussing Natural Weapons in the Rules Compendium. Do you honestly believe in those whole three pages they simply forgot to include a line saying "oh and by the way Unarmed Strikes are natural too?" Seriously? Instead they seem to make a conscious effort to list every existing Natural Weapon and somehow it slipped their minds about Unarmed Strikes? No. Why? Because Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons and they feel the text (RAW) is sufficient to get that point across. Okay... Then post the section on Unarmed Strikes (if there is one, if there isn't please say so) as that would settle the question. I'm firmly in the camp of "unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes", but a final ruling from a confirmed game source would be nice. Saying where they aren't mentioned is nice, but saying where they are is much more helpful. Oh, and while we're at it, can I ask a quick question: Does Ki Strike apply to the natural weapons posessed by a Monk?
NoldorForce 11-27-07, 02:42 AM	Oh, and while we're at it, can I ask a quick question: Does Ki Strike apply to the natural weapons posessed by a Monk?Amusingly, yes! Thing is, the monk's Ki Strike ability consistently benefits "unarmed attacks". Not "unarmed strikes", mind you, but "unarmed attacks". And the two aren't quite the same thing. The D&D Glossary is relatively unhelpful, simply noting that an unarmed attack is "a melee attack made with no weapon in hand". It sounds like that may include natural weapons, but doesn't say anything outright. But if we look in the Combat section of the SRD or PHB, there's this:Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following: [snip] “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)Thus, no matter what we consider unarmed strikes, unarmed attacks still include natural weapons. This isn't to say that some commentaries don't confuse the two; the FAQ occasionally uses the two interchangeably, for instance, though the rules it cites on those six occasions actually refer to unarmed strikes instead. But the Combat section does make it clear that unarmed attacks encompass more than just unarmed strikes.
risner 11-27-07, 03:16 PM	But if we look in the Combat section of the SRD or PHB, there's this:Thus, no matter what we consider unarmed strikes, unarmed attacks still include natural weapons. That might just be a key point. I have studied this thread to see exactly why it is some people can read the PHB and MM, then come to the conclusion that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons. I don't understand how they can read the text and come to such an outlandish (in my mind) conclusion. Looking back, if they read Unarmed Attack as the same as Unarmed Strike, then they could easily get confused. Unarmed Attacks include Unarmed Strikes (a manufactured weapon), a spellcaster holding a charge on a spell, and Natural Weapons. They are all Unarmed Attacks, but they do not all share the same features. Okay... Then post the section on Unarmed Strikes PHB p314 where it differentiates between UA and US. PHB p139 where it defines US including reference to monk ability PHB p121 where it defines US as a manufactured weapon. PHB p116 where it is listed on the manufactured weapons chart. PHB p 41 where monk's unarmed strike ability is defined.
Tectorman 11-28-07, 11:11 AM	I frankly don't understand this debate. There is an exhausted three pages discussing Natural Weapons in the Rules Compendium. Do you honestly believe in those whole three pages they simply forgot to include a line saying "oh and by the way Unarmed Strikes are natural too?" Seriously? Instead they seem to make a conscious effort to list every existing Natural Weapon and somehow it slipped their minds about Unarmed Strikes? No. Why? Because Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons and they feel the text (RAW) is sufficient to get that point across. Okay, first off, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But if you don't understand this debate, it might be because, no, the issue is not as clear-cut this way and not that way as you seem to think. But I can understand. Until this thread, I didn't see how someone could see an unarmed strike as not being a natural weapon. "ZOMG!!" You get iterative attacks?! You can't use your own hands as an attack with a part of your body!!" :confused: Me, I just went through this thought process: An unarmed strike is an attack with a part of your body. A natural weapon is an attack with a part of your body. Ergo, unarmed strike = natural weapon. "But you get iterative attacks with an unarmed strike, and natural weapons specifically state you don't get those. Not to mention that unarmed strikes provoke attacks of opportunity and natural weapons don't do that." Then unarmed strikes are simply natural weapons that do get iterative attacks and do start out provoking attacks of opportunity. Where's the issue? "The issue is that you can't just make up exceptions like that." Ah, okay. Read the rules covering manufactured melee weapons. They state that you get iterative attacks with them and that their use does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The primary rules concerning manufactured melee weapons make no mention of any possibility of a weapon existing that could break these rules (never mind that the whip was in the last chapter). Either an exception to the rules is implied (whips still get to be treated as manufactured melee weapons) or no, whips do not get to be treated as such. Same thing with natural weapons. The primary rules concerning natural weapons make no mention of any possibility of a weapon/body part existing that could break those rules (no iterative attacks, no AoOs). Either an exception to the rules is implied (unarmed strikes still get to be treated as natural weapons) or no, they do not get to be treated as such. My issue is one of consistency. It's selective (bordering on hypocritical) to say one exception is there, but the other one can't be. So if you're going to tell me that unarmed strikes definitively cannot be natural weapons, then you should also tell me that whips are definitively not manufactured melee weapons (and the suugliin, too).
