Argument about the Improved Natural Attack Feat

[zarreff]

Ive gotten into a discussion with my friends and they were saying that the improved natural attack feat does not apply to an unarmed strike...when nowhere in the feat does it state that it would not apply to an unarmed strike. I took the feat for my monk so I can do a dice step higher with my unarmed strike.

What are your thoughts?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ive gotten into a discussion with my friends and they were saying that the improved natural attack feat does not apply to an unarmed strike...when nowhere in the feat does it state that it would not apply to an unarmed strike. I took the feat for my monk so I can do a dice step higher with my unarmed strike.

What are your thoughts?

In most of the cases of this circumstance, your friends are right. In the particular case of a monk, however, her unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for "spells and effects" that improve natural weapons. Since "effect" is not a defined game term you have to default to the normal english definition of the word in which case there's a -very- solid argument that the benefit of a feat is an effect and should apply.

[phlidwsn]

Also, evidence that WotC thought it worked: In Dragon Magic on pg 101 there is an item, Fanged Ring, that has among its effects:


A fanged ring grants its wearer the Improved
Unarmed Strike feat and the Improved Natural Attack
(unarmed strike) feat.

[Necroticplague]

A:The unarmed strike is a natural weapon, as proven by the Magic Weapon spell. So your friends are wrong right from the get-go.
B:even if it wasn't normally, a monk's unarmed strike is specifically treated as both manufactured and natural for purposes of effects that enhance either. To your friends are even wronger in this specific scenario.
C:There's a magic item (Fanged Ring) that explicitly gives Improved Natural Weapon (Unarmed Strike). So we have solid, unambiguous evidence that INA can be taken for an unarmed strike.

Your friends are not merely wrong, they're fractally wrong. You look at the overall thing, and see that its wrong, then look a bit closer, and see its wrong there too.

[Kamai]

Just as an addendum, it's important whether this is 3.5 or Pathfinder. In 3.5, the monk unarmed strike is a natural attack, and thus you can Improved Natural Attack. However, through Paizo errata, they've decided that it was not RAI, and thus made it forbidden.

[Darrin]

Show them PHB page 251, under Magic Weapon:

"You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang)."

[atemu1234]

Show them PHB page 251, under Magic Weapon:

"You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang)."

So fist =/= weapon, but = tooth?

I just saw into the mind of the dev team. It hurts. I stared into the void and it stared into me.

[Flickerdart]

So fist =/= weapon, but = tooth?

I just saw into the mind of the dev team. It hurts. I stared into the void and it stared into me.

Fists are much more like teeth than they are like swords.

[eggynack]

Fists are much more like teeth than they are like swords.
Indeed. Both teeth and fists are weapons. Neither is a manufactured weapon.

[Necroticplague]

So fist =/= weapon, but = tooth?

I just saw into the mind of the dev team. It hurts. I stared into the void and it stared into me.

What's so wierd about that? A normal persons hand is more a tool than a weapon. Both the tooth and the fist are body parts.

[Coidzor]

So fist =/= weapon, but = tooth?

I just saw into the mind of the dev team. It hurts. I stared into the void and it stared into me.

No, that's the name for the magic spell that enhances natural weapons. They could've named it Magic Claw instead, would you have preferred that to have been drawn from the proverbial hat instead? :smallconfused:

[Bronk]

A:The unarmed strike is a natural weapon, as proven by the Magic Weapon spell. So your friends are wrong right from the get-go.
B:even if it wasn't normally, a monk's unarmed strike is specifically treated as both manufactured and natural for purposes of effects that enhance either. To your friends are even wronger in this specific scenario.
C:There's a magic item (Fanged Ring) that explicitly gives Improved Natural Weapon (Unarmed Strike). So we have solid, unambiguous evidence that INA can be taken for an unarmed strike.

Your friends are not merely wrong, they're fractally wrong. You look at the overall thing, and see that its wrong, then look a bit closer, and see its wrong there too.

