How unarmed strike and natural attacks work

[Tavar]

Where in the rulebooks does it cover how natural attacks interact with regular iterative attacks? For example, say you have a character that has a base attack bonus of 6/1, no strength, and two natural attacks(let's say tentacles). If he makes all available attacks, his routine would look like the following, right: Unarmed Strike(6), Unarmed strike(1), Natural attack(1), natural attack(1).

[Keld Denar]

You are correct. If you added in the Multiattack feat, it would be 6/1/4/4 UAS/UAS/Tentacle/Tentacle as an example.

[Tavar]

Know where I could find text supporting that? I just had an IRL session, and I could use the proof. In my specific example, I have a mount with Superior Unarmed Strike and a Monks belt. I though that it would get an Full Attack of US/US/Hoof/Hoof/Bite, but they said that it would more be (Hoof/hoof/Bite) as the first iterative attack, and then US as the second.

[jmbrown]

Natural weapons are described under special abilities. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons) There's a lot of disagreement revolving unarmed strikes but by RAW, it's a manufactured weapon and not a natural attack. A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a natural and manufactured weapon. Stop trying to make sense out of this, please. Giving a monk's belt to a horse won't give it unarmed strike because horses don't have unarmed strike. A horse with a monk's belt will receive the AC bonus of a monk but it will not increase their damage.

No, stop trying to make sense out of this because it's not possible.

[senrath]

Um, I'm pretty sure everything has the ability to make an Unarmed Strike.

[jmbrown]

Um, I'm pretty sure everything has the ability to make an Unarmed Strike.

An unarmed strike is literally an attack while unarmed.



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.

Because having a natural attack makes you armed, you can't make an unarmed strike.

No, it doesn't make sense.

Edit: Also, note that a monk's belt simply improves your damage to that of a monk. It does not grant improved unarmed strike or a monk's ability to use their unarmed strike as a natural/manufactured weapon.

Edit 2: Now if you unarmed a creature with a natural weapon (say you cut the legs off a horse), then it's unarmed and will have to resort to unarmed strikes.

Yeah.

[senrath]

An unarmed strike is attacking with something that isn't a weapon. You can make one even while armed.


Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

[dgnslyr]

Umm, not to be the one pointing out the elephant at the tea party, but we are talking about a horse who punches people with who knows what. What does a horse make an unarmed strike with? Not its hooves, which are a natural weapon. A headbutt is the only thing that comes to mind that would be practical.

[jmbrown]

An unarmed strike is attacking with something that isn't a weapon. You can make one even while armed.

And right underneath that



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.


A creature with a natural weapon is always considered armed. A natural attack is not an unarmed strike.

Edit: To put it simply: An unarmed strike is always an unarmed attack, but not all unarmed attacks are unarmed strikes.

[senrath]

The horse can headbutt things. That's not a natural weapon, ergo it's an unarmed strike.

[Ponce]

An unarmed strike is literally an attack while unarmed.



Because having a natural attack makes you armed, you can't make an unarmed strike.

No, it doesn't make sense.

Edit: Also, note that a monk's belt simply improves your damage to that of a monk. It does not grant improved unarmed strike or a monk's ability to use their unarmed strike as a natural/manufactured weapon.

Edit 2: Now if you unarmed a creature with a natural weapon (say you cut the legs off a horse), then it's unarmed and will have to resort to unarmed strikes.

Yeah.

I don't think being armed precludes you from making unarmed strikes, despite the name. It is horribly ill-defined, but for example, the character OP listed couldn't make any unarmed strikes at all by that reasoning.

The horse can still make unarmed strikes, they're a different weapon entirely (check the weapons table) but even with the monk's belt it is probably better off using its own hooves. The monk's belt would enhance it's unarmed strike (but not its hooves).

Just because you gain one doesn't mean you lose the other, despite the poor naming convention of unarmed strike. You just attack with a body part that you normally wouldn't attack with, or clench your claw into a fist, or something.

[Ryuuk]

Just to keep the discussion going, there's an interesting Rules of the Game article that's pretty relevant. The important part is in the spoilers, the original article is here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a):

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons

Just as a creature can add weapon attacks to a full attack made with natural weapons, so too can it combine unarmed attacks with natural weapons. Two options are available to accomplish this task.

