[3.5] Non-Simple RAW Q&A: Natural Attacks and Weapons

[Duke of URL]

Part of this is a result from the "Slam" question which launched its own thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179163), but I'm creating a different thread because it is a distinct and separate question, which I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to, to wit:

Where is the RAW (if any) that states that a creature (may) forfeit one or more natural attacks when using a manufactured weapon?

I simply can't find any. It has been suggested that the following provides the rule, but as I'll point out below, the justification for that point is belied by precedence in the monster listings:


Attack

This line shows the single attack the creature makes with an attack action. In most cases, this is also the attack the creature uses when making an attack of opportunity as well. The attack line provides the weapon used (natural or manufactured), attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged). The attack bonus given includes modifications for size and Strength (for melee attacks) or Dexterity (for ranged attacks). A creature with the Weapon Finesse feat can use its Dexterity modifier on melee attacks. If the creature uses natural attacks, the natural weapon given here is the creature’s primary natural weapon. If the creature has several different weapons at its disposal, the alternatives are shown, with each different attack separated by the word "or." A creature can use one of its secondary natural weapons when making an attack action, but if it does it takes an attack penalty, as noted in the Full Attack section below. The damage that each attack deals is noted parenthetically. Damage from an attack is always at least 1 point, even if a subtraction from a die roll reduces the result to 0 or lower.

Full Attack

This line shows all the physical attacks the creature makes when it uses a full-round action to make a full attack. It gives the number of attacks along with the weapon, attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged). The first entry is for the creature’s primary weapon, with an attack bonus including modifications for size and Strength (for melee attacks) or Dexterity (for ranged attacks). A creature with the Weapon Finesse feat can use its Dexterity modifier on melee attacks. The remaining weapons are secondary, and attacks with them are made with a -5 penalty to the attack roll, no matter how many there are. Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks. The damage that each attack deals is noted parenthetically. Damage from an attack is always at least 1 point, even if a subtraction from a die roll reduces the result to 0 or lower.

A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1½ times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon) and is given first. Secondary attacks add only ½ the creature’s Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses.

If any attacks also have some special effect other than damage, that information is given here.

Unless noted otherwise, creatures using natural weapons deal double damage on critical hits.

Manufactured Weapons

Creatures that use manufactured weapons such as swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters do. The bonus for attacks with two-handed weapons is 1½ times the creature’s Strength modifier (if it is a bonus), and is given first. Offhand weapons add only ½ the Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses.

The disputed answer claims that the last paragraph is the RAW I'm looking for, despite the fact that it does not say anything to the effect that a creature cannot use both natural weapons and manufactured weapons. Looking at the monster entries themselves as precedents, there is some justification for this. For example, the Cloud Giant entry shows that as a full attack the creature can either use its weapon (morningstar) or its two slam attacks.

However, the logical extension of that interpretation is that a creature that uses a manufactured weapon cannot use any of its natural attacks, but this is simply not true. Taking two SRD examples:

* The Hound Archon has a primary bite and secondary slam natural attacks. When making a full attack, it can either use bite/slam or greatsword/bite (as secondary).

* The Lizardfolk has two primary claws plus a secondary bite attack. On a full attack, it is listed as being claw/claw/bite or club/bite.

These are not isolated incidents, and it doesn't take long to infer the pattern. The problem I have is that the rule becomes inferred, and not explicit, that certain natural attacks are retained when using manufactured weapons and others aren't. Does a source (likely other than MM/SRD) provide explicit rules on how this works?

--

TL;DR: People assume that the rules on what natural attacks can and can't be used in conjunction with manufactured weapons are RAW, but no such RAW exists. Or does it?

[Keld Denar]

Um, I know a fair bit about this. I'm trying to find an explicit source, but so far all I can find is implied evidence. If a creature uses its natural weapon to wield a manufactured weapon, it can't make attacks with that natural weapon. This in no way impacts OTHER natural weapons that creature may have. Example: Take a look at the Troglodyte (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troglodyte.htm). His stat block lists 2 modes of attack. The first mode includes a manufactured weapon (a club). He still gets 1 claw and his bite in that full attack, but the claw that is holding the club can't claw. If he drops the club, he then has 2 claw attacks, since that claw is no longer occupied by the club. If that Trog took TWFing and had a club in one hand and a dagger in the other, its attack routine would be club/dagger/bite, with no claws since both claws are holding his weapons.