Not only that, but the RAI is pretty clear too...

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a

[Gwendol]

Ive gotten into a discussion with my friends and they were saying that the improved natural attack feat does not apply to an unarmed strike...when nowhere in the feat does it state that it would not apply to an unarmed strike. I took the feat for my monk so I can do a dice step higher with my unarmed strike.

What are your thoughts?

Imp natural attack absolutely can be applied to a monk unarmed strike, but not, say for a fighter taking Imp Unarmed Strike. This is special for monks who can treat their unarmed strikes as both natural weapons and manufactured weapons.
Unarmed strikes are not really natural weapons. Unarmed strikes don't count as pre-requisite for feats that require natural weapons such as multiattack, and you can't snatch arrows based on having a natural weapon.

That said, Improved Natural Weapon isn't that great of a feat. A few points of damage more per hit. Being able to move and full attack, for example, would give you more.

[Urpriest]

Imp natural attack absolutely can be applied to a monk unarmed strike, but not, say for a fighter taking Imp Unarmed Strike. This is special for monks who can treat their unarmed strikes as both natural weapons and manufactured weapons.
Unarmed strikes are not really natural weapons. Unarmed strikes don't count as pre-requisite for feats that require natural weapons such as multiattack, and you can't snatch arrows based on having a natural weapon.

That said, Improved Natural Weapon isn't that great of a feat. A few points of damage more per hit. Being able to move and full attack, for example, would give you more.

With the bolded bit, I think somebody needs to remember the difference between rectangles and squares.

That said, as shown elsewhere in this thread, unarmed strikes are indeed natural weapons, as proven by the spell descriptions cited.

[Gwendol]

With the bolded bit, I think somebody needs to remember the difference between rectangles and squares.

That said, as shown elsewhere in this thread, unarmed strikes are indeed natural weapons, as proven by the spell descriptions cited.

Why? If you have a natural weapon, do you also have an unarmed strike?

The answer is it depends, and even so, they are used with different rules. Unarmed strikes are sometimes treated as natural weapons, but they quite clearly aren't the same.

[Urpriest]

Why? If you have a natural weapon, do you also have an unarmed strike?

The answer is it depends, and even so, they are used with different rules. Unarmed strikes are sometimes treated as natural weapons, but they quite clearly aren't the same.

Every creature has an unarmed strike, and no natural weapon that is not explicitly an unarmed strike could ever be considered as or mistaken for one.

Unarmed strikes are an example of a natural weapon, with special additional rules.

If you have any evidence for your claims, please provide it.

[Gwendol]

Every creature has an unarmed strike, and no natural weapon that is not explicitly an unarmed strike could ever be considered as or mistaken for one.

Unarmed strikes are an example of a natural weapon, with special additional rules.

If you have any evidence for your claims, please provide it.

Really? What is the difference between a slam and an unarmed strike then? Except the obviously different rules governing how to use them and what damage they make.
Natural weapons are defined here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons for example, and that definition does not include unarmed strikes.

[Urpriest]

Really? What is the difference between a slam and an unarmed strike then? Except the obviously different rules governing how to use them and what damage they make.
Natural weapons are defined here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons for example, and that definition does not include unarmed strikes.

Bolded. This is D&D, you don't need a fluff difference to have a mechanical difference, and combat is abstract enough that you can make up a fluff difference for any mechanical difference whenever you want to, so asking for one is extremely facetious.

Given that that link doesn't include several natural attacks present on creatures in the original monster manual, I doubt you seriously consider it a comprehensive list of all natural attacks.

Again, you have to actually refute the arguments already provided in this thread if you want people to take you seriously.

[Deophaun]

Really? What is the difference between a slam and an unarmed strike then? Except the obviously different rules governing how to use them and what damage they make.
What's the difference between a bow and a guisarme then? Except the obviously different rules governing how to use them and what damage they make.

