Are Unarmed Strikes Weapons?

[Karnith]

Since other threads, particularly the Dysfunctional Rules thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267923), have recently/repeatedly been derailed by discussions concerning how weapon proficiencies work with unarmed strikes, and since I am endlessly amused by nonsensical rules like the unarmed strike rules, I thought that I may as well start a separate thread for discussion on that topic so that other threads don't get derailed.

Arguments that unarmed strikes are weapons:
They appear on the Simple Weapons table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#simpleWeapons), the only place that defines what simple weapons are.
The Simple Weapons Proficiency feat explicitly calls out the Simple Weapons table as a list of simple weapons, and as the primary source on simple weapon proficiency rules, it overrides other sources.
Unarmed strikes are "always considered light weapons," according to the "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons" section of the weapons rules.

Arguments that unarmed strikes are not weapons:
The glossary defines an unarmed strike as "A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons." (Emphasis mine)
The glossary is the primary source for all terms that it defines, and hence overrides other sources.
Fluff in the Player's Handbook indicates that monks are skilled at unarmed combat even though they are not listed as being proficient with unarmed strikes.
References to unarmed strikes being/counting as weapons wouldn't be necessary if unarmed strikes were weapons.
Unarmed strikes being weapons is counterintuitive.

Have I missed anything? And does anyone want to add their opinion as to how weapon proficiencies work with unarmed strikes?

[Deaxsa]

don't know if this totally on topic, but you could do some consideration into Natural Weapons vs. unarmed strikes; where does one end and the other begin? i mean, natural weapons are, to a certain extent, both armed and unarmed attacks, in fact i think they are even improved by taking levels in monk, but creatures are automatically proficient with them.

also, dont know if this is an argument for "unarmed strikes are not weapons" or "unarmed strikes are not manufactured," but unarmed strikes(and natural weapons, for that matter) cannot be made masterwork. actually, that makes me wonder if you can have a warforged with masterwork unarmed strikes.

[Juntao112]

A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons.
I think that they meant physical weapons separate from the body. Like a sword, but unlike a fist.

[TuggyNE]

It might be useful to reference Improved Unarmed Strike to clarify the sort of paradoxical language being used:
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.

So an unarmed strike can be both armed and unarmed, a weapon defined by attacking without a weapon in hand, both manufactured and natural.

[QUOTE=Deaxsa;14652353i mean, natural weapons are, to a certain extent, both armed and unarmed attacks, in fact i think they are even improved by taking levels in monk, but creatures are automatically proficient with them.[/quote]

Actually no, they aren't; an unarmed strike deals a specific amount of damage (which is not generally the same as most natural weapons), and Monk levels increase that to a different specific amount of damage.

It would be more accurate to say that there are natural weapons, manufactured weapons, and unarmed strikes in an awkward spot right in between, but chiefly defined as a sort of subset of the former.

[ArcturusV]

Well, I recall there's a rules entry that says things like "A monks unarmed strike counts as a weapon".

Checked. I'm thinking of the spell "Magic Weapon". Which states:

"You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such an an unarmed strike (instead, see Magic Fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell."

So both? I wonder if the exception applies ONLY for monks, or if it just means "you have the improved unarmed strike feat".

Note that Magic Fang also references Unarmed strikes with the line "(The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)"

Weird...

[Namfuak]

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat.

Above is from weapon focus. This seems to imply unarmed strikes are not weapons.

[Flickerdart]

A monk asked Zhàozhōu, "Is an unarmed strike a weapon or not?" Zhaozhou said, "Wú (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29)".

[Curmudgeon]

Unarmed strikes aren't considered manufactured weapons, except as a special dispensation for Monks. (After all, no blacksmith makes them, right?) But they are natural weapons, albeit ones with special rules.

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang).
Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)
A fanged ring grants its wearer the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and the Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) feat. Improved Natural Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#improvedNaturalAttack) requires a natural weapon, and the Fanged Ring works with unarmed strike as that natural weapon for the granted feat.