As for the Cloud Giant example you cited, he has a 35 Str. Thats a +12 damage. He swings his morningstar with +18 damage though, which is 1.5x his +str bonus. That means he's 2handing the morningstar. If he has both hands on the morningstar, he doesn't have any hands free to make slam attacks.

Where it gets kinda funny is when you use weapons that don't occupy a hand or hand-like appendige. Things like the CScoundrel Boot/Elbow/Knee Blades, and things like Armor Spikes, Unarmed Strikes, Weighted Cloaks, and Braid Blades.

Again, I'm trying to find an explicit rule, but its pretty clear from looking at monster's stat blocks what the implied rule is.

[Duke of URL]

I know what the implied rule is, it's whether or not it exists explicitly that I'm after.

And the implied rule makes RAI sense, as well. I'm really not trying to get around anything here, I just noticed when trying to find an answer on a related question that we all assume this is RAW, but then when forced to find it, the best we can do is point to MM examples.

That may be the best there is, of course, but if anyone knows otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

[Kaww]

By RAW if you wield a primary weapon (Manufactured) you may only use secondary attacks (off-hand attacks) if they are Wielded. PHB 160. Also RAW states that monsters wielding manufactured weapons follow same rules as PCs.

If a human ranger has IUS and a long sword in his primary hand can he attack with his secondary weapon(unarmed)?
Does this mean monk gets an extra attack in full attack?
Does Troglodyte monk have more attacks in full attack than a human monk?

[Keld Denar]

Another implied rule is the limit on MWFing. You need at least 3 hands to qualify for MWF, but MWF itself doesn't impose a limit on how many "offhands" you can have. As I've noted above, lots of weapons don't occupy "hands". In theory, a creature with MWF and at least 3 hands (to qualify) could attack with 3+ "hand" weapons, 2 Boot Blades, 2 Elbow Blades, 2 Knee Blades, a Weighted Cloak, Armor Spikes, a Mouthpick weapon, and his UAS all as "offhand" weapons.

Now, again, its implied by looking at creatures stat blocks that they only get one extra set of offhand attacks per limb capable of wielding a weapon. Thus, a Xill would get 3 offhands, and a Marilith would get 5 offhands, regardless of whether or not those offhand attacks were made with weapons in their hands. It is NOT, however, explicitly stated anywhere.

A lot of the rules of monster design just aren't explicitly stated. Its not hard to extrapolate them, but they aren't printed anywhere. Natural attacks and their interaction with manufactured weapons is one of those rules.

EDIT:

If a human ranger has IUS and a long sword in his primary hand can he attack with his secondary weapon(unarmed)?
Yes. You can always make offhand attacks with an UAS, even if your hands are full.

Does this mean monk gets an extra attack in full attack?
If he TWFs? Yes. He takes the appropriate penalties though.

Does Troglodyte monk have more attacks in full attack than a human monk?
Yes, since he has natural attacks he can make AFTER his manufactured weapon routine. Since his UAS doesn't occupy a hand, he could make his full iteratives with his UAS, THEN make his claw/claw/bite attacks ALL as secondary natural attacks. Its debatable whether he could use Flurry of Blows, however, as the wording is ambiguous. He's not using a claw attack as part of his normal attacks allotted due to Flurry (since claws aren't special monk weapons), they are extra attacks added on afterwards. Whether or not that means they are still a "part of the flurry" is uncertain. Its kinda fuzzy.

[Duke of URL]

If a human ranger has IUS and a long sword in his primary hand can he attack with his secondary weapon(unarmed)?
Unarmed strike is not a natural attack; if (s)he wishes to take the associated TWF penalties then (s)he can wield the sword 1-handed and make an unarmed strike with the off-hand.


Does this mean monk gets an extra attack in full attack?

A monk would gain an off-hand attack, along with the associated TWF penalties, if (s)he chose to make an extra attack with an unarmed strike.


Does Troglodyte monk have more attacks in full attack than a human monk?

It is generally held that monks with natural attacks get those in addition to their regular unarmed attack routine. But again, there's no real RAW to back that up, either.

[Zherog]

I've been digging (off and on) through the SRD ever since the question came up in the Simple Q&A thread. And much like you (and Keld), I can't find anything explicit.