Cartigan 11-28-07, 11:40 AM	My issue is one of consistency. It's selective (bordering on hypocritical) to say one exception is there, but the other one can't be. So if you're going to tell me that unarmed strikes definitively cannot be natural weapons, then you should also tell me that whips are definitively not manufactured melee weapons (and the suugliin, too). Are you going to start arguing ranged weapons are not manufactured weapons because they provoke attacks of opportunity in their use? Or that trained unarmed strikes are manufactured weapons because they don't? You are creating a logical fallacy through oversimplification.
blade265 11-28-07, 01:14 PM	Does really matter what it is, no one is go to win, the natural weapon side won't change their mind and the manufactured weapon side won't change theirs. Just call it an Unarmed attack and be done with it, in the long run it's up to each DM to decide what it is.:D
Tordak 11-28-07, 01:58 PM	In strick rules term, unarmed strikes (US) are not natural attacks. They are not manufactured weapons. There are 3 types of 'weapons' available for attack (excluding spells, which work their own ways) : manufactured weapons, natural weapons and unarmed strikes. Each have their own set of rules. You get to make multiple, iterative attacks with US from a high BAB, which makes them like manufactured weapon. US also beneficy from effect that gives a bonus to damage roll (an actual +) like manufactured weapon. However, they are considered natural weapons for the purpose on enchantements from certain items and spells, but only for that purpose and it's covered in the spell (well, most of the time anyway). You don't threaten the area around you without special training (feat,Monk). Unarmed strikes (US) gets confused with natural weapons from a reality point of view. Unarmed strikes are made with a part of your body, no one build it you were born with it, and as such it is something natural. They also get confused because some effects, like some spells and magic objects, considere them to be natural weapons. But that's it. They are not considered natural weapon for everything else, only for those right there. You cannot, for example, take the improved natural weapon feat for US, it's not covered in what you can do with it, and the feat don't cover it like it is covered in, let say, the spell magic fangs. Anyone one who came to the conclusion that US are natural weapons (NW)did so because for some effects they are considered to be NW and they are part of the body. As further example, one I made already, any creature with the proper appendage can make an US even if it as natural weapons(as long as it's not with the natural weapon, a dragon could 'elbow' someone), and it will follow all the rules for US. Only through extrapolation of certain effects (spells, abilities) can you say US are NW, and it become house rules when you do. Monk are an exception, that's why they were so specific in the monk's unarmed strikes description. Rinser is right, they did not ommited to put US are NW, they meant not to write it because US are not NW. Editing PS: Sorry Blade, I did not mean to disregard your post, I started writting mine before yours appeared.
Tectorman 11-28-07, 03:31 PM	Are you going to start arguing ranged weapons are not manufactured weapons because they provoke attacks of opportunity in their use? Or that trained unarmed strikes are manufactured weapons because they don't? You are creating a logical fallacy through oversimplification. No, I'm going to argue that ranged weapons are not manufactured melee weapons because they provoke attacks of opportunity in their use. I didn't create a logical fallacy; you didn't read my post right.
Cartigan 11-28-07, 04:37 PM	No, I'm going to argue that ranged weapons are not manufactured melee weapons because they provoke attacks of opportunity in their use. I didn't create a logical fallacy; you didn't read my post right. You created a fallacy in the section I quoted. By trying to prove your point, you create an oversimplification - whips are not manufactured weapons because they provoke AoO if unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. Unarmed strikes are not natural attacks. The RAW implies it and articles here and there verify that. A slam is a natural attack. A punch/kick/elbow is not. It is an unarmed strike. As stated, unarmed strikes are a third method of attack that inherits rules from both the other methods but is neither. Of course unarmed strikes could be a sub-category of natural attacks that takes different rules. Just like Whips, bows, and crossbows are manufactured weapons that work under different rules.