[mattie_p]

One note on the proficiency - the primary source on weapon proficiencies is the feats themselves. From Simple Weapon Proficiency (in the PHB)


You understand how to use all types of simple weapons in combat
(see Table 7–5: Weapons, page 116, for a list of simple weapons).

Table 7-5 is the infamous table wherein unarmed strikes are listed under simple weapons.

[Keld Denar]

Curmudgeon has it right. UASs are natural weapons. They are a natural weapon in all regards EXCEPT that unlike normal natural weapons, you can make iterative attacks with them. And the monk clause, as mentioned. Otherwise, an UAS is 100% a natural weapon and governed by all of the applicable rules for natural weapons.

[TuggyNE]

One note on the proficiency - the primary source on weapon proficiencies is the feats themselves. From Simple Weapon Proficiency (in the PHB)



Table 7-5 is the infamous table wherein unarmed strikes are listed under simple weapons.

I'm uh... not sure how anyone can top or counter that. Well done, sir.

[mattie_p]

I'm uh... not sure how anyone can top or counter that. Well done, sir.

Any time :smallamused:

[Greenish]

Unarmed strikes aren't considered manufactured weapons, except as a special dispensation for Monks. (After all, no blacksmith makes them, right?)What about warforged? :smalltongue:

[Alienist]

Players Handbook. Page 121. Second column. Second Paragraph.



An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.


QED

The SRD uses the same phrase with exactly the same wording.

Karnith please add to the original post, there is no need to rely on the argument from conjecture, when it says it in plain black and white. To not represent that as the best evidence is to severely underplay the strength of the unarmed strike = weapon argument.

[mattie_p]

Pickford hasn't joined us yet, but let me select one of his strongest arguments.

Please compare the following:


An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
with

An unarmed strike is a light weapon.
If it were a light weapon, it would not need to be considered a light weapon. When your space marine in starcraft says "Consider it done" does that mean it is done already? or he is going to try his best to do it and you should pretend he already did it?

[Darrin]

If it were a light weapon, it would not need to be considered a light weapon. When your space marine in starcraft says "Consider it done" does that mean it is done already? or he is going to try his best to do it and you should pretend he already did it?

Clever, but I don't consider this compelling.

The word "always" precludes an unarmed strike from ever *not* being considered a light weapon. In this case, I think "consider" may have been just a poor choice of words on the part of the designer.

"Consider" implies doubt but "always" implies the exact opposite, so... um... was I trying to say something conclusive? I'm confused now.

[Greenish]

If it were a light weapon, it would not need to be considered a light weapon. When your space marine in starcraft says "Consider it done" does that mean it is done already? or he is going to try his best to do it and you should pretend he already did it?That quote might be more convincing if it didn't come from "Strike, Unarmed" entry of the section "Weapon Descriptions".

Just sayin'.

[mattie_p]

That quote might be more convincing if it didn't come from "Strike, Unarmed" entry of the section "Weapon Descriptions".

Just sayin'.

In Pickford's defense, most of the playground (but not everyone) has argued in favor of all 1-HD creatures being able to exchange that hit die for a class level because the header "Humanoids and Class levels" isn't rules text, it is just a "fluff" header. Should this be different?

EDIT: Szar_Lakol posted a nice summary of the counter-argument in the dysfunctional thread, quoted here, spoilered for length.




You do realize the PHB defines "Unarmed Strike" as a weapon, right? It's right there on page 116, table 7-5, "Weapons." It's next to "Gauntlet." I don't see why you're trying to do this whole argument that unarmed strikes aren't weapons when they're clearly listed in the weapons section.

So yes, Monks are not proficient. Untrained humanoids are... if you could somehow have a human with just a humanoid HD, you'd be proficient (since they get all simple weapons). But humanoid weapon proficiencies say that they get simple weapons unless they have class levels, in which case they get class proficiency. Monks are a class, and their proficiencies don't include Unarmed Strike. Thus, they are not proficient in unarmed strike. It's quite straight forward.

JaronK
No, it does not.

Read the glossary, which defines Unarmed Strike as an attack without a weapon.


