So what's the deal with natural weapons?
1) No iterative attacks
You get one attack per natural weapon, regardless of your high BAB that would normally allow iterative attacks. This is fairly simple, but can trip up newer players.
2) Combines strangely with other weapons
When you just use natural weaponry, while it is different from using a normal sword or axe, the rules are fairly simple. When you try and combine your natural weapons with a manufactured weapon attack routine, or, as is more likely the case, an unarmed attack routine, you have to redefine your secondary weapons, your offhand attacks, etc.
This is a substantially more complex issue that often entangles even experienced optimizers and players. How many Monstrous Monks have you seen that totally misuse natural weaponry and unarmed strikes, for example?
These are the main issues that I see as possibly arising from natural weapons, although you might have a more specific idea you are hinting at.
-ktkenshinx-
You may only make one attack with each of your natural weapons in a full attack, unless the text describing the attack says otherwise.
Any attack made with a natural weapon designated as a secondary weapon is made at a -5 penalty, and applies only half of your str bonus.
If you have only one natural attack, and no other means to attack you may apply 1.5* your str bonus. (spellcasting, SLA's, and SUA's do not count as means to attack in this case)
If, through a class feature, feat, or magic item; you would gain a natural attack you already have, use the better damage dice unless otherwise noted by the magic item, class feature, or feat.
When combining a natural attack with a manufactured weapon attack in a full attack, the natural attack is considered a secondary attack and is made with a -5 penalty and only applies 1/2 of your str bonus. You may make itterative attacks with your manufactured weapon as normal. You cannot use both the manufactured weapon and natural weapon if they use the same appendage. (I admit that I'm not completely sure about the itterative attacks part of this rule.)
The unarmed strike is not a natural weapon unless otherwise designated by a feat, class feature, or magic item.
Natural weapons are not valid targets for magical enhancement through the craft magic arms and armor feat.
Natural weapons cannot be used to automatically innitiate a grapple or trip attempt unless otherwise noted in their descriptive text. They can still be used to innitiate a grapple or trip attempt normally, but do no damage in that case.
These are all I can think of at the moment. If I remember anymore I'll add them via post editing.
unarmed strikes are always considered natural weapons: at least that's what I thought.
No.
unarmed strikes are always considered natural weapons: at least that's what I thought.
No.
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.
Tee hee.
Unarmed attacks are considered natural attacks for the purpose of enchantments (from spells, I mean, not crafting).
This is correct, but only as it applies to Monk unarmed strikes and those with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Monks, having trained almost exclusively in the use of their unarmed attacks, can treat them as natural, just as a monster treats its claws. The same goes for people who dedicate a portion of their training to improving their hand-to-hand abilities.
If you do not have levels in Monk or the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, your unarmed attacks are not considered natural.
-ktkenshinx-
Unarmed attacks are considered natural attacks for the purpose of enchantments (from spells, I mean, not crafting).
No, Only for spells that have that line "unarmed considered natural." That is not in all spells that it could be applicable.
but only as it applies to Monk unarmed strikes and those with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Monk
That line is not in IUS, so it only applies to a Monk. A fighter with IUS can't take INA (Unarmed) because he doesn't have the Monk's line.
No, Only for spells that have that line "unarmed considered natural." That is not in all spells that it could be applicable.
I don't understand where you're getting that...
Show me a spell that would work on a bite, a claw and a tail slap but not an unarmed strike.
Alternatively, point me to a ruling that says monk attacks are not considered natural weapons.
In return, I'll point you to a ruling that says they DO count as natural attacks:
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.
EDIT: Oh, I understand now. I was being obtuse...
You meant normal unarmed strikes, not the Monk's unarmed strikes. Gotcha.
I usually just assume unarmed strikes are being made by a monk, because who else would?
I don't understand where you're getting that...
Show me a spell that would work on a bite, a claw and a tail slap but not an unarmed strike.
Alternatively, point me to a ruling that says monk attacks are not considered natural weapons.