Logically, it makes sense. RAI, it makes sense. Using examples, it makes sense. Yet if you go by a thoroughly strict RAW reading, every monster in every book is an exception, and RAW allows you to attack with (for example) a longsword and a slam attack.

At least, that's what I get by digging through the SRD so far.

[Keld Denar]

RAW allows you to attack with (for example) a longsword and a slam attack.

Well, a slam is a 1handed attack. You don't need both hands free to slam someone. Just one. So, if you had a sword in one hand, you could make a full iterative attack with the sword as a one handed weapon, then slam someone with your slam as a secondary natural weapon.

If you had 2 slams though, like the Cloud Giant, and you had a 1 handed sword, I'd imagine you'd make iterative sword attacks with 1 bonus slam. Unfortunately, the example Cloud Giant is using his morningstar 2handed (which you can tell due to the 1d.5x +str damage), so his stat block doesn't show it.

The Marilith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm) example only shows 2 cases. All weapons, or all slams. You could infer that if she had 3 swords, she could make 3 sword attacks and 3 slams. I'd imagine the stat block would be pretty huge if you went through ALL iterations of potential weapon combinations, though.

[Kaww]

I agree that this is RAI, but it isn't RAW. In Simple Q&A there was a series of questions about monks benefiting from TWF and the conclusion was that they don't. If you think this should be disputed than do so. Unarmed strikes/natural weapons don't meet the TWF requirement on having your second weapon in your off-hand. Since your off-hand weapon is your off-hand.

[Duke of URL]

I've been digging (off and on) through the SRD ever since the question came up in the Simple Q&A thread. And much like you (and Keld), I can't find anything explicit.

Logically, it makes sense. RAI, it makes sense. Using examples, it makes sense. Yet if you go by a thoroughly strict RAW reading, every monster in every book is an exception, and RAW allows you to attack with (for example) a longsword and a slam attack.

At least, that's what I get by digging through the SRD so far.

The scary thing is, even making a primary attack (such as a bite) count as a secondary attack when combined with a weapon attack is something that is only inferred from the rules.

Naturally, in the ongoing efforts in fixing this sort of **** in Boundless Horizons, I'm thinking of how to word this. What do y'all think of:


Manufactured Weapons: Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like generally follow the same rules as characters do. The bonus for attacks with two-handed weapons is 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength modifier (if it is a bonus), and is given first. Offhand weapons add only 1/2 the Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses. Creatures gain additional iterative attacks for a base attack bonus of +6, +11, etc.

A creature that has natural weapons and uses a manufactured weapon treats all of its natural weapons as secondary natural weapons (typically at full attack bonus -5). An appendage with a natural weapon that is otherwise occupied (wielding a weapon or wearing a shield, for example) cannot be used to make a natural attack.

[Keld Denar]

Unarmed strikes/natural weapons don't meet the TWF requirement on having your second weapon in your off-hand. Since your off-hand weapon is your off-hand.

This is dumb. Armor spikes aren't in your "hand", yet they can be used to make offhand attacks. A boot blade isn't in your "hand", and yet since its a light weapon, could be used as an offhand.

Hand (and mainhand/offhand) are used arbitrarily in many situations. I've complained about this in the past. They interchange the use of offhand (descriptive, your other hand) with offhand (mechanical, TWFing) all the time. You can attack with a weapon in your off hand without making offhand attacks, and your offhand attacks don't have to be with a weapon held in your off hand.

If you have a BAB of +6 or higher, and you are holding a long sword in your right hand and a flail in your left hand, you could make one attack at +6 with your longsword and one attack at +1 with your flail. Since you haven't exceeded the number of attacks your BAB would allot you, you aren't TWFing, simply fighting with two weapons.

[Kaww]

The scary thing is, even making a primary attack (such as a bite) count as a secondary attack when combined with a weapon attack is something that is only inferred from the rules...


Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like generally follow the same rules as characters do. The bonus for attacks with two-handed weapons is 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength modifier (if it is a bonus), and is given first. Offhand weapons add only 1/2 the Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses. Creatures gain additional iterative attacks for a base attack bonus of +6, +11, etc.

A creature that has natural weapons and uses a manufactured weapon treats all of its natural weapons as secondary natural weapons (typically at full attack bonus -5). An appendage with a natural weapon that is otherwise occupied (wielding a weapon or wearing a shield, for example) cannot be used to make a natural attack.

