Natural Attacks and Manufactured Weapon Attacks With Iterative Attacks

[sjeshin]

This may be a good question for the RAW thread, but it’s a little broad in scope. What I’m doing is making a fighter with the grave touched ghoul template as an enemy for my PC’s. It’s going to use a two handed weapon or a one handed weapon in two hands for its power attack feat. My problem is I don’t know how it’s claw and bite attack would come into play if I wanted to use them. Would it be via the two weapon fighting penalties? How do you mix natural and manufactured weapon attacks if the creature has iterative attacks with manufactured weapons?

[SinsI]

This may be a good question for the RAW thread, but it’s a little broad in scope. What I’m doing is making a fighter with the grave touched ghoul template as an enemy for my PC’s. It’s going to use a two handed weapon or a one handed weapon in two hands for its power attack feat. My problem is I don’t know how it’s claw and bite attack would come into play if I wanted to use them. Would it be via the two weapon fighting penalties? How do you mix natural and manufactured weapon attacks if the creature has iterative attacks with manufactured weapons?

Standard attack only uses your main weapon.
Full Attack gives all iteratives with your main weapon (at BAB, BAB-5, BAB-10...); after that you do one secondary attack with each available natural weapon at BAB-5 (Multiattack feat improves it to BAB-2, Improved Multiattack improves it to BAB). If you are using your claws to hold your main weapon, that natural weapon is not available.

If you are unarmed, one of your natural weapons is your main weapon, so you do iteratives with it and don't include it in the secondary attacks, but you don't get iteratives with it.
Two weapon fighting penalties only apply to manufactured weapons.

[sjeshin]

Standard attack only uses your main weapon.
Full Attack gives all iteratives with your main weapon (at BAB, BAB-5, BAB-10...); after that you do one secondary attack with each available natural weapon at BAB-5 (Multiattack feat improves it to BAB-2, Improved Multiattack improves it to BAB). If you are using your claws to hold your main weapon, that natural weapon is not available.

If you are unarmed, one of your natural weapons is your main weapon, so you do iteratives with it and don't include it in the secondary attacks.
Two weapon fighting penalties only apply to manufactured weapons.

I know at least part of this is wrong, because you don't get to do iterative attacks with natural weapons at all. That's in the SRD for natural weapons.

[WeaselGuy]

A character that I am building right now has 6 arms (2 hands & 4 claws), 2 legs and a bite. In two of it's arms, it carries a light weapon in each. With TWF, Weapon Finesse, Dex +3 and BAB +5, we have an attack routine that looks something like the following:

MH +6/OH +6/Bite +3/Claw1 +3/Claw2 +3/Claw3 +3/Claw4 +3

If I also take the Multiattack feat from MM1, then my natural attacks (Bite, Claw1, Claw2 etc) all increase up to +6. If my BAB increases to +6/+1 (granting me an iterative attack), then my routine would look like the following:

MH +7/OH +7/MH +2/Bite +4/Claw1 +4/Claw2 +4/Claw3 +4/Claw4 +4 (Natural attacks at +7 with Multiattack)

At least, I'm pretty sure that's right. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Necroticplague]

This may be a good question for the RAW thread, but it’s a little broad in scope. What I’m doing is making a fighter with the grave touched ghoul template as an enemy for my PC’s. It’s going to use a two handed weapon or a one handed weapon in two hands for its power attack feat. My problem is I don’t know how it’s claw and bite attack would come into play if I wanted to use them. Would it be via the two weapon fighting penalties? How do you mix natural and manufactured weapon attacks if the creature has iterative attacks with manufactured weapons?

Under Manufactured Weapon section of the Special Abilities section of the SRD, it brings up the exact rules for this. You make you weapon attacks as normal, then make any attacks with your natural weapons, however, all your natural weapons get downgraded to secondary natural weapons, and take appropriate penalties.

Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.

Also, is it just me, or does a thread with pretty much this same question come up every other week?

[sjeshin]

Under Manufactured Weapon section of the Special Abilities section of the SRD, it brings up the exact rules for this. You make you weapon attacks as normal, then make any attacks with your natural weapons, however, all your natural weapons get downgraded to secondary natural weapons, and take appropriate penalties.