That table is what determines your proficiencies (simple, martial, exotic). There is no other source for that. So actually, in terms if this particular discussion, that table is the only source. Your glossary source says nothing about proficiency.

JaronK

Proficiency with unarmed strikes does not exist. Instead, when attacking unarmed, you give up certain benefits of weapons, unless you are trained to counteract those.

Monks may not be proficient with unarmed strikes, but since there is no penalty defined for not being proficient with them, it does not mean a damn thing. Penalties for non-proficiency is defined in terms of weapons, which unarmed strikes are not.


So, unarmed strike works like a weapon, except for two things (related to attacks of opportunity). For other things (like proficiencies), it therefor works like a weapon. That would explain why unarmed strikes are listed as simple weapons in the weapons table... for purposes of everything in that table (including proficiencies) they're weapons.

JaronK

The section you quoted does not state the other ways in which unarmed strikes are different from weapons, so clearly it is incomplete (for instance, unarmed strikes do not deal lethal damage unless you have a feat or are a monk).

The entry under "Weapons" call out in what manner unarmed strike acts as a weapon. If it were a weapon, IT WOULD NOT NEED TO DO THIS. The exception proves the rule; since it calls out an exception, there must be a rule to which that exception applies.


It's listed under "Simple Weapons." From the SRD:



Then, right under that:



See? They straight up tell you proficiencies apply, then show you unarmed strike and tell you the proficiency that applies. It's incredibly straight forward.

JaronK

You are correct in that Unarmed Strike is listed as a weapon with which you get proficiency.

Where you go wrong is that there is no clause for non-proficiency with an unarmed strike. It is defined as not being a weapon, and there is no table to refer to for non-proficiency. In other words, Simple Weapon Proficiency may make you proficient with Unarmed Strikes, it just doesn't mean anything, as there are no penalties associated with being non-proficient with an unarmed strike.

Really, it is straight forward, but it means precisely the opposite of what you think it does.

[Karnith]

Karnith please add to the original post, there is no need to rely on the argument from conjecture, when it says it in plain black and white. To not represent that as the best evidence is to severely underplay the strength of the unarmed strike = weapon argument.
Well, I would consider the Simple Weapons table the most convincing piece of argument, since the argument has been primarily about weapon proficiencies, but I've added this to the OP.

[Ksheep]

I have to ask: Is the glossary considered a primary source? If one were to look for rules as to how something works, they would look in the main text first for comprehensive rules, and use the glossary and tables for more information, correct? Should the glossary be considered on the same level of "primary vs. secondary" as tables?

If so, then the clause stating that when the rules contradict to use the primary source would indicate that we should ignore the glossary in this instance (or, at the very least, have it tied for precedence with the table, which supports that it is). If it WERE a primary source… well, then we have a bunch of primary source materials on the For, Against, and "Well, it kinda goes either way" side of things.

Oh, and for the "Always considered a light weapon" thing, I believe this is to counter any confusion that might arise from enlarging your UAS for whatever reason. You can normally use weapons not sized for you at a disadvantage (they count as the next category up or down), but since UAS is a part of your body, you would never have an issue with not being able to wield it due to size issues if it were enlarged or shrunk (since the musculature for wielding it is also increased or decreased). You may still take other penalties if applicable, but the musculature is still there to allow you to accurately use your UAS at non-normal sizes.

[Curmudgeon]

I have to ask: Is the glossary considered a primary source?
If it's Glossary information in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual, it's all primary source. In individual books the only explicit hierarchies are in text over tables, and long spell descriptions over short description in the beginning of the chapter.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Deciding that text in the main part of the book takes precedence over Glossary text at the end of the book would be a house rule.

[Ksheep]

But that entry on precidence only states the text vs. table as an example. I believe that the hierarchy would go something along these lines:
Rules Text —> Tables and/or Glossary —> Examples —> Fluff
In theory, you would rarely need to use the examples for rules, as they are often poorly written and contradicted by rules text, and fluff is almost never used. The question is whether tables have more or less precedence than the glossary.