A creature can choose to treat its unarmed attacks as its primary attacks and its natural weapons as secondary attacks. (This method is normally used to add weapon attacks to a natural attack routine.) The creature must make all unarmed attacks with its primary limb, which prevents that hand from being used for a natural attack such as a claw or slam. It uses its full base attack bonus for the natural attack, gaining additional attacks as normal for a high base attack bonus, and adds its full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Of course, each of these attacks provokes an attack of opportunity if the target is unarmed (unless the creature has Improved Unarmed Strike). However, its natural weapons all become secondary attacks, taking the -5 penalty on attack rolls (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) and adding only half the monster's Strength bonus on damage rolls.

A simpler method is to treat the creature's unarmed attack as an off-hand attack. (After all, an unarmed strike is rarely as effective as a weapon attack would be, so it doesn't really merit the same level of priority in the average monster's attack array.) Instead of using its primary limb to deliver the unarmed attack, it uses a kick, head butt, or other appendage that isn't otherwise used to deliver a natural attack. The creature gains one unarmed strike, which deals damage appropriate to its size plus half its Strength bonus (since it's an off-hand attack). A creature using this method suffers a -4 penalty on all attacks (since it's effectively fighting with two weapons and its off-hand weapon is light). The damage for its natural attacks is unchanged. This method requires fewer calculations on the fly, so it's probably easier to use in play.

Let's look at the nalfeshnee for an example of how each of these methods would work in play.

A nalfeshnee using the first method would have three unarmed attacks (thanks to its base attack bonus of +14). Applying its size modifier, and Strength modifier, the nalfeshnee's total attack modifiers for its three natural attacks are +19, +14, and +9. These natural attacks each deal 1d6+7 points of nonlethal damage. Each of the nalfeshnee's natural weapons takes a -2 penalty for a secondary natural weapon (thanks to the nalfeshnee's Multiattack feat) and gains only half the nalfeshnee's Strength modifier to damage, which gives it two secondary attacks, as follows: one bite +18 (2d8+3) and one claw +17 (1d8+3); it loses one claw attack in order to make unarmed attacks with its primary limb.

Using the second method, the nalfeshnee's natural attacks are made at a -4 penalty (bite +16, 2 claws +13) but deal normal damage. It then makes one unarmed attack at +15 (+14 for base attack bonus, -2 for size, +7 for Strength, -4 for off-hand light weapon) that deals 1d6+3 points of nonlethal damage.

With that, the original interpretation in the first post seems pretty accurate.

[jmbrown]

The horse can headbutt things. That's not a natural weapon, ergo it's an unarmed strike.

Fine, if you want to believe this is the case, then you must follow the rules for unarmed attacks. An unarmed strike is a standard action. A creature would have to use an unarmed strike as its primary weapon.

Edit: Good grief. Looking at Ryuuk's post, all I can say is "Why even bother?"

[senrath]

I don't just believe it is the case, it is the case. And whoever said that it wouldn't follow the rules for Unarmed Attacks?

[Lev]

Umm, not to be the one pointing out the elephant at the tea party, but we are talking about a horse who punches people with who knows what. What does a horse make an unarmed strike with? Not its hooves, which are a natural weapon. A headbutt is the only thing that comes to mind that would be practical.
http://www.pokemontradingpost.com/images/Aquapolis/102_Ponyta.jpg

Ponyta! Tackle Attack!

[jmbrown]

I don't just believe it is the case, it is the case. And whoever said that it wouldn't follow the rules for Unarmed Attacks?

If it's not errata it's not relevant to me. I don't scour Wizard's website for their quick fixes. RAW implies that an unarmed attack isn't the same as an unarmed strike and it contradicts itself on more than one occassion (kicks/punches/headbutts vs. "armed" unarmed attacks and improved unarmed strike). Reading that ridiculous article Skip Williams posted, I can't see any reason whatsoever for a creature not to use its natural attack unless it also had improved unarmed strike in which case it would say in the monster's listing an unarmed strike as the primary attack method.

Edit: Even the article contradicts itself.


Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons.

A character making an unarmed attack doesn't have natural weapons even though a character with natural weapons can make an unarmed attack???

A clearer phrasing would be "An unarmed strike, even with improved unarmed feat, is not a substitute for a natural weapon." There.

[senrath]

I never said anything about the article.

[Tavar]

That's not contradicting itself. That's unclear wording.

Also, yes, it's pointless to make unarmed attacks unless you have improved unarmed strike, something which most creatures with natural attacks lack. But it's easy enough to get, so what's your point?

[jmbrown]

I never said anything about the article.