Also, is it just me, or does a thread with pretty much this same question come up every other week?

Thanks for this, I've just never used an npc / character that could do both so I wasn't sure. I also got some further clarification in the RAW thread once I could narrow it down after this.

[The Viscount]

WeaselGuy's example checks out.

Another good example on the srd is the Horned Devil. As a full attack he has 2 claws, bite and tail, or spiked chain iteratives, then bite and tail. He can't use his claws in the second option because they're holding the spiked chain. Same goes for the Ice Devil. If they were wielding a light or one-handed weapon in one hand, they'd have one more claw to add onto the full attack routine.

So in the case of your grave touched ghoul fighter, the full attack would be iteratives with two handed weapon as normal, then bite at highest attack bonus -5.

[Troacctid]

What happens if you throw the manufactured weapon as part of your attack, or drop it as a free action after attacking?

[Necroticplague]

What happens if you throw the manufactured weapon as part of your attack, or drop it as a free action after attacking?

Or if you attack with it, let go of one hand holding it (free), make your claw attack, switch the greatsword to the other hand (free), then make your other claw attack? You've technically never used a claw with a hand holding a weapon.....

Of course, then you realize you're basically juggling a greatsword to get more attacks, which is awesome.

[Curmudgeon]

Or if you attack with it, let go of one hand holding it (free), make your claw attack, switch the greatsword to the other hand (free), then make your other claw attack?
There's nothing in the RAW to back up this scenario: switching weapons as a free action would be a house rule.

[Necroticplague]

There's nothing in the RAW to back up this scenario: switching weapons as a free action would be a house rule.

Hmmmm....sorry, I thought it was. My apologies. However, abusing that taking your hand on and off a weapon is a free action could get you similar effects, so the idea still works. Just replace 'switching hands' with 'puts both hands back on weapon, remove hand that hasn't yet clawed from weapon' (two free action)

[Curmudgeon]

Just replace 'switching hands' with 'puts both hands back on weapon, remove hand that hasn't yet clawed from weapon' (two free action)
Again, that would be a house rule. You can drop something, including a weapon you hold in two hands, from one hand as a free action. Putting a hand onto a weapon defaults to a move action ("manipulate an item").

[Taelas]

I know at least part of this is wrong, because you don't get to do iterative attacks with natural weapons at all. That's in the SRD for natural weapons.

He was referring to unarmed strikes, which you do get iterative attacks with. (It was worded poorly, though -- unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.)


Again, that would be a house rule. You can drop something, including a weapon you hold in two hands, from one hand as a free action. Putting a hand onto a weapon defaults to a move action ("manipulate an item").

Uh, no. Manipulating an item is, for example, opening a pouch, or unstoppering a bottle, or picking up a weapon. Putting a hand on a sword you are already wielding does not qualify.

You still cannot abuse it to make full attacks, though. You only get one attack per limb, regardless of whether you're holding something or not. So no, you can't attack with a sword, switch the sword to a different hand (or drop it), and follow it up with a claw attack. Just as you can't wield a sword for a full attack, drop it, then quick draw another for a full attack again. It is the same principle.

[Bronk]

He was referring to unarmed strikes, which you do get iterative attacks with. (It was worded poorly, though -- unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.)

... unless they are monks or have have gained the abilities of a monk with a magic item.

[Taelas]

... unless they are monks or have have gained the abilities of a monk with a magic item.

Monks only treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that target natural weapons. They do not have the same restrictions or benefits that natural weapons do, however: they aren't actually natural weapons. For example, monks cannot make an unarmed strike as a secondary natural attack while at the same time using a weapon. They can make unarmed strikes as part of their full attack and mix them freely with weapons, though -- but then the unarmed strike takes the place of an iterative attack.

[Hiro Quester]

He was referring to unarmed strikes, which you do get iterative attacks with. (It was worded poorly, though -- unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.)

Not sure he was. He was talking about making iterative strikes within natural weapons.


If you are unarmed, one of your natural weapons is your main weapon, so you do iteratives with it and don't include it in the secondary attacks.