It is what the monsters in the MMs follow, it is definitely RAI, but isn't RAW.

[Kaww]

@Keld Denar look for 273 and disputes. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172043&page=21

This is rules as written thread, and no matter how dumb it is it is written and a rule. Thus unfortunately RAW...

EDIT: I apologize for double post.

[Stegyre]

Unarmed strike is not a natural attack; if (s)he wishes to take the associated TWF penalties then (s)he can wield the sword 1-handed and make an unarmed strike with the off-hand.
UAS is a natural attack:

Magic Weapon[/I]]
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang).
Monks get a special exception, in that their UAS may be construed as either natural or a weapon:

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.

I would disagree with Keld Denar, where he says that a character may "always" make a UAS, even with full hands. While the description for UAS does indeed indicate that it need not be with the "off-hand" (i.e., it may include headbutts; credit to Crumudgeon for pointing out those cites to me), only monks -- to my knowledge -- have the express allowance that they may make UAS with full hands.

Take, for example, this problematic case: a ranger is wielding a two-handed Great Sword. Under K D's statement, the ranger may choose (instead) to attack with UAS, but by extension he could also conceivably TWF using both Great Sword and UAS. I don't see the RAW support for that.

As for the OP issue generally? There may not be a generic RAW statement, but the individual monster descriptions are RAW for that creature. We may infer the general rule from all of the specific instances where a creature loses one or more natural attacks when wielding a manufactured weapon, but at the end of the day, why do we need to? The individual creature description controls.

One could (if desired) homebrew a creature that doesn't lose its natural attack. That would not violate any RAW.

EDIT:

Well, a slam is a 1handed attack. You don't need both hands free to slam someone. Just one. So, if you had a sword in one hand, you could make a full iterative attack with the sword as a one handed weapon, then slam someone with your slam as a secondary natural weapon.
I'm not aware of anything saying a slam is a one-handed attack. If that were RAW, then creatures with two "hands" (or whatever) would automatically have two slam attacks. Low level Astral Constructs, however (just pulling one quick example I know of), have only a single slam attack. (Mummys, too, fwiw). This is one of those conclusions that sounds reasonable, but isn't actually RAW (which unfortunately is too little constrained by reason; strict RAW makes for very bad games, imo).

Likewise, "you" can only make a slam attack if you have a natural slam attack. Just on a quick review, humanoid and monstrous humanoids tend not to, so they would be stuck with making a UAS, under whatever rules control UAS.

[Duke of URL]

Note that the monk's unarmed strike may count as a natural weapon "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve" it. That doesn't mean that it is a natural weapon. Because it isn't by RAW.


As for the OP issue generally? There may not be a generic RAW statement, but the individual monster descriptions are RAW for that creature. We may infer the general rule from all of the specific instances where a creature loses one or more natural attacks when wielding a manufactured weapon, but at the end of the day, why do we need to? The individual creature description controls..

Templates. Quite a few templates grant natural attacks to creatures that may not have already had them. There is no "creature description" to fall back on in that case, only the (implied) general rule.

[Keld Denar]

Barring a few exceptions, medium and smaller creatures only have one slam. Large and larger creatures have two. Again, another implicit rule derived from stat blocks. Warforged are a curious exception.

EDIT: @ Stegyre, check the unarmed attack rules in the attack section of the combat chapter. There is the rule that states that anyone, not just monks, can make UASs with any body part.

[Darrin]

Well, a slam is a 1handed attack. You don't need both hands free to slam someone. Just one. So, if you had a sword in one hand, you could make a full iterative attack with the sword as a one handed weapon, then slam someone with your slam as a secondary natural weapon.


Actually, I believe all natural weapons are treated as light weapons by default... although this isn't in the Natural Attack description, it's in the text for the Power Attack feat.

And you don't need a free hand to slam. If both hands were occupied, you could slam with another appendage (leg, tentacle, etc.). The text for natural attack in the MM is a little confusing, since it mentions large creatures with arms get multiple slams because they have two or more arms, but this isn't well supported by actual stat blocks, so it may be more an example of sloppy editing than an actual rule. The description for slam under that says "appendage", but doesn't specify arms. Legs could work, or head butt, or body check, or whatever. And I don't think a free appendage is even necessary. Creatures that have absolutely no appendages whatsoever (oozes mostly) get a slam attack more-or-less by default.