[Scow2]

According to the rules, Unarmed strikes are attacks made without a weapon. They are NOT "natural weapons" either - First off, you don't get Iterative attacks with a Natural weapon, you don't add 1.5x your strength to attacks with Unarmed Strikes if you only get one, and also the rules outright say Unarmed Strikes aren't natural weapons.

While the glossary says Unarmed strikes are attacks made without a weapon, it's written in plain language, and may merely mean it's an attack that isn't made with what we'd consider an intuitive weapon. However, the actual ENTRY for Unarmed Strikes, in the Weapons chapter of the rulebook/section of the SRD explicitly states they are always considered a light weapon - And it would be explicitly spelled out as counting unarmed strikes as a weapon to clarify that as far as the rules regarding combat and the game's definition of weapons are concerned it's ALWAYS a weapon, despite being called an "Unarmed Strike" and the glossary indicating it's an attack made without the Dictionary definition of a Weapon.

The glossary plain text takes precedent in situations that reference not having a weapon (Free hand to cast spells, tripping, gaining an enemy's weapon after disarming, etc), and for asserting that you have an unarmed strike even if you lose your weapons - Technically, it's possible to Disarm an Unarmed Strike (And it would be treated as a light weapon) - but because of the Glossary Definition of the term, you still have it after being disarmed. However, an Unarmed Strike, although considered a weapon, is not an object, so someone else can't possess your unarmed strike, nor can it fall to the ground in your square (It simply doesn't exist, but because you have no weapons, you can still make Unarmed Strikes)

[Curmudgeon]

According to the rules, Unarmed strikes are attacks made without a weapon. They are NOT "natural weapons" either - First off, you don't get Iterative attacks with a Natural weapon ...
They are indeed natural weapons; they're just natural weapons with special rules. See above (here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14652539&postcount=8)) where I cited the places in the rules where they're called out as natural weapons.

[Eugenides]

So basically, we're getting that they are in fact QUANTUM weapons: simultaneously in a state of being weapons and not weapons.

[noparlpf]

So basically, we're getting that they are in fact QUANTUM weapons: simultaneously in a state of being weapons and not weapons.

Yeah. It was decided a while ago in the Dysfunctions thread to give up because different parts of the rules contradict each other.

[Scow2]

Hmm... I guess that does solve the question. They're natural weapons that deal subdual damage (As a sap), and awkwardly provoke AoOs without a specific feat.

... which means you can improve the damage of an Unarmed strike by taking Improved Natural Weapon.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, I agree with the Simple Weapon Proficiency ruling. Unarmed strikes are weapons.

Now the downside.

Most people that wield them (say, commoners), aren't proficient, and unarmed strikes for them will deal nonlethal damage, as per PHB121 on unarmed strikes.

Even someone proficient via Simple Weapon Proficiency still deals nonlethal damage.

The nonproficient and proficient are considered unarmed, and thus provoke attacks of opportunity.

Improved Unarmed Strike allows lethal damage option and removes being "unarmed," so no AoO provoking just for clenching your fist.

Monk and Superior Unarmed Strike are the main ways to improve damage.

It's debatable that unarmed strikes are natural weapons in any case but the monk.

In summary, I find that the problem isn't so much that UAS are a weapon, but that even when using them, most people (even those proficient, like a cleric) are still considered unarmed and will generally suck in the standard combat encounter in D&D (somewhat realistically so).

EDIT: It is NOT debatable that they are natural weapons, as I have recently been instructed. Thanks again, forum....Man, LEARNING IS AWESOME!

[Pickford]

They are indeed natural weapons; they're just natural weapons with special rules. See above (here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14652539&postcount=8)) where I cited the places in the rules where they're called out as natural weapons.

Edit: Unarmed Strikes are not, by definition, natural weapons. Though you can make an unarmed strike with a limb that 'has' a natural weapon.

The unusual thing about using spells to define an unarmed strike as a natural weapon is that the definition of natural weapons doesn't list unarmed strikes as natural weapons. (It lists slam attacks, but that's not an unarmed strike, that's a slam attack).

Also unmodified natural weapons deal lethal damage, and unmodified unarmed strikes deal nonlethal.