Tectorman 11-28-07, 05:37 PM	*Snort.* You say oversimplification, I say implied exception. Blade265 is right. We ain't going to agree, nor will we convert the other side, so I wash my hands of this*. Good night. *That's not meant as a retreat; I just don't know how else to make my case. Every (to my mind) valid argument I make just doesn't even register as such. Grrr.
risner 11-28-07, 07:04 PM	My issue is one of consistency. It's selective (bordering on hypocritical) to say one exception is there, but the other one can't be. So if you're going to tell me that unarmed strikes definitively cannot be natural weapons, then you should also tell me that whips are definitively not manufactured melee weapons (and the suugliin, too). No I won't be telling you a Whip isn't a manufactured weapon. But I will tell you that you can't show a single place where it says or hints that Unarmed Strikes are natural but I can show you several places where it goes into exhaustive detail to enumerate all natural weapons. Yet you tell me, gee they just kept forgetting over and over and over again to put unarmed strikes on these lists? That doesn't make sense. If they were Natural Weapons, they would be overtly labeled as such.
Qube 11-29-07, 03:30 AM	If they were Natural Weapons, they would be overtly labeled as such. 'Evidenace' that they aren't natural attacks: - no where is stated that they are (with or without exception) - they do not follow the rules of natural weapons 'Evidenace' that they are - "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" @Tectorman: "Me, I just went through this thought process: An unarmed strike is an attack with a part of your body. A natural weapon is an attack with a part of your body. Ergo, unarmed strike = natural weapon." So, an elephant is an animal, and a fish is an animal, Ergo an elephant is a fish? Please correct me if I'm wrong: but - those who say US is a Nat.Weapon can't proove that any of the counter arguments are wrong - those who say US isn't a Nat.Weapon can proove the counter argument is wrong, because nowhere stats that "weapons that are physically a part of a creature are in fact all Natural weapons" (elephant is an animal, but a fish isn't an elephant) - saying 'lack of evidence isn't evidance' is wrong, when used into an argument that : it is ... otherwise my characters unarmed attacks do an additional 1000 luck bonus force damage . (direct me to the part that says I don't get that bonus ...). 'lack of evidence' is a strong indication that it isn't so.
Tectorman 11-29-07, 03:28 PM	But I will tell you that you can't show a single place where it says or hints that Unarmed Strikes are natural... Magic Fang and Magic Weapon. It hints and says that yes, unarmed strikes are natural. I believe I have quoted them before. And who says they don't count as relevant? They're not the primary text, sure, but they're still relevant. Not relevant would be a quote concerning a Large quadruped's carrying limits. Or the Empathy power. Yet you tell me, gee they just kept forgetting over and over and over again to put unarmed strikes on these lists? That doesn't make sense. If they were Natural Weapons, they would be overtly labeled as such. They might've thought "unarmed strikes are attacks made with a part of the body" and "natural weapons are attack form that use a creature's body parts" to be as overt as necessary (assuming that player's will equate the two). 'Evidenace' that they are - "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" Add Magic Fang and Magic Weapon to that list, please. So, an elephant is an animal, and a fish is an animal, Ergo an elephant is a fish? Let me fix that for you. An elephant is a type of animal; a fish is a type of animal; however, an elephant isn't necessarily a fish. An unarmed strike is a natural weapon; a claw attack is a natural weapon; however, an unarmed strike isn't necessarily a claw attack. Please correct me if I'm wrong: but - those who say US is a Nat.Weapon can't proove that any of the counter arguments are wrong - those who say US isn't a Nat.Weapon can proove the counter argument is wrong, because nowhere stats that "weapons that are physically a part of a creature are in fact all Natural weapons" (elephant is an animal, but a fish isn't an elephant) Where'd I say that? I never said that. My arguments are not meant to say that "Unarmed strikes are natural weapons" is right, definitively so, and can't be anything other than right. My arguments are not meant to say that "Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons" is wrong, definitively so, and can't be anything other than wrong. I've never said either of those. What I've said was "Unarmed strikes are natural weapons" is definitely not definitively wrong. It's ambiguous, it's unclear, and there are plenty of points in favor of both sides.