As for your example with the giant... hmmm. Well, most giants get 2 slams, and they apparently lose both when they wield a two-handed weapon. However, the ogre is also a large-sized giant with two arms, and it doesn't get any slams at all. I don't know. Slams are generally given to creatures as a last resort, when they don't have any claws/teeth or anything else that will work as a weapon, but they still need something to defend themselves with. Otherwise, you could say "any creature with legs or a physical body should get a slam attack". Are giants the only creatures that tend to get multiple slams? I think that may be more of a design choice for giants than a general rule for natural attacks: "Giants should totally be bad-ass at crushing people, so they get two slam attacks. LONDON BRIDGE IS FALLI--" etc. and so forth.

Re: Magic Weapon. That doesn't tell me that all unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons. That tells me whoever wrote/edited that spell effect didn't understand the unarmed attack rules in the Combat section.

[Stegyre]

Note that the monk's unarmed strike may count as a natural weapon "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve" it. That doesn't mean that it is a natural weapon. Because it isn't by RAW.
Reread what I wrote: by RAW, UAS is a natural weapon. It's buried in a spell description, it's true, but it's there. Monks are the exception in that their UAS may be treated as manufactured weapons.


Templates. Quite a few templates grant natural attacks to creatures that may not have already had them. There is no "creature description" to fall back on in that case, only the (implied) general rule.
Yep, that's right: all we seem to have is the implied rule.


EDIT: @ Stegyre, check the unarmed attack rules in the attack section of the combat chapter. There is the rule that states that anyone, not just monks, can make UASs with any body part.
I'm aware of that, and my original post acknowledged as much (it's what Crum. pointed out to me in the TWF thread a few days ago).

What it doesn't say, is that they may make a UAS even when hands are full. Monk's description expressly does say this for monks.

I'd also agree that it's not an unreasonable interpretation of RAW, but that interpretation leads to problems, such as our TWF greatsword & UAS ranger.


Re: Magic Weapon. That doesn't tell me that all unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons. That tells me whoever wrote/edited that spell effect didn't understand the unarmed attack rules in the Combat section.
Actually, it does. UAS is the example that it uses of a natural attack.

It's very poor editing for WotC to make this the sole source of such a rule, I wholeheartedly agree. But in the face of that text, you really need to come up with something else to say that a UAS is a manufactured weapon (the only other option). The only such text known to me is the text exclusive to monks.

[Keld Denar]

Reread what I wrote: by RAW, UAS is a natural weapon. It's buried in a spell description, it's true, but it's there. Monks are the exception in that their UAS may be treated as manufactured weapons.
It is a natural weapon, but it allows for iteratives like a manufactured weapon. Its both at times, and neither at times. Its wierd, just accept that its wierd.


What it doesn't say, is that they may make a UAS even when hands are full. Monk's description expressly does say this for monks.
Are you saying that it explicitly says you can headbutt and kick, but you can't headbutt or kick someone if your hands are full? That...is about the the worst interpretation of the english language I've ever heard. Its either ok for monks and non-monks alike, or its not for both. Since its allowed for monks, its allowed for both.


I'd also agree that it's not an unreasonable interpretation of RAW, but that interpretation leads to problems, such as our TWF greatsword & UAS ranger.
Whats wrong with TWFing with a greatsword and UASs? You can TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes. Armor spikes are actually more similar to UASs are than other natural attacks. Its a "slotless" weapon, essentially, since you don't need a free hand to wield them.


Actually, it does. UAS is the example that it uses of a natural attack.

It's very poor editing for WotC to make this the sole source of such a rule, I wholeheartedly agree. But in the face of that text, you really need to come up with something else to say that a UAS is a manufactured weapon (the only other option). The only such text known to me is the text exclusive to monks.

Like I said, UASs ARE natural weapons. They don't follow the normal rules for natural weapons though, as you can explicitly make iterative attacks with them. The number on rule of natural weapons is that you never gain iterative attacks with them. UASs have more in common with armor spikes than claw attacks. That said, they ARE still very much natural attacks WRT things like spells, feats, or other abilities that modify natural attacks. They aren't a manufactured weapon, but are treated as one WRT iterative attacks. They simply have a duel nature, and the rules support that duel nature.