Even without the article, RAW does not imply an unarmed strike is compatible with a creature with a natural weapon because a natural weapon substitutes their unarmed attack by being "armed." An unarmed attack is a standard action; if it's not an unarmed strike then it's an "armed" unarmed attack. Why is it that they can make an unarmed attack + "armed" unarmed attacks in the same standard action???

Whatever, OP got his answer in the form of that article so the rest of the topic is a circular argument.

Edit: Also note that the article says an unarmed attack takes up one of the creature's natural attacks.

The creature must make all unarmed attacks with its primary limb,
A horse wouldn't make a headbutt, it would make a "hoove punch." What?

[senrath]

I don't care what the article says. It's not RAW. There is nothing in RAW that prohibits making an unarmed attack while armed, just that you can't use whatever makes you armed in the attack. If I'm holding a sword in one hand, I can still headbutt someone as an unarmed attack. It's probably a stupid idea, but I can do it.

[jmbrown]

That's not contradicting itself. That's unclear wording.

Also, yes, it's pointless to make unarmed attacks unless you have improved unarmed strike, something which most creatures with natural attacks lack. But it's easy enough to get, so what's your point?

I guess if you want a boxing horse, go for it.

[Coidzor]

You can give it the feat, after all.

I'd prefer to mutate the horse to give it a bite attack and then give it a mouthpick weapon though....

<_< >_>


I don't care what the article says. It's not RAW. There is nothing in RAW that prohibits making an unarmed attack while armed, just that you can't use whatever makes you armed in the attack. If I'm holding a sword in one hand, I can still headbutt someone as an unarmed attack. It's probably a stupid idea, but I can do it.

The bigger question to me is, can one deliver unarmed strikes using one's elbows if one's hand or hands are involved in wielding a weapon? (With the attendant, secondary question asking if one can TWF greatswords and elbow blades or a longsword and elbowblade on the same arm?) Or, y'know, making claw attacks with one's hands/claws and then US with one's elbows?

Is it the limbs entirely or just the hands themselves that are disallowed?

And how wielding a greatsword and claw attacks interact since one can remove a hand from the great sword as a free action and then bring the hand back to wielding the great sword as another free action...

[jmbrown]

You can give it the feat, after all.

I'd prefer to mutate the horse to give it a bite attack and then give it a mouthpick weapon though....

<_< >_>



The bigger question to me is, can one deliver unarmed strikes using one's elbows if one's hand or hands are involved in wielding a weapon? (With the attendant, secondary question asking if one can TWF greatswords and elbow blades or a longsword and elbowblade on the same arm?) Or, y'know, making claw attacks with one's hands/claws and then US with one's elbows?

Is it the limbs entirely or just the hands themselves that are disallowed?

And how wielding a greatsword and claw attacks interact since one can remove a hand from the great sword as a free action and then bring the hand back to wielding the great sword as another free action...

I think you answered your own question. Swing with the greatsword, free action to remove hand, punch, free action to replace hand.

Or you'd headbutt or kick as an unarmed strike.

Now if you didn't have a head and your feet and hands are occupied... where am I going with this?

[Eldariel]

Now if you didn't have a head and your feet and hands are occupied... where am I going with this?

And this, in short, is why you want the ability to Enlarge your Unarmed Strike.

[Coidzor]

I'm not following.

What would you want to enlarge your Unarmed Strike for if you're not BEARDFIST FISTBEARD: BEARD OF THE FOREST!

...Now to just find some way to get a beard on a bear then we could have Fistbeard Beardfist: Bear of the Beard! Or... Beardbarian of the Bears!

:smallconfused: Errr... Something like that, anyway...

[Lev]

I guess if you want a boxing horse, go for it.
Ever ride a horse?
A literal ton of muscle and bone.

That'd be like comparing a 250lb bodybuilder bumping into a small child and knocking the child to the ground, l2physics <3

[Prime32]

jmbrown, would you claim that casting a spell which causes people to grow horns would completely disable a monk?

[FelixG]

I'm not following.

What would you want to enlarge your Unarmed Strike for if you're not BEARDFIST FISTBEARD: BEARD OF THE FOREST!

...Now to just find some way to get a beard on a bear then we could have Fistbeard Beardfist: Bear of the Beard! Or... Beardbarian of the Bears!

:smallconfused: Errr... Something like that, anyway...

I have heard Beardfist mentioned multiple times, link to the build please good sir?