Cartigan 11-29-07, 04:40 PM	Magic Fang and Magic Weapon. It hints and says that yes, unarmed strikes are natural. I believe I have quoted them before. Being treated as something does not make it so. Mithral medium armor may be light armor for all points and purposes but it is still medium armor.
risner 11-29-07, 05:04 PM	Magic Fang and Magic Weapon. It hints and says that yes, unarmed strikes are natural. I believe I have quoted them before. And who says they don't count as relevant? Those do not count, since they are spell write ups. There are several cases of this that would alter the game if we followed your "if it is in a spell it is a rule" method: 1) Undead lose immunity to Mind Effecting spells as a result of Antipathy. 2) Clothing become armour with no ACP and no hindrance due to Magic Vestment.
Blastarr 11-29-07, 07:52 PM	PHB p314 where it differentiates between UA and US. PHB p139 where it defines US including reference to monk ability PHB p121 where it defines US as a manufactured weapon. PHB p116 where it is listed on the manufactured weapons chart. PHB p 41 where monk's unarmed strike ability is defined. Sorry, should have been more clear: Do they have a section for unarmed strikes in the Rules Compendium? I know the person you responded to might have been asking about other sources, but I was wondering if there was further clarification in the RC. And thanks for the info on Ki Strike. I wasn't making a distinction between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks, so I was a tad confused.
blade265 11-29-07, 10:37 PM	My main problem with calling an unarmed attack a manufactured weapon is how would you manufacture it. You can't manufacture an unarmed attack, you can train yourself to improve it but you can't build one. You can't go to someone who manufactures weapons to buy or have one made. You can't dig an unarmed attack out of the ground, take it to a weaponsmith and say build me an unarmed attack, you can't go to a tree rip off a branch take it to a fletcher and say make me an unarmed attack. Noun: manufacture The organized action of making of goods and services for sale The act of making something (a product) from raw materials
risner 11-30-07, 01:24 AM	My main problem with calling an unarmed attack a manufactured weapon is how would you manufacture it. You can. You manufacture an Unarmed Strike weapon by having knowledge (training) such that you can use your body as a weapon unlike the average joe. In short it is as much a manufactured weapon as a Longsword. You were not born with either. You acquired both.
Qube 11-30-07, 02:10 AM	Noun: manufacture The organized action of making of goods and services for sale The act of making something (a product) from raw materialsthis is completely irrelevant: you should quote how DnD defines a manufactured weapon, not how the dictionarry defines it. @Tectorman "An unarmed strike is a natural weapon; a claw attack is a natural weapon; however, an unarmed strike isn't necessarily a claw attack." One of your premisses needs to be proven: "An unarmed strike is a natural weapon". To continue the list: 'Evidenace' that they aren't natural attacks: - they do not follow the rules of natural weapons though there is no evidence they do not follow those rules - there are no relevant rules-blocks that state that they are the unarmed strike entry, the natural weapon entry (and it is not in the list of the most common natural weapons (unlike Tentacle or Slap), ... 'Evidenace' that they are natural attacks: - "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" (SRD - natural weapon) faulty argument, since it nowhere stats that every weapon physically a part of a creature is a natural weapon - "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike" (SRD - from magic weapon) though, how relevant is a spell description to define general rules - magic fang also hints that US is a natural attack the key-word is 'hints', not defines
blade265 11-30-07, 02:21 AM	IMO , You find a lump of iron/steel/mithral or whatever, you then pay or do it yourself, to have that manufactured into a longsword, which you then train with, to do anything with. You are born with an unarmed attack, which you then train into an unarmed strike, to do anything with. So to me, an unarmed attack is a natural attack that is trained or manufactured if you want, into an unarmed strike through years of training. If you want to call it a natural weapon that's your call. If you want to call it a manufactured weapon go right ahead, everyone's got their own thoughts, whether they agree with your's or mine or anyone else's. In the long run, it's up to everyone to make up their own mind so leave it at that. P.S. to everyone, a fish is a fish, an elephant is an elephant, a longsword is a longsword, an unarmed strike is an unarmed strike.:P :D No offense intended to anyone.;)
Qube 11-30-07, 02:50 AM	In the long run, it's up to everyone to make up their own mind so leave it at that.then what is the point of making this thread?
blade265 11-30-07, 03:39 AM	then what is the point of making this thread? There is no point, What do you think is the point of this thread.