In return, I'll point you to a ruling that says they DO count as natural attacks:
EDIT: Oh, I understand now. I was being obtuse...
You meant normal unarmed strikes, not the Monk's unarmed strikes. Gotcha.
I usually just assume unarmed strikes are being made by a monk, because who else would?
I could see doing an unarmed fighter using Superior Unarmed Strike and an enchanted gauntlet. Not necessarily optimal, but could be interesting :P
I don't understand where you're getting that...
EDIT: Oh, I understand now. I was being obtuse...
You meant normal unarmed strikes, not the Monk's unarmed strikes. Gotcha.
Yes.
Monk's get goodies.
No, Only for spells that have that line "unarmed considered natural." That is not in all spells that it could be applicable.
The FAQ and Rulebooks are silent on this, but the Rules of the Game Archive states:
Remember, however, that magic weapon enhancements that work with natural weaponry, such as the magic fang spell, also work with unarmed attacks. This rule allows pugilists and martial artists access to some magic weapon enhancements (also see the next section). It also reflects the fact that a creature making an unarmed strike is using part of its body in the attack.
While the RotGA are considered a 'lesser' source, it is, in this case, the only one that speaks to the issue.
Besides, it just makes sense.
As far as the article contradicting itself, that's only if you take parts out of context. The article is pretty clear that the purpose of allowing unarmed attacks to be modified by spells that affect natural weapons is so that non-monk characters can benefit from some magical enhancements. Monks, on the other hand, can benefit from the same spells plus any spells that affect weapons. Whether this constitues 'nerfing' is, of course, in the eye of the beholder.
magic weapon enhancements that work with natural weaponry, such as the magic fang spell, also work with unarmed attacks.
While the RotGA are considered a 'lesser' source, it is, in this case, the only one that speaks to the issue.
From Magic Fang PHB p250:
"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.)"
Ok, first, the RotG article doesn't prove your point, since it doesn't deviate from the PHB or my previous statements.
Second, the Magic Fang spell says "Fist" which isn't a natural weapon. In context, the allows unarmed fist attacks (but not unarmed toe attacks) and clearly says it doesn't make nonletal unarmed lethal.
This doesn't mean that other spell that only specify "Claw or other natural weapons" allow Unarmed (except for those with 1 level in Monk.)
Ok, first, the RotG article doesn't prove your point, since it doesn't deviate from the PHB or my previous statements.
Since my point is that unarmed attacks can be modified by any spell that afffects 'natural weapons', then it most assuredly does prove my point. The only issue is whether a RotGA citation is authoritative. Since it is the only clarification that we have, I say it is. Others may rule differently.
Second, the Magic Fang spell says "Fist" which isn't a natural weapon. In context, the allows unarmed fist attacks (but not unarmed toe attacks) and clearly says it doesn't make nonletal unarmed lethal.
You really expect the writer of the spell to list every single possible body part that could conceivably be used? Really? As for the nonlethal vs lethal point, I wasn't aware that was an issue. A character without IUS would strike for nonlethal damage (sans guantlet) with additional nonlethal damage as per the spell. A character with IUS would strike for nonlethal or lethal as per the character's choice.
This doesn't mean that other spell that only specify "Claw or other natural weapons" allow Unarmed (except for those with 1 level in Monk.)
Yes, it quite clearly does. The article is quite specific and very clear. A spell that modifies natural weapons also modifies unarmed strikes. You can debate the weight that should be given to the article. What you cannot argue with is the very plain and simple fact that the article states:
For purposes of weapon enhancements, an unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.
If you attack without a weapon, a spell such as magic weapon won't help you, but a spell such as magic fang will.
The article further states that while unarmed attacks are usually performed with a hand, they do not need to be. So, quite clearly, and in plain language, magic fang does indeed apply to your toe, your elbow, your shin, knee, forearm, forehead, open palm, or any other body part you want to use.