[Stegyre]

It is a natural weapon, but it allows for iteratives like a manufactured weapon. Its both at times, and neither at times. Its wierd, just accept that its wierd.
Believe me, you and I are in full agreement on all of these points. :smallwink:

Are you saying that it explicitly says you can headbutt and kick, but you can't headbutt or kick someone if your hands are full? That...is about the the worst interpretation of the english language I've ever heard. Its either ok for monks and non-monks alike, or its not for both. Since its allowed for monks, its allowed for both.
I'm saying only that this appears to be RAW. I agree with you that, if it is RAW, it's not particularly good RAW.
And I can think of far worse abuses of the English language in RAW debates. Let's not get started. My principal defense is simply that, RAW TWF (the action, not the feat) requires a "weapon" in the off-hand. A UAS (imo) readily satisfies that requirement, but having the hand occupied by something else -- including the primary, 2-handed weapon -- does not.

I'm sure we can come up with much better ways that RAW could have been done.

Whats wrong with TWFing with a greatsword and UASs? You can TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes. Armor spikes are actually more similar to UASs are than other natural attacks. Its a "slotless" weapon, essentially, since you don't need a free hand to wield them.
You can make melee attacks with armor spikes and even use them as part of a TWF combo, but where is the rule that says they may be used for such in conjunction with a two-handed weapon?:smallconfused:
I'm willing to be persuaded on this point, but it does break the mechanics a little by allowing a character to get 1.5 strength on one attack + 1/2 strength on another, when RAI appears to have been one (two-handed) attack at 1.5 or two separate attacks at 1 and 1/2.

[WarrenZig]

Was just reading through the phb and noticed a few things in the Unarmed Strike section.

It says that monks can use either fist, elbows, knees, and feet to make an unarmed strike and that because of that they are able to preform unarmed strikes while holding things in their hands. from a fluff point i assume someone with full hands and having no training in use of other extremities would have trouble pulling off a hit at full strength.

It says "there is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk using an unarmed strike" so i don't think twf would work for monks.

The monk section says " A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enchance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as magic fang and magic weapon spells)"

BOTH magic fang and magic weapon work on a monk's attack it says it in the description of the unarmed strike effect, and magic weapon even says a monk's unarmed strike gets the bonus from it.

Unarmed Strike has it's own listing in the book as a successful unarmed attack, and an unarmed attack is an attack made without a weapon which would make it a natural weapon by default since it uses an appendage to attack and that is the definition of a natural weapon.

Now, while an Unarmed strike is a natural weapon, a natural attack is not an Unarmed strike, because in order for it to be an unarmed strike it would typically have to deal nonlethal damage, and it requires the strike be from a monk to deal lethal damage

Also the fact that Unarmed Strike has it's own section in the back of the book gives evidence against it being a normal natural attack.

They REALLY could have cleared up alot about this.

[stainboy]

WotC on mixing unarmed strike, monk unarmed strike, TWF, and natural attacks:

Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a)
Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a)
Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (Part Three) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a)

It doesn't address multiattack or mixing weapon attacks with natural attacks, but a few key bits:

-Regardless of whether or not you are a monk, you "usually" make unarmed attacks with a free hand but are never required to do so. It appears you can always kick or headbutt in addition to a weapon attack. In the example provided, the weapon is one-handed. (I know there's RAW on two-hander plus armor spikes somewhere, but I can't find it for the life of me.)

-Unarmed strike, including monk unarmed strike, is not a natural weapon. However, unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of applying spells to it, so you can cast Magic Fang to buff unarmed strike. This is explicit in the description of the monk class, but apparently the same is true of non-monk unarmed strike.

[WarrenZig]

GJ on the find stainboy it really clears up alot.

[Runestar]

Rules compendium suggests that slams are made with your arms.

From page 100,

Large or larger creatures that have arms or armlike limbs can make a slam attack with each arm

So wielding weapons with your arms would leave you unable to make slam attacks with them.

[true_shinken]

Rules compendium suggests that slams are made with your arms.

From page 100,


So wielding weapons with your arms would leave you unable to make slam attacks with them.

Well, this would only apply to Large creatures that have arms. :smallbiggrin:

[Darrin]

Rules compendium suggests that slams are made with your arms.