Tectorman 12-01-07, 02:48 AM	@Risner, Magic Vestment specifically says " An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell." Pertinent part bolded. The description of this spell specifically says that it is violating the status quo in its effect. No such exceptions can be found in Magic Fang or Magic Weapon (no "an unarmed strike, though it functions like a manufactured weapon, does not count as such as far as this spell is concerned" and no "an unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of this spell". And I'll need you to explain to me how Antipathy is violating an Undead's immunity to mind-effecting effects. 'Evidenace' that they are natural attacks: - "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" (SRD - natural weapon) faulty argument, since it nowhere stats that every weapon physically a part of a creature is a natural weapon - "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike" (SRD - from magic weapon) though, how relevant is a spell description to define general rules - magic fang also hints that US is a natural attack the key-word is 'hints', not defines In the interest of fairness, how about I bias that the other way? - "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" (SRD - natural weapon) not so much an explicit rule as much as common sense - "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike" (SRD - from magic weapon) again, it's as relevant as you think it is (I say yes, you say no; I say po-TAY-to, you say Taters) - magic fang also hints that US is a natural attack the key-word is 'hints', not defines[/QUOTE] well, yeah, it's hinted at here (but it was also defined as such one page over in Magic Fang) but then we have disagreements over pertinance I don't know, blade265, maybe an unarmed strike is a manufactured weapon because it was made with a Craft (baby) check, requiring a period of nine months to complete. (Although why that wouldn't apply to anything born with claws is beyond me, but...) But okay, let's assume that the "US =/= NW" crowd is right. That implies a timeline like so: * 3.5 comes out and the rules were written with enough ambiguity on the subject to allow for players to come to either conclusion * these players are in the same group, the DM doesn't automatically rule/houserule in such-and-such a way, and someone calls CustServ * Wizards realizes that they left those rules ambiguous when they really meant for unarmed strikes to not be natural weapons (except for when a Monk wants to take INA, as has been shown both in the FAQ and in PHB2) * Skip Williams writes in Rules of the Game that no, unarmed strikes are not natural weapons Then, should that be the case, I have to ask this: what was so bloody game-breaking about the "US = NW" idea? How is that abusable? Why did it require the nerf? 'Cause if it didn't, then that just frees me up to file it under the other needless nerfs that can safely be ignored (such as what Complete Psionics did to typed spell damage, some of the energy powers, and the infamous AC nerf).
jaelis 12-01-07, 09:05 AM	And I'll need you to explain to me how Antipathy is violating an Undead's immunity to mind-effecting effects. In the PHB, it gives vampires as an example of a type of creature that could be affected by the spell (which is mind-affecting). Then, should that be the case, I have to ask this: what was so bloody game-breaking about the "US = NW" idea? How is that abusable? Why did it require the nerf? How is it even a nerf? As far as I know, it is purely a semantic argument. The one possible issue is whether a fighter can take INA or not, but even there you need a specific ruling. Obviously unarmed strikes do "count" as natural weapons for some purposes, and not for others. We would need to know if they count for purposes of the INA feat, independently of the semantics. (Not to mention that taking a feat to increase your unarmed strike from 1d3 to 1d4 would be an utter waste.)
blade265 12-01-07, 12:46 PM	I Obviously unarmed strikes do "count" as natural weapons for some purposes, and not for others. We would need to know if they count for purposes of the INA feat, independently of the semantics. (Not to mention that taking a feat to increase your unarmed strike from 1d3 to 1d4 would be an utter waste.) Depending on what you think of the Rules of the Game, you are able to use INA with unarmed strike. "Monk Unarmed Strike Class Feature The monk class offers a potent subcategory of unarmed attack. The class provides Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat, but the monk class offers some additional benefits for when fighting without weapons: * A monk's unarmed strikes can be treated as either manufactured or natural weapons when applying spells or effects that enhance either manufactured or natural weapons. For example, either a magic weapon spell or a magic fang spell can enhance a monk's unarmed attacks. This allows a monk access to all manner of weapon enhancements for her unarmed strikes. For example, a monk can use the Improved Natural Attack feat to increase her unarmed strike damage."
jaelis 12-01-07, 03:24 PM	We know a monk can do it. But what about non-monks?