Yes, there are unique rules for unarmed strikes that make them different than every other natural attack. However, such situations are hardly unprecedented in 3.5, and therefore do not qualify as proof that unarmed strikes aren't natural attacks in the face of the numerous references to them indeed being natural weapons.

[Gwendol]

I wasn't actually going for the list of types of weapons (it is explicitly a list of the "most common" weapons and thus not exhaustive) but rather the definition of what makes a natural weapon:


Physically part of the creature (that's a yes for an unarmed strike)
Considered armed (no, unless IUS)
No iterative attacks (no for unarmed strike)
Number of attacks depending on the type of natural weapon (no for unarmed strike)
If multiple natural weapons, one is primary, all others secondary (again, unarmed strike do not fit in this category)


If the definition for a natural weapon was just being part of the creature, then yes, unarmed strikes are natural weapons. Could you please point me to that definition rather than the one I've linked to?

EDIT: I know unarmed strikes are lumped with natural attacks in certain spell descriptions, even so they are explicitly never defined as such (even if that would have made a lot of sense).

[Gwendol]

What's the difference between a bow and a guisarme then? Except the obviously different rules governing how to use them and what damage they make.

Yes, there are unique rules for unarmed strikes that make them different than every other natural attack. However, such situations are hardly unprecedented in 3.5, and therefore do not qualify as proof that unarmed strikes aren't natural attacks in the face of the numerous references to them indeed being natural weapons.

That's not a relevant example. That would be a club and a... broken off table leg or something (crowbar?) used as a club. One requires simple weapon proficiency while the other is an improvised weapon and carries an attack penalty. They are used in a similar fashion and delivers the same damage (typically).

[Urpriest]

I wasn't actually going for the list of types of weapons (it is explicitly a list of the "most common" weapons and thus not exhaustive) but rather the definition of what makes a natural weapon:


Physically part of the creature (that's a yes for an unarmed strike)
Considered armed (no, unless IUS)
No iterative attacks (no for unarmed strike)
Number of attacks depending on the type of natural weapon (no for unarmed strike)
If multiple natural weapons, one is primary, all others secondary (again, unarmed strike do not fit in this category)


If the definition for a natural weapon was just being part of the creature, then yes, unarmed strikes are natural weapons. Could you please point me to that definition rather than the one I've linked to?

Ever heard of exception-based design?



EDIT: I know unarmed strikes are lumped with natural attacks in certain spell descriptions, even so they are explicitly never defined as such (even if that would have made a lot of sense).

They are implicitly defined as such, in those exact spell descriptions, and in the other rules that use them. Implicit definitions are poor writing, but that doesn't invalidate them.

[Necroticplague]

Honestly, UAS are in a weird limbo between manufactured and natural weapons, not quite fitting into either category. Because Magic Weapon specifically states that a UAS is a natural weapon, I've always thought of it as a natural weapon wielded like a manufactured light one, with special sub-ruling about lethal, provoke AoO, STR to damage, and threatening. So INA could apply to it, but if you want to stab someone and then punch them, you'd use the 2-weapon rules, not one for manufactured+natural weapon rules.


EDIT: I know unarmed strikes are lumped with natural attacks in certain spell descriptions, even so they are explicitly never defined as such (even if that would have made a lot of sense). Magic Weapon doesn't just lump UAS in with natural weapons, it specifically states a UAS is a natural weapon (unlike the grappling rules or power attack, which treat them as similar, but different).


I wasn't actually going for the list of types of weapons (it is explicitly a list of the "most common" weapons and thus not exhaustive) but rather the definition of what makes a natural weapon:

Physically part of the creature (that's a yes for an unarmed strike)
Considered armed (no, unless IUS)
No iterative attacks (no for unarmed strike)
Number of attacks depending on the type of natural weapon (no for unarmed strike)
If multiple natural weapons, one is primary, all others secondary (again, unarmed strike do not fit in this category)

You know, you could make a very similar list for manufactured weapons, and get similar results

1. Is made by something (nope)
2.Considered armed (not unless you got UAS)
3. Iteratives (Admittingly, UAS got these)
4.Can wield as many as you have hands to hold them, using two-weapon/multiweapon fighting rules (nope, you only have 1 UAS, regardless of limb amount).
5.If multiple, one is main-hand, while all others are off-hand (nope, no such thing as off-hand unarmed attack)

[Gwendol]

So, in essence you are arguing this is an implicit-based definition? Seems a bit far-fetched that you have to read the description for magic weapon (and/or magic fang) to find out that the US is a natural weapon, when that definition is lacking from both the unarmed strike description and the natural weapon description.