Once again, you are welcome to your opinion that a RotGA citation is worthless. But since it is the only claridfication we have, and the only clarification that we are going to get (since the end of support for 3.5), I beleive it should be given more weight than your totally unsubstantiated opinion.
then it most assuredly does prove my point. The only issue is whether a RotGA citation is authoritative.
RotG citation is worthless.
The RotG article is 100% correct, but it doesn't prove your point.
You didn't understand my post or you didn't understand the key point of my post.
For many spells, Unarmed Strikes can in fact be considered Natural Weapons. For GMW, they are explicitly considered natural in the spell. RotGA points this fact out, so the RotG is absolutely correct that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons for spells that say they are.
That doesn't prove that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons for spells that don't say they are nor for any other effect.
Specific trumps General. The General rule that Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons is trumped for Monks, for GMF, and for other spells that say so.
So I guess this issue is one of the things I was looking for then. Do any others problems with the rules for natural attacks come to mind? Or is this the big pain in the butt that everyone has a problem with?
This one is debated often, there are a number of people that believe sentences in spells descriptions become general rules (instead of specific rules connected to the spell in question.)
So I guess this issue is one of the things I was looking for then. Do any others problems with the rules for natural attacks come to mind? Or is this the big pain in the butt that everyone has a problem with?
I had a thread on BG about weapon graft abuse. Now the realm of natural weapons just got a lot bigger...
Most everything was hashed out well there, but I still love the idea. ;)
Its a forum run by the former moderater and community rep of this forum, WizO Autumn, aka Meg, after she was fired from her position here by the evil GamerZer0. Her and a few of her friends run a podcast and make gaming commentary there, as well has having created a haven for CharOp outside of Gleemax.
I'm sure someone could dig up the drama thread...its like, 50+ pages long.
The RotG article is 100% correct, but it doesn't prove your point.
You didn't understand my post or you didn't understand the key point of my post.
For many spells, Unarmed Strikes can in fact be considered Natural Weapons. For GMW, they are explicitly considered natural in the spell. RotGA points this fact out, so the RotG is absolutely correct that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons for spells that say they are.
That doesn't prove that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons for spells that don't say they are nor for any other effect.
Specific trumps General. The General rule that Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons is trumped for Monks, for GMF, and for other spells that say so.
No, the general rule is that unarmed attacks are not Natural Weapons. The specific rule is that unarmed attacks are treated as natural weapons for the purpose of spells that enhance natural weapons. If a spell specifically excluded unarmed attacks, then that would be a specific exception and override the broader rule. It neither says nor hints at this, however.
And in this section of your post, you either misread or deliberately mischaracterized the article:
the RotG is absolutely correct that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons for spells that say they are.
"For spells that say they are" is neither accurate nor factual. The article never limits the use of natural weapon enhancing spells to those "that say they are" or in any other way. It does not, for example, say that unarmed attacks can be enhanced by spells that affect natural weapons, if and only if, the spell says they are. If spells that affected natural weapons were required to say "also affects unarmed attacks," then there wouldn't be much use for the rule "magic weapon enhancements that work with natural weaponry, such as the magic fang spell, also work with unarmed attacks."
General Rule: Unarmed attacks are not natural weapons.
Specific Rule: Unarmed attacks are considered natural weapons for spells.
Theoretical Exception: Spell X works on natural weapons, but not unarmed attacks.
The general to the specific.
specific rule is that unarmed attacks are treated as natural weapons for the purpose of spells that enhance natural weapons. If a spell specifically excluded unarmed attacks, then that would be a specific exception and override the broader rule. It neither says nor hints at this, however.
There is no rule in the books that reinforces your point of view.
The only hint at this is in specific spells, and if spell #1 says Unarmed are valid when it normally targets Natural, that doesn't have any bearing on spell #2 that doesn't have that line.
There is no rule in the books that reinforces your point of view.
The only hint at this is in specific spells, and if spell #1 says Unarmed are valid when it normally targets Natural, that doesn't have any bearing on spell #2 that doesn't have that line.