...also natural weapons are never iterative, unarmed strikes 'are' iterative. You can make unarmed strikes at the same time as you use natural weapon attacks. So, no an unarmed strike is not itself a natural weapon. It's not a claw, it's not a bite, a sting, etc... and the definition of natural weapons over-rides the text of spells.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Natural_Weapons

[Scow2]

and the definition of natural weapons over-rides the text of spells.[/url]Wrong. Specific overrides general, and the spells explicitly state that they affect fists in all those examples.

Most RAW stupidity is caused by idiots forgetting/refusing to acknowledge that Specific Overrides General.

[Pickford]

Wrong. Specific overrides general, and the spells explicitly state that they affect fists in all those examples.

Most RAW stupidity is caused by idiots forgetting/refusing to acknowledge that Specific Overrides General.

That is from Primary sources to Secondary sources.

Guess what the definition of a natural attack is vs. an offhand mention in a spell. Yeah, primary vs secondary. Definition trumps.

Edit: Friendly suggestion, I recommend you restate your post to be...less angry, the moderators do operate here and calling people idiots is...frowned on.

[JaronK]

Actually, no. Specific Overrides General always trumps the primary source rule. Always. You've got your logic entirely backwards.

JaronK

[Phelix-Mu]

"Fist" is not a particularly well-defined weapon, though, as far as I can see. "Strike, unarmed" from PHB 121 includes fist, but also says that it can be any part of the body, so enchanting just the fist might not improve all unarmed strikes....

The problem with specific trumping general is that there are often a bunch of specific rules that directly contradict each other, or introduce a level of confusion such that any favorable interpretation can be drawn. Internal inconsistency can't be swept under the rug. It does make arcane knowledge of rules more fun, though.

[Scow2]

Your starting point in interpreting rules is always the plain language employed by the game designer.
If a rule specifically defines a term, use the defined definition; but in the absence of a defined definition, interpret the rule in accordance with the ordinary and natural meaning of the language (the dictionary definition).
If the rule is still ambiguous, look at the rule holistically. Terminology in a rule that is ambiguous in isolation may be clarified if the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the possible meanings is compatible with the rest of the game.
Gamemasters should not interpret different terms within the same rule to mean the same thing, nor the same term within the same rule to mean different things.
If the literal interpretation of the words is absurd, the rule must be interpreted to avoid absurdity.
If possible, give meaning to every clause and word of a rule; don't assume anything is redundant.
Specific rules override general rules.

[Phelix-Mu]

Are the spells quoted by Curmudgeon (post #8 of this thread) really "specific rules" though? It seems more like they are references, not definitions, so is this a "rule?"

Honestly, after I use the time machine for the obvious uses, I am headed back to WotC development headquarters to stop some of the poor writing that went on. I mean, they had computers, and could search for instances of terms in a given rulebook to make sure that there was some kind of regular use of terms.

[Ksheep]

Found something that supports it being a natural weapon, as well as letting monks be proficient with it automatically. The only downside: It's from a 3.0 book.


Many monsters have natural attacks. Members of the corresponding monster class are always proficient with their own natural weapons. Using a natural attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity unless the class description specifies otherwise. A monster does not get iterative attacks on a full attack action with its natural weapon unless the class description specifies otherwise.

Emphasis mine.

[Phelix-Mu]

To the best of my knowledge (and some measure of grief), Savage Species is 3.5.

This quote also muddies things, because it says that monsters are always proficient in their natural weapons, and only humanoids with Simple Weapon Prof would be proficient with unarmed strikes (hence the big monk unarmed strike proficiency debate).

Or maybe all humanoids are proficient with unarmed strike? Hardly matters, cause they are still unarmed, so provoke AoO, and deal crappy nonlethal damage.

The real question here is the "unarmed" part. If a creature has a natural weapon, then they are considered armed, as far as I can tell, and all mention of unarmed fighting provoking AoO would be irrelevant. Ergo the absurd armed unarmed attacks...

Need...time....machine...

[Curmudgeon]

Found something that supports it being a natural weapon, as well as letting monks be proficient with it automatically.
It doesn't do that, though, because the Monk isn't a monster class; it's a base class. Base classes don't have any such rule granting weapon proficiencies.