[Gwendol]

You know, you could make a very similar list for manufactured weapons, and get similar results

1. Is made by something (nope)
2.Considered armed (not unless you got UAS)
3. Iteratives (Admittingly, UAS got these)
4.Can wield as many as you have hands to hold them, using two-weapon/multiweapon fighting rules (nope, you only have 1 UAS, regardless of limb amount).
5.If multiple, one is main-hand, while all others are off-hand (nope, no such thing as off-hand unarmed attack)

Well, at least the US is explicitly said to be "treated as" a weapon attack, and with (monk) IUS even more so. I agree that unarmed strikes are strangely ruled.

[Urpriest]

So, in essence you are arguing this is an implicit-based definition? Seems a bit far-fetched that you have to read the description for magic weapon (and/or magic fang) to find out that the US is a natural weapon, when that definition is lacking from both the unarmed strike description and the natural weapon description.

You could also read the Fanged Ring, or various NPC entries. But yes, it's exceptionally poorly written, because the designers, as always, expected you to read their minds.

[Fax Celestis]

Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, but are treated as one for the purposes of some spells and effects. The monk's unarmed strike class feature increases the transparency, but still doesn't make it 100% transparent.

Rules Compendium has this to say:


UNARMED ATTACKS
Striking with punches and kicks is like attacking with a melee weapon, except that such attacks usually provoke an attack of opportunity from the foe you attack, provided that opponent is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe. An unarmed creature can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Natural Weapons
A creature that has a natural weapon, such as a claw or slam, is considered armed. It can make unarmed attacks, but it can’t use its natural weapons as if they were unarmed attacks, nor can it apply abilities that affect only unarmed attacks to its natural weapons.

[Urpriest]

Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, but are treated as one for the purposes of some spells and effects. The monk's unarmed strike class feature increases the transparency, but still doesn't make it 100% transparent.

Rules Compendium has this to say:

Again, you're quoting rules that say that not all natural weapons are unarmed strikes, which was never under dispute and has no bearing on whether all unarmed strikes are natural weapons. Rectangles and squares.

[Fax Celestis]

Again, you're quoting rules that say that not all natural weapons are unarmed strikes, which was never under dispute and has no bearing on whether all unarmed strikes are natural weapons. Rectangles and squares.

Considering that "Natural Attacks" heading is a subheading of the "Unarmed Strikes" heading, I would say that natural attacks are a subset of unarmed strikes that perform differently, but that is very poorly supported as it could merely be some idiot lackey manning the formatting con. Using that as a premise, however, indicates that unarmed strikes include natural weapons, but not vice versa, which would further indicate that spells and effects that specifically function for natural attacks may not function for unarmed strikes (in the same way that while shortswords and longswords are both melee slashing weapons, an effect that specifically functions for a longsword (like Weapon Focus (Longsword)) will not function for all melee slashing weapons, such as a shortsword).

[Urpriest]

Considering that "Natural Attacks" heading is a subheading of the "Unarmed Strikes" heading, I would say that natural attacks are a subset of unarmed strikes that perform differently, but that is very poorly supported as it could merely be some idiot lackey manning the formatting con. Using that as a premise, however, indicates that unarmed strikes include natural weapons, but not vice versa, which would further indicate that spells and effects that specifically function for natural attacks may not function for unarmed strikes (in the same way that while shortswords and longswords are both melee slashing weapons, an effect that specifically functions for a longsword (like Weapon Focus (Longsword)) will not function for a shortsword).