Which brings us right back to the RotGA archive which states, quite clearly, that unarmed attacks are enhanceable by spells that affect natural weapons. Not some spells, not spells that mention "fist," not most spells, but spells that affect natural weapons, period.
If the spell affects natural weapons, it affects unarmed attacks. The only way you can get past this is either by ignoring the article (which you are of course welcome to do) or by adding words to it that it does not contain (which you've already tried to do).
You (Risner) said: "The RotG article is 100% correct...." The article says that unarmed attacks can be enhanced by spells that affect natural weapons. No qualifiers, no maybe's, no caveats.
Either the article is right or you are. I'll go with the article.
If you have only one natural attack, and no other means to attack you may apply 1.5* your str bonus. (spellcasting, SLA's, and SUA's do not count as means to attack in this case)
Natural weapons cannot be used to innitiate a grapple or trip attempt unless otherwise noted in their descriptive text.
These two aren't true as far as I know. A weapon has to be specifically designated as receiving 1.5 times your Str bonus for that to be the case. (i.e. a dragon's tail slap.)
And I don't see anything that would prevent a natural weapon from being used for grappling and tripping-- though it still provokes an attack of opportunity. Truthfully, it's not really any different from a character without natural weapons tripping and grappling though.
These two aren't true as far as I know. A weapon has to be specifically designated as receiving 1.5 times your Str bonus for that to be the case. (i.e. a dragon's tail slap.)
And I don't see anything that would prevent a natural weapon from being used for grappling and tripping-- though it still provokes an attack of opportunity. Truthfully, it's not really any different from a character without natural weapons tripping and grappling though.
I'm pretty sure about the first of those, I'll try to find where it's written and post it here later. On the second one, I guess I didn't word it clearly, what I meant was that if you make a succesfull claw/bite/what-have-you, that you don't automatically engage a trip or grapple. I'll reword it so that its clearer.
I'm pretty sure about the first of those, I'll try to find where it's written and post it here later. On the second one, I guess I didn't word it clearly, what I meant was that if you make a succesfull claw/bite/what-have-you, that you don't automatically engage a trip or grapple. I'll reword it so that its clearer.
Ahh, no. That does require a special ability-- specifically Improved Grab or Trip, as indicated in the Bear and Wolf stat blocks in the Monster Manual.
I did find the reference to the other rule in the "Reading Monster Entries" section-- I'm not sure why they don't include that in the glossary entry for natural weapons.
I did find the reference to the other rule in the "Reading Monster Entries" section-- I'm not sure why they don't include that in the glossary entry for natural weapons.
Note that it's not true for everything. Horses(not trained for war), and other herbivores tend to gain only 0.5 Strength for their natural weapons(since they're used only for defense, as opposed to a predator, who uses them both offensively and defensively).
Note that it's not true for everything. Horses(not trained for war), and other herbivores tend to gain only 0.5 Strength for their natural weapons(since they're used only for defense, as opposed to a predator, who uses them both offensively and defensively).
That is explicitly outlined in the "Horse" description though (and presumably others), which designates all their weapons as secondary. So it follows the typical exception to the rule standard. Hiding rules within the "how to read the rules" section just doesn't work for me though.
For a character that has natural weapons but can use manufactured weapons as well (say, a centaur), on their full attack can they take all the normal attacks granted by their BAB with their manufactured weapon AND hit once with each natural weapon, or do they have to choose between the manufactured weapon with iterative attacks or their natural weapons?
-ktkenshinx-
Suddenly one of my players just got a lot more deadly.
You mean all secondary natural attacks are at -5. The primary has no penalty.
He is referring to those natural attacks used alongside the manufactured weapons. If natural attacks are combined with manufactured ones, all natural attacks are treated as secondary, even the ones normally considered as primary.