You don't get to do that (like you said). A creature with only natural weapons gets one attack with each natural weapon, their primary at full BAB and the rest at -5 (-2 with multiattack). No iterative attacks.

A creature with natural weapons and high BAB still just gets all their natural weapon attacks as usual, but with higher BAB. Still no iterative attacks.

A creature with improved unarmed strike feat and natural weapons can make iterated unarmed strikes with other parts of their body (knee, elbow, tailslap, headbutt even) as their BAB allows, then all natural weapons as secondary attacks, at -5 (or -2 with MA).

[Taelas]

Not sure he was. He was talking about making iterative strikes within natural weapons.

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt while clarifying the actual rule. :smallwink:

[Curmudgeon]

Uh, no. Manipulating an item is, for example, opening a pouch, or unstoppering a bottle, or picking up a weapon. Putting a hand on a sword you are already wielding does not qualify.
Got a rules quote to back that up?

[Taelas]

Got a rules quote to back that up?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#tableMoveActions

Nothing in that list resembles "replacing a hand on a weapon you are already wielding". It is of course not an exhaustive list, but the burden of proof lies with you to show that replacing a hand on a weapon you are wielding counts as manipulating an item. (Providing proof for the opposite is impossible, of course, since there is no list of actions that are not manipulating an item.)

[Hiro Quester]

Got a rules quote to back that up?

A caster wielding a longsword can cast a swift-action spell, then as a free action put their free hand on their longsword and attack two-handed. But that's adding a hand to a weapon you already have in one hand. Switching a sword from one hand to another would be manipulating an item for sure.

Switching a weapon from one set of claws to another should be possible only as part of a move action (maybe if you had the quickdraw feat this could be a free action, at DM's discretion). So no full set of iterative attacks with your manufactured weapon and all your natural attacks. One claw is busy holding your sword.

Edit: re-readng the original post, I see you were not advocating that, Taelas.

[Curmudgeon]

Nothing in that list resembles "replacing a hand on a weapon you are already wielding". It is of course not an exhaustive list, but the burden of proof lies with you to show that replacing a hand on a weapon you are wielding counts as manipulating an item.
Oh, I don't need to prove anything; the dictionary has already done that for me.

manipulate
-verb

1. (transitive) to handle or use, esp with some skill, in a process or action: to manipulate a pair of scissors
Are you claiming that you're not using the sword with some skill when you decide to two-hand it? You are, after all, intending to use it to greater effect by doing so.

[Taelas]

By that argument, any action using any item ever is "manipulating an item". Technically true according to the dictionary definition of the word "manipulate", but not within the rules, where "manipulating an item" is a specific game term.

The dictionary definition doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

Your interpretation would make it impossible for a gish to cast a swift spell and use a two-handed weapon in the same round.

[Curmudgeon]

Your interpretation would make it impossible for a gish to cast a swift spell and use a two-handed weapon in the same round.
That's not true; it would simply require them to have Quick Draw.

[danzibr]

My take on the manipulate thing is this:

What we have to go off of for how long it takes to do something is this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm). Given the action in question, we see what corresponds best from that list. ``Manipulate an item'' is something of a catch-all for actions involving the use of items which are dissimilar to all of the other listed actions.

Regardless, for the OP, in general you get all iteratives with your manufactured weapon, and all ``unoccupied'' natural weapons may be used as secondaries (this information is gotten through stat block scrutinization, and some natural weapons say they cannot be used as secondaries, and in this case using a two-handed weapon would make both claws ``occupied'').

[Jormengand]

See, in Pathfinder, they were kind enough to...


What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).

But anyway, does Curmudgeon think that using, say, a spell component pouch requires a move action? Or perhaps if you want to open a lock with some tools, you need to take an extra move action to do that because you're manipulating an item? That would be utterly ridiculous, and so would preventing someone from casting a spell while wielding a staff, which is the iconic spellcaster weapon, because they'd need a move action to take their hand off and another one to put it back on.

Much like breathing, moving your hands about doesn't specify an action, so it doesn't take an action.