That section explicitly says that a creature can't use its natural weapons as if they were unarmed attacks, which makes it logically impossible for natural weapons to be a subset of unarmed attacks.

[Chronos]

The rules are clear that unarmed strikes are always natural weapons, but which have a few things in common with manufactured weapons and a few things unique to themselves. For monks specifically, unarmed strikes are also treated as being manufactured weapons for some purposes.

[Fax Celestis]

That section explicitly says that a creature can't use its natural weapons as if they were unarmed attacks, which makes it logically impossible for natural weapons to be a subset of unarmed attacks.

Incorrect. Just because it cannot use them as an unarmed attack does not mean they are not unarmed attacks.

[Forrestfire]

That's not a relevant example. That would be a club and a... broken off table leg or something (crowbar?) used as a club. One requires simple weapon proficiency while the other is an improvised weapon and carries an attack penalty. They are used in a similar fashion and delivers the same damage (typically).

For one thing, a slam is executed with an appendage, while an unarmed strike can be with any part of the body.

[Urpriest]

Incorrect. Just because it cannot use them as an unarmed attack does not mean they are not unarmed attacks.

It does, actually. If they cannot be used as unarmed attacks, then unarmed attacks are distinct. If you cannot use a natural weapon as an unarmed attack, you cannot use it as any unarmed attack, including as a natural weapon, so you could not use natural weapons at all.

[Lord Vukodlak]

In the Player's Handbook II one of the starting packages for monk has the feat improved natural attack, his fist deals 1d8 damage at 1st level instead of 1d6.
Thus I conclude improved natural attack works with unarmed strikes.

[Fax Celestis]

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Okay, so here's how I see it, then, in some probably clearer terms (note that I don't actually agree with the rules citation I provided above, because I think this makes more sense):

The set @naturalAttacks is {$unarmedStrike, $claw, $bite, $talon, $tailWhip, $wingBuffet, $slam, $gore, $sweep, $tentacle}.

Effects that specifically affect unarmed strikes only affect part of the "natural attacks" set. Effects that work with natural attacks include unarmed strikes, while effects that work with unarmed strikes only work with a single part of the natural attacks subset and as such don't work with the others. INA works with @naturalAttacks, while Superior Unarmed Strike works with $unarmedStrike. While $unarmedStrike is part of the @naturalAttacks set, SUS won't work with @naturalAttacks as it only works with $unarmedStrike (in the same way that @meleeWeapons works with Power Attack but Weapon Focus only works with $greatsword).

[Urpriest]

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Okay, so here's how I see it, then, in some probably clearer terms (note that I don't actually agree with the rules citation I provided above, because I think this makes more sense):

The set @naturalAttacks is {$unarmedStrike, $claw, $bite, $talon, $tailWhip, $wingBuffet, $slam, $gore, $sweep, $tentacle}.

Effects that specifically affect unarmed strikes only affect part of the "natural attacks" set. Effects that work with natural attacks include unarmed strikes, while effects that work with unarmed strikes only work with a single part of the natural attacks subset and as such don't work with the others. INA works with @naturalAttacks, while Superior Unarmed Strike works with $unarmedStrike. While $unarmedStrike is part of the @naturalAttacks set, SUS won't work with @naturalAttacks as it only works with $unarmedStrike (in the same way that @meleeWeapons works with Power Attack but Weapon Focus only works with $greatsword).

That's how I view it. (Out of curiosity, what programming language are you using for the syntax?)

[Fax Celestis]

That's how I view it. (Out of curiosity, what programming language are you using for the syntax?)

Fake perl. I don't actually code much (or well), but it's pretty easy to represent in regular text. My other option, XML scripting, would not translate well to human readability unless you knew what you were looking at.

[Gwendol]

Again, you're quoting rules that say that not all natural weapons are unarmed strikes, which was never under dispute and has no bearing on whether all unarmed strikes are natural weapons. Rectangles and squares.