-ktkenshinx-
1. If I have one primary natural attack only it gets 1,5 x str. bonus damage.
a. If I use power attack with that natural weapon does it get a 2:1 damage ration just like a two-handed weapon? I'd say RAW it shouldn't but RAI it might.
b. What happens if I add some secondary weapons, i.e. through warshaper? Is the damage bonus of the primary weapon reduced to 1 x str?
2. While using a "normal" weapon I can make iterative attacks with it and make secondary attacks with all my natural weapons as long as they don't use the same appendage.
a. Can I use unarmed strikes and claws at the same time? I think I remember reading somewhere that unarmed strikes are not necessarily made with your hands.
2. While using a "normal" weapon I can make iterative attacks with it and make secondary attacks with all my natural weapons as long as they don't use the same appendice.
a. Can I use unarmed strikes and claws at the same time? I think I remember reading somewhere that unarmed strikes are not necessarily made with your hands.
Yes, you can make an unarmed strike with virtually any part of your body, within reason. Headbutts, elbows, knees, feet, are all legitimate unarmed strike options that would allow you to incorporate claw-based natural attacks.
Then if someone came in mele with me I can use the normal +x attack with head butt , and get +3 (1.5 of strength) for damage bonus. So it would be like 1d6+3 anytime I wanted to head butt.
Can you cast a spell and then use natural attack as +x(-5) 1D6+3 ?
SO if I have a satyr sorc. or something and he has a strength modifier +2.
Then if someone came in mele with me I can use the normal +x attack with head butt , and get +3 (1.5 of strength) for damage bonus. So it would be like 1d6+3 anytime I wanted to head butt.
Can you cast a spell and then use natural attack as +x(-5) 1D6+3 ?
No.
Yes, you can make an unarmed strike with virtually any part of your body, within reason. Headbutts, elbows, knees, feet, are all legitimate unarmed strike options that would allow you to incorporate claw-based natural attacks.
Could a dire wolf therefore use his bite as a secondary weapon dealing only 1d8+3 (0.5 x str) damage, use his trip ability and then make an unarmed strike with his paws dealing 1d4+7 nonlethal damage while provoking an aoo?
And if so can it try to grapple or disarm instead? While a regular dire wolf might not be canny enough to use tactics like that a trained animal companion could do it. And there are probably a lot of other monsters that gain more from tactics like that and have the int do to so.
Could a dire wolf therefore use his bite as a secondary weapon dealing only 1d8+3 (0.5 x str) damage, use his trip ability and then make an unarmed strike with his paws dealing 1d4+7 nonlethal damage while provoking an aoo?
And if so can it try to grapple or disarm instead? While a regular dire wolf might not be canny enough to use tactics like that a trained animal companion could do it. And there are probably a lot of other monsters that gain more from tactics like that and have the int do to so.
By the rules, yes. Assuming adequate training or above-average intelligence, it could do all of the above. It won't be very good at grappling/disarming, without a lot of feats/buffs, but it can certainly make the attempt.
While that one bite attack now deals 4d6+5 instead of 4d6+15 damage it will have at least 4 tries to grapple you. 5 if a bab of +24 gives a 5th iterative. Unless you have combat reflexes it will eventually succeed even though it lacks improved grab. Or just do plenty of nonlethal damage (4 or 5 attacks at 2d6+10) stomping you into the ground.
This makes a malconvoker even more tempting to play.
Well the dire wolf was just an example. It gets interesting if you apply it to a fiendish monstrous spider summoned with summon monster 9. It should be smart enough (int 3) to follow a command telling it to use its legs to attack.
While that one bite attack now deals 4d6+5 instead of 4d6+15 damage it will have at least 4 tries to grapple you. 5 if a bab of +24 gives a 5th iterative. Unless you have combat reflexes it will eventually succeed even though it lacks improved grab. Or just do plenty of nonlethal damage (4 or 5 attacks at 2d6+10) stomping you into the ground.
This makes a malconvoker even more tempting to play.
Your iterative attacks can never exceed 4, but yes, it would can be quite good. Unless your opponent is immune to nonlethal damage. Like, say, undead. Or constructs.