[Stephen_E]

Pathfinder actually thought to put this in it's base rules.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html

Look under Natural Attacks. About 1/4 of the way through.

Basically a Horse with Improved Unarned Strike could make a Full Attack action with
primary - Unarmed Strike (with iterative attacks if sufficient BAB) with 2WFing penalties (natural attacks counting as light weapons). 2WFing can be used to reduce penalties.
secondary - Natural Attacks with -5 penalty for been secondary attacks (no 2WFing penalty apllied to these apparently) and 1/2 Str bonus to danage. MultiAttack can be used to reduce the attack penalty. Feats that reduce Str penalty to damage for secondary attacks can probably be applied as well.

Stephen E

[Ormagoden]

Did someone say bear (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140757)?

[Toptomcat]

jmbrown, would you claim that casting a spell which causes people to grow horns would completely disable a monk?

A hit, a very palpable hit!

[Tavar]

Of course not. See, a monk's unarmed strikes already count as both a manufactured weapon and a natural one. Therefore, they are always armed, and thus can't use unarmed strikes. :smallconfused:

[Myth]

Here is the official info from the 3.5 FAQ taken from the Wizards site:

The description of the flurry of blows ability says there’s no such thing as a monk attacking with an off-hand weapon during a flurry of blows. What does that mean, exactly? Can the monk make off-hand attacks in addition to flurry attacks?

Actually, the text to which you refer appears in the entry for unarmed strikes. When a monk uses her unarmed strike ability, she does not suffer any penalty for an off-hand attack, even when she has her hands full and attacks with her knees and elbows, using the flurry of blows ability to make extra attacks, or both.

The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists. When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting (see Table 8–10 in the PH) and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits.

To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains only half Strength bonus to damage. If the off-hand attack is a can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). For example, a 4th-level monk with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a Strength score of 14 decides to use a flurry of blows and decides to throw in an off-hand attack as well. The monk has a base attack bonus of +3 and a +2 Strength bonus. With a flurry, the character can make two attacks, each at +3 (base +3, –2 flurry, +2 Strength). An unarmed strike is a light weapon, so the monk suffers an additional –2 penalty for both the flurry and the off-hand attack, and the monk makes three attacks, each at an attack bonus of +1. The two attacks from the flurry are primary attacks and add the monk’s full Strength bonus to damage of +2. The single off-hand attack adds half the monk’s Strength bonus to damage (+1).

If the monk in our example has two sais to use with the flurry, plus the off-hand attack, she can use both in the flurry (in which case she must make the off-hand attack with an unarmed strike) or one sai for the off-hand attack and one with the flurry. The sai used in the off-hand attack is not available for the flurry and vice versa.



Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her penalties on attack rolls?

A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for twoweapon fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows.

For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember can normally make one attack per round at a +4 bonus. When using flurry of blows, she can make two attacks (using unarmed strikes or any special monk weapons she holds), each at a +3 bonus. If she wants to make an extra attack with her off hand, she has to accept a –4 penalty on her primary hand attacks and a –8 penalty on her off-hand attacks (assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand).

If Ember has Two-Weapon Fighting, she has to accept only a –2 penalty on all attacks to make an extra attack with her off hand. Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks, each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to be with her off-hand weapon.

A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows. Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this: +11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand.


A hit, a very palpable hit!

No, as per the FAQ:

Can a monk who has natural weapon attacks (such as a centaur monk) attack unarmed and still use his natural weapons? For example, let’s say he’s a 4th-level monk. Can he use a flurry of blows and attack at +5/+5/+0 unarmed (plus other bonuses) and then at +0/+0 for 2 hooves?

If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). Since a centaur can make two hoof attacks in addition to his longsword attack, a centaur monk can make two hoof attacks in addition to his unarmed strike attack (or attacks, depending on his base attack bonus). The monk can’t use his natural weapon attacks as part of a flurry of blows, but he can make natural weapon attacks in addition to his flurry. Such attacks suffer the same –2 penalty as the monk’s flurry attacks in addition to the normal –5 penalty for secondary natural attacks.

An 4th-level centaur monk has a base attack bonus of +7 (+4 from his 4 monstrous humanoid Hit Dice, and +3 from his 8 monk levels). If he performs a flurry of blows, he makes three unarmed strikes, at +5/+5/+0. He can add two hoof attacks at –2/–2 (–5 as secondary weapons, and –2 from the flurry).