That's not what the quoted rules say. They say that natural weapons are not unarmed attacks (of which unarmed strikes are a subset).

[Zakerst]

It seems the RAI is fairly clear that they qualify for INA, and it honestly doesn't make much in the logic department to say that they are manufactured weapons, unless you take the concept of "building a character" a bit far (but then again this is DND so...).

The weapon descriptions of gauntlets and spiked gauntlets indicate that unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes are something different from manufactured or armed attacks, this however was never in dispute but if attacks exist in a trinary existence (i.e. spell, natural, and manufactured) then as un armed strikes are natively non-magical they can only be natural. (and the spell one is problematic in and of itself with weapon like spells)

Also it seems like you can purchase a masterwork unarmed strike in the same way you can buy a masterwork club as both have a price of - on the table but no one seems to have a problem with letting you buy a master work one of those so I guess you can maybe get masterwork unarmed strikes and get them enchanted??? If this is the case then it seems like they must be manufactured weapons no matter how odd it seems, but for the sake of consistency I would off the fallowing ultimatum: either A: allow unarmed strikes to count for INA, or B: allow you to have them enchanted or C: both.

The DM does have option D: gimp the monk class further and say no to both, at which point you may want to explore other options

For my group I might argue wither A or C, but ours is not yours and we're a bit silly.

[Coidzor]

Imp natural attack absolutely can be applied to a monk unarmed strike, but not, say for a fighter taking Imp Unarmed Strike. This is special for monks who can treat their unarmed strikes as both natural weapons and manufactured weapons.
Unarmed strikes are not really natural weapons. Unarmed strikes don't count as pre-requisite for feats that require natural weapons such as multiattack, and you can't snatch arrows based on having a natural weapon.

That said, Improved Natural Weapon isn't that great of a feat. A few points of damage more per hit. Being able to move and full attack, for example, would give you more.

Well that's needlessly fiddly. Why even bother at that point?

[Urpriest]

That's not what the quoted rules say. They say that natural weapons are not unarmed attacks (of which unarmed strikes are a subset).

Yes, natural weapons are not unarmed attacks, because the former is a broader category. Rectangles are not squares.

[Gwendol]

Yes, natural weapons are not unarmed attacks, because the former is a broader category. Rectangles are not squares.

That doesn't make sense, unless you somehow give the words "attacks" and "weapons" new meaning. So now you claim that all unarmed attacks are natural weapons?

[Extra Anchovies]

That doesn't make sense, unless you somehow give the words "attacks" and "weapons" new meaning. So now you claim that all unarmed attacks are natural weapons?

Yes. All unarmed attacks are natural weapons. Magic Weapon and Magic Fang confirm this.

But not all natural weapons are unarmed attacks. Bite = natural weapon and unarmed strike = natural weapon, but bite =/= unarmed strike because bite and unarmed strike are both items in the set that is "natural weapons".

[Gwendol]

Yes. All unarmed attacks are natural weapons. Magic Weapon and Magic Fang confirm this.

But not all natural weapons are unarmed attacks. Bite = natural weapon and unarmed strike = natural weapon, but bite =/= unarmed strike because bite and unarmed strike are both items in the set that is "natural weapons".

No, the spell descriptions describe unarmed strikes to equate natural weapons. Unarmed strikes are an unarmed attack. Natural weapons are not unarmed attacks (RC), therefore unarmed strikes are not natural weapons no matter what the spell descriptions say (they are however treated as such in those instances).

There are other unarmed attacks than unarmed strikes, after all.

[Extra Anchovies]

No, the spell descriptions describe unarmed strikes to equate natural weapons. Unarmed strikes are an unarmed attack.

An unarmed attack is an attack with an unarmed strike.


Natural weapons are not unarmed attacks (RC), therefore unarmed strikes are not natural weapons no matter what the spell descriptions say (they are however treated as such in those instances).