Cartigan 12-01-07, 04:05 PM	Depending on what you think of the Rules of the Game, you are able to use INA with unarmed strike. "Monk Unarmed Strike Class Feature The monk class offers a potent subcategory of unarmed attack. The class provides Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat, but the monk class offers some additional benefits for when fighting without weapons: * A monk's unarmed strikes can be treated as either manufactured or natural weapons when applying spells or effects that enhance either manufactured or natural weapons. For example, either a magic weapon spell or a magic fang spell can enhance a monk's unarmed attacks. This allows a monk access to all manner of weapon enhancements for her unarmed strikes. For example, a monk can use the Improved Natural Attack feat to increase her unarmed strike damage." That's a Monk. Later they are treated as magic and adamantium weapons. It's a class feature.
risner 12-01-07, 04:08 PM	* Wizards realizes that they left those rules ambiguous when they really meant for unarmed strikes to not be natural weapons (except for when a Monk wants to take INA, as has been shown both in the FAQ and in PHB2) * Skip Williams writes in Rules of the Game that no, unarmed strikes are not natural weapons I don't think it worked that way. Mainly because you base your scenario on the Monk ability doesn't do anything. The Monk "treat unarmed as both natural and manufactured" does two things. Allow a Monk to treat his unarmed as natural and allow a Monk to treat his unarmed as manufactured. Only a Monk gain those two benefits.
Qube 12-01-07, 05:47 PM	In the interest of fairness, how about I bias that the other way? the part that is not underlined is the couter argument, so you can't bias it the other way (you can't bias the counter argument in favor of the argument, it wouldn't be a counter argument anymore)- "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" (SRD - natural weapon) not so much an explicit rule as much as common senseoh, common sense? we're talking about definitions here. common sense does not apply. Common sense would dictate that a single cat has much trouble to kill a wizard. yet "2 claws +4 melee (1d2-4) and bite -1 melee (1d3-4)" and noting that damage is minimum 1 (giving it up to 3 damage per round), cats can be quite the danger to the level 1 wizard ... Oh, by the way, a nice example of why it doesn't work both ways: a grafted greatsword is a physical weapon that is part of the body ... thus this is also a natural attack? And blade265 indeed showed the reason why this is so important: anything that can be done with natural attacks, suddenly can be used to power play. improved natural weapon, ... not to mention all the psionic powers working on natural weapons OK, lets search the SRD for "Natural weapon" and see what other stuff we come up with concerning unarmed strikes (from the first 7 pages): - Special Abilities: under Ability Score Loss Such creatures do not drain abilities from enemies when the enemies strike them, even with unarmed attacks or natural weapons." (Tectorman: common sense would dictate that these are thus 2 diffrent things) - Special attack; Natural weapon never speaks of US, but does gives the most common attacks - reading the monster block "The attack line provides the weapon used (natural or manufactured), attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged)." (elves have US, but it is not noted in the stat block ... this hints toward US is neither natrual or manufactured) - feats: power attack: "(except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks)" - feats: 2 weapon defence "(not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes)" - feat: weapon focus "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple" a natural weapon is a weapon, why specify US ? - actions in combat " Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. " but if US is a natural physical weapon, why take IUS? - actions in combat: holding the charge of a spell "make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) " - the monk entry, quoted enough - magic weapon "natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang)" defines unarmed strike as a natural weapon - class feature variants: "any creature struck by the druid in melee (whether with a weapon, unarmed attack, or natural weapon)" - magic fang "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.)" I don't even know why that stands there, since a slam that only deals subdual damage also isn't change to lethal damage here's a theory: unarmed strike isn't a weapon (neither natural or manufactured) it is an attack, yust like tripping, grappling, ...A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. this could be the reason why the underlined part is specified.