[Ksheep]

To the best of my knowledge (and some measure of grief), Savage Species is 3.5.

Savage Species came out February 2003, 3.5 wasn't released until July 2003. However, I think Savage Species was one of the books that was written as a bridge (of sorts) between 3.0 and 3.5, although I may be wrong.

EDIT:

It doesn't do that, though, because the Monk isn't a monster class; it's a base class. Base classes don't have any such rule granting weapon proficiencies.

Class proficiency overwrites monster proficiency… but allows for racial proficiency? Does that belong in the dysfunctional rules thread, or am I just misremembering the rules (don't quite feel like digging through all my books tonight).

[Pickford]

Actually, no. Specific Overrides General always trumps the primary source rule. Always. You've got your logic entirely backwards.

JaronK

And the definition of a natural attack is more specific than a spell. How does that invalidate that? (Not a rhetorical question, I don't follow how you're getting at the idea that the spell trumps the actual definitions)

Also:
Natural weapons and unarmed strikes are clearly distinct things, in the same way that a natural attack and an unarmed attack are distinct things. (as they are defined separately within the glossary)

Edit:
Also that unarmed strikes aren't weapons in and of themselves obviates the need for a proficiency.

[Phelix-Mu]

Savage Species came out February 2003, 3.5 wasn't released until July 2003. However, I think Savage Species was one of the books that was written as a bridge (of sorts) between 3.0 and 3.5, although I may be wrong.

Touche. You appear to be right, as it has both references to the Survival skill and the old form of DR.

*facepalm*

Maybe they were trying to encourage this sort of scholarly discussion by being vague and contradictory.

I agree that the context seems to refer to monster classes.

[Pickford]

The 3.5 FAQ helps to clarify by the questions and answers given:


The text for level adjustments on page 11 of SS says that
if the monster gains multiple attacks in a single round
before a fighter of equal level, or if the attacks deal more
damage than a one-handed martial weapon, then this is a
level adjustment of at least +1. By “multiple attacks,” do
you mean two claws, or two claws and a bite, such as the
Multiattack feat requires? Say a monster has two claws,
each dealing 1d4 points of damage. Would that still be a +0
level adjustment, since the two claws do not exceed the
damage a longsword can deal?

Having more than one natural attack gets you a +1 level
adjustment (no matter how much damage those natural
weapons can deal) if a fighter of equivalent level does not have
as many attacks. If you have one natural weapon that deals
more damage than you could deal with a one-handed simple or
martial weapon (more than 1d8 for a Medium creature), you
also have a level adjustment of at least +1.

So if unarmed strikes 'were' natural weapons, all players would have a +1 level adjustment. Which they do not.

And slam attacks aren't unarmed strikes:


Does a warforged monk deal extra damage with his
unarmed strikes?
No. Even though a warforged has a slam attack, that’s a
particular kind of natural weapon, not simply a replacement for
your unarmed strike damage. A warforged monk deals the
same damage with his unarmed strikes as any other monk of his
level.


If a druid takes the shapeshift alternative class feature
in PHB II, does he get additional attacks as his BAB goes
up?
No. A high base attack bonus doesn’t grant extra natural
weapon attacks, so an 8th-level druid shapeshifted into a wolf
would still only get one bite attack.

So...unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons as well, because you get extra attacks from a higher BAB. Natural weapons don't get that.

I can go on, but frankly that tiny sampling should be more than enough.

[Ksheep]

But the Savage Species entry for Natural Weapons does say that the might not provoke AoO and may attack iteratively, if specified by the base creature. Yes, I know that the description talks about monster classes, but why would there be one definition of natural attacks for monsters and another for non-monsters? What decides if something is a monster? If it's in a Monster Manual, does that make it a monster? If so, all humanoids except for Humans are monsters…

The other main issue with this argument is that it's 3.0

Oh, and didn't we decide that FAQ is fairly low on the pecking order of what is actual rules?

EDIT: Just for the record, I endorse the Time Machine idea. All in favor?