[Andreaz]

The bit to trade "hands" with a weapon you are wielding is indeed a free action, and that does allow you to use your sword hands' claws to attack via greatsword juggling. But we all agree that's unecessarily munchikiny, so let's simplify, shall we?

Proposal: In a round you are actually using the weapon you wield, you can't juggle it to get more attacks from the hands used wielding it.
So you're totally free to juggle it to use a free hand to, say, make a maraca out of a minion. Or retrieve a potion from your pouch. But if you do attack, you're kinda stuck. You're always free to drop the weapon completely, however. Pay the cost of retrieving the greatsword next round :D

[Jormengand]

Pay the cost of retrieving the greatsword next round :D

> Cursed -2 sword schenanigans.

[Chronos]

Quoth Taelas:

He was referring to unarmed strikes, which you do get iterative attacks with. (It was worded poorly, though -- unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.)
Where does this idea come from, and why does it persist so? Unarmed strikes are always natural weapons for everyone. What's special about monks is that they can also treat them as manufactured weapons for some purposes. See, for instance, the description of the Magic Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeapon.htm) spell:

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.

[Taelas]

Where does this idea come from, and why does it persist so? Unarmed strikes are always natural weapons for everyone. What's special about monks is that they can also treat them as manufactured weapons for some purposes. See, for instance, the description of the Magic Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeapon.htm) spell:


Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably to describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist.
(emphasis mine)

Natural weapons have restrictions that unarmed strikes DO NOT have. For example, you can make iterative attacks with unarmed strikes. You cannot make unarmed strikes as a secondary natural attack.

Natural weapons can't use iterative attacks, and as long as the limb providing the natural weapon is unoccupied, you can wield a weapon and make a secondary natural attack with your natural weapon.

Unarmed strikes are also not manufactured weapons. They exist in a gray zone.


The bit to trade "hands" with a weapon you are wielding is indeed a free action, and that does allow you to use your sword hands' claws to attack via greatsword juggling.

No, it does not. You cannot use a limb to wield a sword and then attack with a claw from that same limb. It doesn't matter whether your hand is occupied or not; what matters is whether or not you have used it. Otherwise you would simply drop the sword and get the claw attack, no discussion required.

[Curmudgeon]

(emphasis mine)
You've emphasized that Skip Williams had some difficulties understanding the D&D rules. That doesn't change the RAW, you know.

More actual rules citations:
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.
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.


You have come up with a decent answer for Chronos's question about the source of the misinformation, so thanks for that. :smallsmile:

[Taelas]

Sigh.


http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gloss/window&term=Glossary_dnd_naturalweapon&alpha=N
natural weapon
Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach.

Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack -- generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or armlike limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions


http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gloss/window&term=Glossary_dnd_unarmedstrike&alpha=U
unarmed strike
A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#unarmedAttacks
Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity
Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks
Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

I reiterate: unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.

[Curmudgeon]

I reiterate: unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.
Yes, you've repeated yourself. However, you haven't produced any rules which refute the citations which Chronos and I have presented. Unarmed strikes are certainly natural weapons with special treatment under the rules, but they're still natural weapons.

The alternative (that they are manufactured weapons) would require that you could buy them, get them crafted in masterwork quality, and so on. You can't.

[Taelas]

A natural weapon is defined as an armed attack. An unarmed strike is literally the exact opposite. Spells are not the primary source on the issue, so they are not relevant -- it doesn't matter if magic fang calls an unarmed strike a natural weapon. It is just wrong.

It is not an either/or situation. Unarmed strikes are neither manufactured weapons or natural weapons: they are unarmed strikes.

[Curmudgeon]

A natural weapon is defined as an armed attack. An unarmed strike is literally the exact opposite.
As I've noted, unarmed strikes have special rules. Those special rules mean they don't match the characteristics of other natural attacks.

[Taelas]

An unarmed strike is defined as attacking without a weapon. Natural weapons are defined as weapons. These two definitions are and continue to be mutually exclusive.

The argument that the "special rules" for unarmed strikes allow you to ignore how natural weapons are defined work equally well for arguing that they are manufactured weapons, as said "special rules" do not call them out as being either.