I noted that. The same text is in the MM/SRD. It's applied somewhat inconsistently, though... take the Ogre, for example. Large giant, and the rest of the giants get two slams, but the ogre gets none. Actually, the text in the Rules Compendium/MM/SRD suggests that the "large creatures with arms get two slam attacks" is an exception to the general rule: you can normally only attack with one slam attack.

Under Weapon Types, the Rules Compendium/MM/SRD, Slap or Slam mentions "appendage", not arm. Slam is also the default natural attack given to any creature that doesn't have any appendages whatsoever: thoqqua, oozes.

You can see more of a pattern with the elementals, though. Anything large-sized or bigger that's roughly humanoid gets 2 slams, anything medium or smaller gets only 1 slam.

So there appears to be two types of slams: large creatures with 2 or more arm-like appendages get two arm-slams, and oozes and certain other oddball creatures that don't have any obviously lethal anatomy get body-slams. Everything else (mostly medium-sized humanoids, such as warforged or doppelgangers) get one slam, which is the general rule... but it's not really specified if this is an arm-slam or a body-slam.

To get back to the OP though... I don't see anything in the Rules Compendium/MM/SRD that says when you have to give up a natural attack if that appendage is busy doing something else, such as wielding a weapon. Based on the RAW, "These secondary attacks don’t interfere with the primary attack", so if you've got two claws and decide to attack with a sword with one of those claws... you still get both claw attacks unless your stat block says otherwise? Odd. Is giving up a natural attack for a manufactured attack only in the FAQ?

Thank you for mentioning the Rules Compendium, though, as this clears up some of the general rules for primary/secondary natural weapons.

By RAW, or at least by RAW according to the Rules Compendium:

All natural attacks can become secondary attacks by default. If a natural attack granted by a spell/ability/effect doesn't specifically mention if it can or can't be used as a secondary attack, then you can assume that it can be.

Any creature that can wield manufactured weapons and also has natural attacks can combine them into a full attack. All natural attacks *including the primary* can be added as secondary attacks. (This may make some totemists very happy.)

[stainboy]

In case anyone hasn't said "screw it, I'll just houserule" yet, almost all the OGL constructs follow the Large = 2-slams rule. The only exception is animated objects, which all get one slam. Animated objects don't have arms so that supports Darrin's arm slam/body slam theory.

I don't think it really matters though, unless you're trying to figure out what happens to a warforged that becomes Large. Monsters were intended to be played as written. Suppose some MM writer didn't want to give ogres slam attacks. The technically correct way to do it would be to give ogres the following ability:

No Slam Attacks (Ex): Unlike other giants, an ogre cannot make slam attacks by virtue of its anatomy. A creature that polymorphs or otherwise takes on the shape of an ogre via a spell or effect that grants the natural attacks of the new form gains the No Slam Attacks ability. An ogre that polymorphs or otherwise takes the shape of another creature with arms or armlike appendages via a spell or effect that grants the natural attacks of the new form loses the No Slam Attacks ability and may gain slam attacks according to its new form and size category.

I feel stupider just for typing that, which is kind of my point.

[Keld Denar]

Eh, a slam attack isn't an inherant trait in a giant. Trolls are giants too, and they don't have slam attacks. They DO have claws instead, but no slam. Ogres simply don't have slam attacks because they were not given them. No elaborate formula there.

I think it makes perfect sense that there are essentially two types of slams. There is the slam that a giant, construct, or undead makes, and there is the slam that an ooze, animated table, etc would make. The former gets a 2nd with large size, the latter doesn't.

[Vistella]

from 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.

i think the red part here is the key: if the monster entry says you can use weapons and natural weapons in the same full-attack it works, if not then not

[Darrin]

from the FaQ:

i think the red part here is the key: if the monster entry says you can use weapons and natural weapons in the same full-attack it works, if not then not

We've been down that road before. It leads only to anger, frustration, and possibly GURPS.

And I think the Rules Compendium supercedes this nonsense in the FAQ by laying down some clearer general rules. Creatures that can attack with manufactured weapons and natural attacks can do so, regardless of whether their stat block says they can or not.

The stat blocks for creatures that mix manufactured attacks with natural attacks in their Full Attack entry supercede this general rule. This means giants wielding two-handed weapons don't get slams, lizardfolk who attack with a sword get only one claw attack, and so forth.

As far as the red text goes, I think Skip covered that pretty well. He used lizardfolk as an example, but he made no distinction between that and some other creature that doesn't have manufactured attacks in its stat block.