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.)
It doesn't say there whether or not an unarmed strike is a natural weapon. It does, however, specify that:
1. The spell only affects natural weapons.
2. The spell affects unarmed strikes.
The logical conclusion of this is that unarmed strikes are natural weapons.

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.
This spell specifies that:
1. An unarmed strike is a natural weapon.
2. A monk's unarmed strike in particular is considered a manufactured weapon as well.
Note that this spell does not say that a monk's unarmed strike is not considered a natural weapon, only that it is (also) considered a weapon targetable by Magic Weapon. A monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon that, for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance either or both, qualifies as a manufactured weapon as well. Relevant citation:

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.


There are other unarmed attacks than unarmed strikes, after all.

Where in the rules does it say this? What other kinds of unarmed strikes are there?

[Urpriest]

No, the spell descriptions describe unarmed strikes to equate natural weapons. Unarmed strikes are an unarmed attack. Natural weapons are not unarmed attacks (RC), therefore unarmed strikes are not natural weapons no matter what the spell descriptions say (they are however treated as such in those instances).

There are other unarmed attacks than unarmed strikes, after all.

...look, unless you never went to elementary school you understand that, while squares are rectangles, rectangles are not squares. You know the analogy I've been making in pretty much every post in this thread. If you think that that's not the sort of thing that the rules are saying, then provide an argument as to why. Simply restating your position and ignoring the explanations others are giving is not going to move the discussion forward.

[Gwendol]

An unarmed attack is an attack with an unarmed strike.

What other kinds of unarmed strikes are there?

I think you mean to say unarmed attacks?

I don't claim to have an exhaustive list, but touch attacks to grab an enemy (starting a grapple) is one, grabbing an item (disarm) is another, and delivering touch spells is an "armed" unarmed attack (considered armed is the term used).

[Gwendol]

...look, unless you never went to elementary school you understand that, while squares are rectangles, rectangles are not squares. You know the analogy I've been making in pretty much every post in this thread. If you think that that's not the sort of thing that the rules are saying, then provide an argument as to why. Simply restating your position and ignoring the explanations others are giving is not going to move the discussion forward.

I understand what you are saying, and I also know the rules to be confusing and conflicting. This is such a case.

[Forrestfire]

They're really not. Unarmed strikes are natural weapons. Not all natural weapons are unarmed strikes.

Longswords are manufactured weapons. Not all manufactured weapons are longswords.

Fireball is a spell. Not all spells are fireball.

It's all quite simple, really.

[Fax Celestis]

touch attacks to grab an enemy (starting a grapple)...are not necessarily unarmed strikes.


grabbing an item (disarm)...is not necessarily performed by an unarmed strike


delivering touch spells...is not an unarmed strike, it is a weapon-like spell, though it may be delivered via an unarmed strike.

[Gwendol]

...are not necessarily unarmed strikes.

...is not necessarily performed by an unarmed strike

...is not an unarmed strike, it is a weapon-like spell, though it may be delivered via an unarmed strike.

Those examples are unarmed attacks though, which is what I said.
The RC quote you posted makes a clear distinction between using a natural weapon and making an unarmed attack (of which strikes are a subset).
I really don't understand why that distinction is unclear.

[georgie_leech]

I understand what you are saying, and I also know the rules to be confusing and conflicting. This is such a case.


Those examples are unarmed attacks though, which is what I said.
The RC quote you posted makes a clear distinction between using a natural weapon and making an unarmed attack (of which strikes are a subset).
I really don't understand why that distinction is unclear.

:smallconfused:

[Necroticplague]

I understand what you are saying, and I also know the rules to be confusing and conflicting. This is such a case.

Except they aren't. Natural weapons aren't a subset of unarmed strikes, because the opposite is true (as proven by Magic Weapon). UAS have some special rules associated with them that don't appear elsewhere, and are unique to them, but this is merely the exception-based ruleset at work.

[Fax Celestis]

Those examples are unarmed attacks though, which is what I said.
No, they are not.