On the same train of thought, could you flurry with a monk, and then use the standard 2 claws and bite of say, a hybrid form lycanthrope?
Yes. Flurry is simply a modified unarmed attack routine. You would take all the penalties involved for both forms (natural weapons as secondary attacks plus the flurry penalties if applicable).
Well the dire wolf was just an example. It gets interesting if you apply it to a fiendish monstrous spider summoned with summon monster 9. It should be smart enough (int 3) to follow a command telling it to use its legs to attack.
While that one bite attack now deals 4d6+5 instead of 4d6+15 damage it will have at least 4 tries to grapple you. 5 if a bab of +24 gives a 5th iterative. Unless you have combat reflexes it will eventually succeed even though it lacks improved grab. Or just do plenty of nonlethal damage (4 or 5 attacks at 2d6+10) stomping you into the ground.
This makes a malconvoker even more tempting to play.
Your iterative attacks can never exceed 4, but yes, it would can be quite good. Unless your opponent is immune to nonlethal damage. Like, say, undead. Or constructs.
This is incorrect.
MainFAQ:
You never get extra attacks from a high base attack bonus with natural weaponry....
p19.
In addition, it doesn't matter how many legs a spider has. It only gets the number of attacks listed in its description, unless it has character levels. Same with the wolf. Both could (conceivably) use their attacks to deal non-lethal damage instead of lethal damage with a -4 penalty or (conceivably) perform an unarmed attack (and provoke AoO), but simply deciding to make an unarmed strike does not give the creature an extra attack. By allowing the creatures to use the attack sequence described you are inventing an additional primary attack that neither creature actually possesses. In the case of the spider, you're giving it 4 primary attacks that it doesn't have.
Pages 20-21 of the FAQ have several examples of mixing natural attacks with weapon or monk attacks.
I read the faq and have to say that I'm a little confused afterwards.
On page 21 it says:
If a creature can use one of its natural weapons as a secondary attack in conjunction with manufactured weapon attacks, it can do the same with that natural weapon in conjunction with a flurry of blows. Any penalty assessed on attacks by the flurry of blows would also apply to the natural weapon attack.
Therefore you can only use secondary attacks together with a manufactured weapon, if the description mentions it. But on page 97 this example is mentioned allowing the use of former primary weapons as well.
Just add the natural secondary attacks to the manufactured attacks the creature can make. Assuming that the example character has five fighter levels, she has a base attack bonus of +6 (+1 for being a lizard folk, +5 for fighter levels). Assuming the character doesn’t use a shield, she has two natural secondary attacks available—her bite and her free claw. She has a –5 penalty when using a natural secondary weapons. So, when the character uses the full attack action, her attack routine is +6/+1 melee (battleaxe)/+1 melee (bite)/+1 melee (claw).
What both answers have in common though is that you can use your secondary natural attacks only in combination with a manufactured weapon. Therefore the above mentioned spider and wolf can't combine their unarmed attacks with a natural attack unless they aquire a monk lvl somehow.
Both should be able to do unarmed attacks though imho and even get iteratives on those. While I can't find a rule on it the ability to do multiple grapple attempts is close enough for me to allow it. In most cases it doesn't make sense to use this ability anyways.
A creature that chooses to make grapple checks in place of attacks—that is, to damage its opponent, escape from the grapple, move, pin its opponent, or use its opponent’s weapon—is allowed one grapple check for every attack that its base attack bonus would allow (even if it doesn’t normally make multiple attacks in this manner). These attacks deal damage as an unarmed strike made by a creature of that size (1d3 for Medium, 1d4 for Large, 1d6 for Huge, and so forth, plus its Strength modifier).
My conclusion is that Monks get all the goodies in combination with natural attacks as their unarmed strikes count as manufactored weapons and therefore they can do iterative attacks (even flurry) and make a lot of secondary natural attacks as well. This makes that lvl of monk in monk1/druid19 even better in my opinion.