Tectorman 12-03-07, 05:54 PM	the part that is not underlined is the couter argument, so you can't bias it the other way (you can't bias the counter argument in favor of the argument, it wouldn't be a counter argument anymore) Huh? I only quoted the "Evidence that Unarmed Strikes are" section 'cause it seemed biased. The "Evidence that Unarmed Strikes aren't" section was left alone because the un-underlined parts struck me as fair, so what are you talking about? Anyway, going back to Antipathy, yeah, the PHB gives the example of a vampire, but the SRD doesn't have that phrase in there. Apparently, there was some unofficial errata-ing done there to fix that (you'll notice that there hasn't been any changes to the Magic Fang and Weapon spells, though). I'm surprised by one thing. Ain't nobody mentioned that Improved Unarmed Strike has the prerequisite of "Natural Weapon". Of course, there are creatures (plants, right?) that can't move and thus have no ability to physically attack whatsoever, but why would they put in a prerequisite that everybody but a plant already meets anyway? ... I told you. I'm not arguing in favor of "it's definite this way" or "it's definite that way". I'm saying that the rules are ambiguous and can be argued either way and neither way is definitively wrong.
jaelis 12-03-07, 08:16 PM	Ain't nobody mentioned that Improved Unarmed Strike has the prerequisite of "Natural Weapon". Of course, there are creatures (plants, right?) that can't move and thus have no ability to physically attack whatsoever, but why would they put in a prerequisite that everybody but a plant already meets anyway? I'm sure you mean Improved Natural Attack. But it is a decent point.
risner 12-03-07, 08:42 PM	1) Anyway, going back to Antipathy, yeah, the PHB gives the example of a vampire, but the SRD doesn't have that phrase in there. Apparently, there was some unofficial errata-ing done there to fix that 2) Ain't nobody mentioned that Improved Unarmed Strike has the prerequisite of "Natural Weapon". 1) You are confused. There is no unofficial errata, the SRD often leaves out examples in text. Antipathy (even in the SRD) works on Vampires which are immune to Mind Effecting spells which Antipathy is. 2) IUS doesn't have natural weapon listed as a pre-req. I've no idea what makes you think so. Edit: just saw jaelis post. Why? Because unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, that is why.
Tectorman 12-04-07, 08:33 AM	1) You are confused. There is no unofficial errata, the SRD often leaves out examples in text. Antipathy (even in the SRD) works on Vampires which are immune to Mind Effecting spells which Antipathy is. The text for Antipathy: "You cause an object or location to emanate magical vibrations that repel either a specific kind of intelligent creature or creatures of a particular alignment, as defined by you. The kind of creature to be affected must be named specifically. A creature subtype is not specific enough. Likewise, the specific alignment to be repelled must be named. Creatures of the designated kind or alignment feel an overpowering urge to leave the area or to avoid the affected item. A compulsion forces them to abandon the area or item, shunning it and never willingly returning to it while the spell is in effect. A creature that makes a successful saving throw can stay in the area or touch the item but feels uncomfortable doing so. This distracting discomfort reduces the creature’s Dexterity score by 4 points. Antipathy counters and dispels sympathy." Where in there does it overthrow the usual rules for vampires? 2) IUS doesn't have natural weapon listed as a pre-req. I've no idea what makes you think so. Edit: just saw jaelis post. Why? Because unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, that is why. Yeah, I meant Improved Natural Attack. And while that's one view, it isn't the only valid one (don't know how else to make that clear; yes, there's evidence for one view; yes, there's evidence for the other; they contradict each other, so how can you say "must be this, can't be that").
Cartigan 12-04-07, 10:32 AM	I submit this for unarmed strikes are not natural weapons From Shield of Blades in PHBII - "you can use any light weapon to gain the benefit, even unarmed strikes or natural weapons."