If a creature with multiple natural attacks (such as the standard two claws and a bite array) takes levels of monk, how do flurry of blows and its natural attack progression interact?

You can’t use a natural weapon (claw, bite, or whatever) as part of a flurry of blows—only unarmed strikes and special monk weapons can be used in a flurry of blows.

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.

For example, a typical lizardfolk can attack with a club and its bite as part of a full attack. Normally, a creature would take a –5 penalty on an attack roll made with a secondary weapon, but since the lizardfolk has Multiattack, the penalty on the attack roll is reduced to –2 and adds only half the lizardfolk’s Strength bonus on the damage roll.

If it were a 1st-level monk, it could make a flurry of blows (using unarmed strikes, not claw attacks), then add a bite attack as a secondary attack. Each unarmed strike would have a –2 penalty (from flurry of blows), and the bite attack would have a –4 penalty (–2 from flurry of blows and –2 from being a secondary weapon, reduced from –5 by Multiattack).

[Toptomcat]

I'm not reading anything in that big block of text that suggests it's possible for a creature to lack an unarmed strike. In fact, it pretty explicitly describes that the exact situation under discussion is handled by making the unarmed attack routine as normal and them using your natural attacks as secondary natural attacks at -5 each...which is the math used by the OP. Horses do have headbutts!

[Keld Denar]

An unarmed strike is literally an attack while unarmed.

Because having a natural attack makes you armed, you can't make an unarmed strike.

These two statements are inaccurate. Check out the rules for TWF, one of the examples they give concerns using an UAS in conjunction with another weapon. If you are holding a weapon, according to your logic, you couldn't make an UAS. This is not true at all.

Really, natural attacks aren't that hard to figure out. There are really two steps:

1) Determine if a manufactured weapon (or UAS) is being used. If not, determine which natural attack is primary. Also determine if a weapon used disables the use of a natural attack (like wielding a sword in a claw hand).

2) Attack sequence looks like this (set of primary attacks)/(set of secondary natural attacks) or (set of primary attacks)/(set of offhand attacks)/(set of secondary natural attacks). Primary attacks are either your single natural attack with your primary natural weapon or your set of iteratives with a weapon that allows iterative attacks (like a manufactured weapon or UAS). Natural attacks occupied by weapons can't be used without special exceptions. Primary natural attacks are converted to secondary natural attacks if you use an "iterative using" weapon.

If a creature has 2 claws as its primary attacks and a bite as secondary (like a bear), its routine looks like (+x/+x/+x-5).

If a creature has its bite as primary and 2 claws as secondary, its routine looks like (+x/+x-5/+x-5).

If the creature uses an "iterative using" weapon with 2 tentacles, its routine looks like (+x/+x-5/+x-10/etc/+x-5/+x-5) depending on BAB.

If a creature uses two iterative using weapons with 2 tentacles, its routine looks like (+x-2/+x-2/+x-7/+x-7/etc/+x-7/+x-7).

I don't know how to explain it any more simply. Natural attacks by themselves are simple (primary + secondaries at -5). Iteratives by themselves are simple (mainhand + offhand if applicable). Combining both is also simple (mainhand + offhand if applicable + all natural attacks as secondary attacks).

[Tavar]

Okay, very novel approach. This is the DM's position:
A creature only gets to use it's iterative attacks due to base attack bonus if the standard entry gives them a weapon and has them use it.


Does this cause any other implications?

[Keld Denar]

All this really does is prevents things like bears from taking IUAS. Most creatures that can use both weapons and natural weapons (like lizardfolk) include a just natural attack option along with an armed option.

For a player, the only real impact on you would be if you were a class with an animal companion or familiar that can gain feats, and you wanted one of those feats to be IUAS. So, your pet dire tiger couldn't do something like, UAS/UAS/UAS/Claw/Claw/Bite/Rake/Rake.

Thats fine. Most people don't take IUAS for their pets anyway, even though it is technically allowable. It shouldn't cause any major waves in actual gameplay.

[Stephen_E]

For a player, the only real impact on you would be if you were a class with an animal companion or familiar that can gain feats, and you wanted one of those feats to be IUAS. So, your pet dire tiger couldn't do something like, UAS/UAS/UAS/Claw/Claw/Bite/Rake/Rake.


He was a Tiger (Reincarnated from a Dire Wolf) and my GM blew a fuse when he realised how many attacks I got with him.

I'd even colour coded my dice for each type of attack.:smallbiggrin:

Stephen E