[Pickford]

Oh, and didn't we decide that FAQ is fairly low on the pecking order of what is actual rules?


Two things:
1) You don't get to pick and choose what's rules as written, when you do that's when you're homebrewing.

2) The FAQ contains the most recent rules, hence it trumps everything else.

[Ksheep]

Two things:
1) You don't get to pick and choose what's rules as written, when you do that's when you're homebrewing.

2) The FAQ contains the most recent rules, hence it trumps everything else.

But the FAQ is not always written by the developers, the rules put forth by FAQ are rarely play tested, and the rules put forth by the FAQ oftentimes contradict rules that are already laid out in officially published material. I'd be fine if it was errata, because that is typically made by the developers to fix errors in the original rules, but FAQ is NOT the same as errata.

[Pickford]

But the FAQ is not always written by the developers, the rules put forth by FAQ are rarely play tested, and the rules put forth by the FAQ oftentimes contradict rules that are already laid out in officially published material. I'd be fine if it was errata, because that is typically made by the developers to fix errors in the original rules, but FAQ is NOT the same as errata.

Errata are corrections to the printed materials, FAQ's are explanations of the rules.

They aren't contradictory, they fulfill disparate purposes. And the FAQ I refer to is published by WOTC, so it's raw.

[Ksheep]

Errata are corrections to the printed materials, FAQ's are explanations of the rules.

They aren't contradictory, they fulfill disparate purposes. And the FAQ I refer to is published by WOTC, so it's raw.

Here's another bit of FAQ published by WOTC, answered by 4 different people.



Q: If someone wearing a ring of invisibility dies, will she stay invisible forever?

A corpse is an inanimate object. By the same token you can't put the ring around the hilt of your sword to make it invisible.
--Paul

A person with a ring of invisibility would stay invisible until someone tripped over the corpse and pulled off the ring. Great method to distribute it as treasure, really.
--Sam

Who said that wearing a ring of invisibility makes you permanently invisible? A ring of invisibility has to be activated in order to gain the benefits from it, and then you receive the benefits as per the spell, which is 1 minute of invisibility per level of the caster, which is 3rd, so activating a ring of invisibility only makes you invisible for 3 minutes.

Afterwards, you'd have to activate the ring again. If you read the description of magic rings, all magic rings are either use activated or continuous, not both. It becomes a little uncertain as to whether the invisibility stops immediately upon death or if it lasts the full 3 minutes, but I'd say it stops immediately. Even though objects, like dead bodies, can be effected by the spell invisibility, the ring only works for its 'wearer' -- and a corpse, from a technical standpoint, can't wear anything, so the effect ceases as soon as the dead body stops 'wearing' the object. If you continued to gain the effect of invisibility even after the ring was taken off, then you could split a single ring between an entire group, or use the ring, take it off and replace it with another one and still get the benefit of invisibility for three minutes. The game would be imbalanced if you could gain the benefit of a use activated magic ring without actually wearing it.
--Robert

You state in the DMG that the body has a certain flow of energy which is why only a certain number of magical items can be used. It has to do with the flow of magical items on the body. This would imply that there is energy in the body when a person is alive. A modern day explanation would be that this as an aura or measurable electricity flowing through the body. You could explain it as magical items needing that energy to operate. Therefore, when a person dies, that energy no longer flows, and the magical effects of any item become inert. Undead could use them again, because there is an unholy energy flowing through the body. This would also apply to all magical items that have an effect on the body. For example, a periapt of wisdom would cease to function. (Although if it was truly functioning, the adventurer would likely have had the wisdom not to get themselves killed, but that’s beside the point.)
--John

So… which interpretation given in the FAQ is the actual rules for this? FAQ is subjective, and is closer to a set of suggested house rules than official rules put forth by the designers.

[JaronK]

The 3.5 FAQ helps to clarify by the questions and answers given:

So if unarmed strikes 'were' natural weapons, all players would have a +1 level adjustment. Which they do not.

That makes no sense. The answer says that if you have more than one, or if it does more than 1d8, it would give you a level adjust. But it doesn't... unarmed strikes do less than 1d8, and you get only one. So what are you talking about?