Tordak 12-04-07, 01:26 PM	And while that's one view, it isn't the only valid one (don't know how else to make that clear; yes, there's evidence for one view; yes, there's evidence for the other; they contradict each other, so how can you say "must be this, can't be that"). There's evidence that unarmed strikes ARE NOT natural weapon, or rather not evidence but plain, painful obviousness : unarmed strikes are not defined as natural weapon in game mechanic term, have their own set of rules (which sometime overlap with the natural weapons rules), anyone can use unarmed strikes (but not everyone has natural weapons). There is also Skip Williams statement in the Rules of the Game that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons; that might be what is called evidence. Now if you want to say the co-writter of the MM doesn't know what natural weapons are then your on your own. On the other hand, there's no evidence that unarmed strikes ARE natural weapon, only hints here and there (apparently mostly in spells) in some special descriptions. Ideally, you don't send people to jail on hints.
risner 12-05-07, 10:57 AM	The text for Antipathy: Where in there does it overthrow the usual rules for vampires? Are you trying to be funny or just not reading this thread? It says vampires when it says vampires. You being funny by again quoting the SRD (when you know the SRD removes all examples) have just made a useless post. Try reading the PHB, since by definition the SRD isn't the complete rules.
Tectorman 12-05-07, 02:22 PM	Are you trying to be funny or just not reading this thread? It says vampires when it says vampires. You being funny by again quoting the SRD (when you know the SRD removes all examples) have just made a useless post. Try reading the PHB, since by definition the SRD isn't the complete rules. No, just making a point. If there's a difference between the SRD text and the PHB text concerning Antipathy, it was either added to correct the mistake (vampires, being undead, cannot be affected by mind-affecting spells) or because they don't include examples. Magic Fang, on the other hand, has a list of affected attack forms. That's examples that are still on the SRD either because they didn't have a problem with it at the time (within the rules to say "US = NW", or because they didn't notice it (either that it's a violation of the rules or that it's a list of examples). But my point was this: saying Magic Fang and Magic Weapon can't be taken as examples because Antipathy and Magic Vestment likewise violate the rules is wrong. Magic Vestment specifically says it's treating something (clothes) as something else (armor) and that this is not the usual case. Antipathy was changed from the PHB to the SRD for a reason (it was wrong or it was an example) and Magic Fang and Magic Weapon (which likewise are either wrong or have examples) weren't similarly changed. No, I wasn't being funny (but you can go ahead and keep on insinuating that I was).
Tectorman 12-05-07, 02:32 PM	There is also Skip Williams statement in the Rules of the Game that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons; that might be what is called evidence. That's the also the first (in the rules, the FAQ, the errata, or the Rules of the Game) mention of an official opinion on the matter. * Skip Williams writes in Rules of the Game that no, unarmed strikes are not natural weapons Then, should that be the case, I have to ask this: what was so bloody game-breaking about the "US = NW" idea? How is that abusable? Why did it require the nerf? 'Cause if it didn't, then that just frees me up to file it under the other needless nerfs that can safely be ignored (such as what Complete Psionics did to typed spell damage, some of the energy powers, and the infamous AC nerf). Let's see. Unarmed Strikes qualifying as natural weapons would let them be used for Improved Natural Attack. Well, the damaging unarmed strike progression (the Monk's) already gets this anyway (courtesy of both the FAQ and the PHB2), so why is it gamebreaking for even a Superior Unarmed Strike character to get it? It wouldn't be the natural weapon enhancing psionic powers; those are claw only (Power Claws excluded). It's not that it could be enhanced as a natural weapon, that's already happening anyway (Magic Fang and Amulet of Mighty Blows). So why the nerf?
Tordak 12-05-07, 04:25 PM	It's probably not game breaking, but I didn't know that was the debate (from the OP).
risner 12-05-07, 04:36 PM	No, just making a point. If there's a difference between the SRD text and the PHB text concerning Antipathy, it was either added to correct the mistake (vampires, being undead, cannot be affected by mind-affecting spells) or because they don't include examples. Then if you are not being funny, you are wrong and confused. It isn't in the SRD, because most examples are not in the SRD.
kelvinaw273 12-06-07, 12:20 PM	O_o As I would interpret it ... yes you COULD apply Improved Natural Attack to Improved Unarmed Strike, but you would be better off taking Superior Unarmed Strike (ToB) because you dish better damage with it. THEN if you took Improved Natural Attack it would be worthwhile ... As far as TWF with an unarmed strike are concerned, the second attack, if treated as a natural weapon, has a -5 penalty for using a natural weapon as a secondary attack, NOT the usual TWF penalty. Monks can freely interchange weapon and unarmed attacks if they are using a special monk weapon compatible with their Flurry of Blows ability. A monk only gets an advantage from TWF if they have a weapon in EACH hand (as opposed to a weapon and an unarmed strike).