A touch spell is an attack with a weapon: a weapon-like spell.

A disarm attempt can be made with a weapon and therefore is not intrinsically an unarmed attack.

[Gwendol]

No, they are not.

A touch spell is an attack with a weapon: a weapon-like spell.

A disarm attempt can be made with a weapon and therefore is not intrinsically an unarmed attack.

Disarm made to take the weapon is done with the hand, which is the example I gave. Stop twisting what I wrote, please.

[Fax Celestis]

I'll stop when you do.

[Gwendol]

An unarmed attack is an attack made without a weapon. Touch attacks made to grab someone (initiate a grapple for example), or to snatch an attended item (see the rules for Disarm) are unarmed attacks. I'm not sure, but Bull rushing could also be considered an unarmed attack (basically anything done that will break Invisibility that isn't done with a weapon or spell should qualify). Unarmed strike is most certainly an unarmed attack.
From the 3.5 FAQ, page 19:
A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is
neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you
can’t use it along with a flurry.

Some support for this is found on page 20:
Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks
during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks?
What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat
maneuvers?
As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s
special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry),
the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of
a normal attack. She’s free to disarm, sunder, trip, and grapple
to her heart’s content.

Bull rush and overrun are not allowed in a flurry since US or monk weapons aren't used (but I guess something with Knock-back may qualify).

On unarmed attacks (p70):

Can you make a trip attack (or other special attack) as
an attack of opportunity?
Yes, as long as you make the trip attack (or other special
attack) with a weapon with which you threaten the target. For
example, unless you wield a weapon that allows you to make a
trip attack, trip attacks are unarmed attacks; a character who
doesn’t threaten while unarmed couldn’t make an unarmed trip
attack as an attack of opportunity.

Throughout most rules, the distinction is made between natural weapons, and unarmed attacks (and strikes), for example the amulet of mighty fists (DMG 246) grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and natural weapon attacks.

On the other hand(!) you have this fine example of completely inane rules (kensai, CW):

Imbuing Natural Weapons: The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists) is the same as for a manufactured weapon, except all of the kensai's natural weapons of one type are imbued at 100% of the cost + 10% per natural weapon. For example, a human kensai who has Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) may turn his fists into signature weapons for 120% of the XP cost. A six-armed kensai with a bite and tail attack would have to choose between fists, bite, and tail and pay either 160% of the cost (for six fists) or 110% of the cost (for the single bite or tail). A kensai who imbues a particular type of natural weapon must imbue all his natural weapons of that type (so a human kensai with two fists must imbue both fists). It takes 24 hours for a kensai to imbue one type of natural weapon, regardless of how many actual weapons of that type he possesses.

Note how the cost of imbuing unarmed strikes suddenly depends on the number of hands the creature has... yeah, that one slipped under the radar.

[Extra Anchovies]

Note how the cost of imbuing unarmed strikes suddenly depends on the number of hands the creature has... yeah, that one slipped under the radar.

No it didn't. Remember, this is an exception-based rules system. The Kensai's method of enchanting weapons is one such exception.

[Gwendol]

But unarmed strike is just one attack, no matter how many limbs you happen to have. What if you head-butt, or butt-butt? The rules for the Kensai quoted above are messed up since they ignore or misrepresent the rules for using unarmed strikes.

[georgie_leech]

But unarmed strike is just one attack, no matter how many limbs you happen to have. What if you head-butt, or butt-butt? The rules for the Kensai quoted above are messed up since they ignore or misrepresent the rules for using unarmed strikes.

It's a stupid exception that's poorly thought out, but that's hardly unique to the Kensai. Don't take it if you plan on smoothly alternating between head- and butt-butts.

[Gwendol]

Suddenly I want to play a Monk/Kensai who decides to spend 24 hours imbuing his butt, then keeps butt-butting enemies in combat while chanting "I like to move it, move it... you like to move it, move it..."

Flurry of butts!


Probably make it an Anthro Lemur while I'm at it.