JaronK

[Pickford]

Here's another bit of FAQ published by WOTC, answered by 4 different people.

So… which interpretation given in the FAQ is the actual rules for this? FAQ is subjective, and is closer to a set of suggested house rules than official rules put forth by the designers.

Where did you find those examples?

The v3.5 Main D&D FAQ is the one I was citing from and provides a single objective answer for each question rather than a plethora of subjective answers.

[Pickford]

That makes no sense. The answer says that if you have more than one, or if it does more than 1d8, it would give you a level adjust. But it doesn't... unarmed strikes do less than 1d8, and you get only one. So what are you talking about?

JaronK

How much unarmed damage does a level 4+ monk do? 1d8.

Obviously monks don't take a level adjustment when their damage crosses that threshold, so unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons.

If that's not what you were getting at, then I didn't follow your query.

[Ksheep]

Where did you find those examples?

The v3.5 Main D&D FAQ is the one I was citing from and provides a single objective answer for each question rather than a plethora of subjective answers.

This was published in one of the Ask Wizards columns, from 2007. This particular issue had "stumpers", which were questions the Sages at WotC couldn't figure out a single answer to. They ended up revisiting them with a plethora of answers which best fit, but a number of them had conflicting answers (as seen above). However, this WAS published by an official WotC source, and it is technically FAQ, even if it disagrees with itself.

[JaronK]

How much unarmed damage does a level 4+ monk do? 1d8.

That's not racial, though, that's a class thing. Or do you believe that a Druid randomly gets a level adjust when it wild shapes?

They're talking about racial abilities, not class abilities. Obviously.

JaronK

[Scow2]

And the definition of a natural attack is more specific than a spell. How does that invalidate that? (Not a rhetorical question, I don't follow how you're getting at the idea that the spell trumps the actual definitions)

Also:
Natural weapons and unarmed strikes are clearly distinct things, in the same way that a natural attack and an unarmed attack are distinct things. (as they are defined separately within the glossary)

Edit:
Also that unarmed strikes aren't weapons in and of themselves obviates the need for a proficiency.Wow - textbook definition of backward logic. The entry on Natural Weapons is the general rule, not the specific one. The spells, being specific effects, are specific rules.

The ability for Monks to get iterative attacks looks like it's a feature of the class itself, not a general rule.

- BUT! The rules define Unarmed strikes as a unique form of attack that don't quite count as Manufactured OR natural weapons, with their own definitions.

However, looking at ALL rules regarding unarmed strikes, we know the following:
They are considered a type of Standard Attack, meaning you can make iterative attacks as a full round action as per the Player's Handbook.
Spells specifically treat unarmed strikes as a type of natural weapon, and their inclusive language implies that all spells and effects that affect natural weapons can also affect Unarmed strikes (Such as enhancements and protective spells that deal damage to attacks made by natural weapons). However, they do not follow normal Natural Attack rules.
Gauntlets and Unarmed Strikes are qualified as Unarmed Strikes on the Weapons table, under the "Simple Weapons" category - implying that they are considered Simple weapons for purposes of weapon proficiency.

Also, you keep misusing the Glossary - Just because something's in the glossary doesn't mean it's independent of everything else - it just means that it's such a special case that it needs its own entry. And although not weapons themselves by definition, they are treated as weapons so that you can actually do anything with them. You still need proficiency.


Also - that -4 attack penalty to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike isn't a "Nonproficiency" sort of deal - It's the standard rule for trying do deal lethal damage with with a nonlethal weapon, or nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon.

[Pandoras Folly]

Every dm i've ever had that cared to make a rulling stated this

Weapons are weapons

Unarmed strikes are really crappy and should not be treated as weapons

Unless its a natural weapon then its not crappy

Or if you have taken improved unarmed then they are light weapons

Except for monks who are masterwork items from head to toe they just dont get a natural +1. Monks can also take multi weapon fighting, you get 4 weapons. This stacks with flurry, so does snap kick, but not twf obviously.

Specific overrides general, always.