They do not work as natural weapons do and they do not work as manufactured weapons do. They share some characteristics of either (can be enhanced via spells and effects that affect natural weapons, can make iterative attacks, etc.), but belong to neither category.

[Curmudgeon]

An unarmed strike is defined as attacking without a weapon. Natural weapons are defined as weapons. These two definitions are and continue to be mutually exclusive.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
The rules already take that into account.

[Taelas]

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
(emphasis mine)

It is not a light weapon: it is merely considered one.

[Curmudgeon]

It is not a light weapon: it is merely considered one.
So it can be considered as attacking with a light weapon to meet the definition of natural attacks.

[Taelas]

It is considered a light weapon for the purposes of calculating attack bonuses. You are not actually using a weapon.

[Curmudgeon]

It is considered a light weapon for the purposes of calculating attack bonuses.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that the consideration is limited that way.
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons

This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
There's nothing specific to attack bonuses there. A light weapon requires the least amount of effort to wield in combat.
Natural weapons are always considered light weapons. We've got a 100% match there for unarmed strikes.

[Taelas]

Because it has to be to be internally consistent. An unarmed strike is made when you attack without a weapon. If an unarmed strike is "considered a weapon" for all intents and purposes, then the definition of unarmed strike doesn't work.

As for your example...
The amulet of mighty fists specifically calls out unarmed strikes as well as natural weapons.

How do you reconcile that with your insistence that it is a natural weapon?

[danzibr]

Since when is 3.5 internally consistent?

[Troacctid]

Unarmed strikes are weird. *shrug*

There are several rules that refer to them, fairly unambiguously, as natural weapons. Some have been quoted already. There are also other rules that say, also fairly unambiguously, that they don't follow the usual natural weapon rules. So which is it? Well, as far as I'm aware, the general consensus is that they're natural weapons, but they don't use the usual natural weapon rules the way other natural weapons do.

If you think that's weird, try and figure out where gauntlets fit into the picture.

[Andezzar]

An Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon unless you claim that an Unarmed Strike requires some kind of external device to work:
Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack.

The Unarmed Strike is also listed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons) as a Simple Weapon. So there can be no doubt that it is a weapon.

As Curmudgeon already said, the Unarmed Strike has some extra rules that set it apart from other natural weapons, just as the spiked chain has additional rules that set it apart from other reach weapons. So there is no problem with a Natural Weapon that does not make the user count as armed.

Specifically calling out the Unarmed Strike on the Amulet of Mighty Fists is superfluous but no proof that the Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon, just as a claw wouldn't cease to be a natural weapon if the rule read "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with claw attacks and natural weapons." On rereading that rule, the amulet does not even call out the Unarmed Strike but "unarmed attacks". I'm not sure if unarmed attacks that are not Unarmed Strikes exist. If they do, then the rule of the amulet is irrelevant.

[Necroticplague]

If you think that's weird, try and figure out where gauntlets fit into the picture.
Or what do you do if you want to stab someone with a sword, then punch them. Do you use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules or the Natural Weapon rules?

[Curmudgeon]

I'm not sure if unarmed attacks that are not Unarmed Strikes exist.
That's exactly what a Gauntlet attack is, according to the Weapons table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons).

[Taelas]

An Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon unless you claim that an Unarmed Strike requires some kind of external device to work:

The Unarmed Strike is also listed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons) as a Simple Weapon. So there can be no doubt that it is a weapon.
Natural weapons are weapons that are part of a creature.

An unarmed strike is an attack without weapons, as per the definition:

unarmed strike
A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons.

The two definitions are mutually exclusive.


Or what do you do if you want to stab someone with a sword, then punch them. Do you use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules or the Natural Weapon rules?

The two-weapon fighting rules.

[danzibr]

Natural weapons are weapons that are part of a creature.

An unarmed strike is an attack without weapons, as per the definition:

The two definitions are mutually exclusive.

The two-weapon fighting rules.
Well, there we have it, folks. Unarmed strikes are simple weapons, hence weapons, yet also an attack without a weapon. An inconsistency in 3.5, holy smokes.

To be honest, what bothers me more is the fact that "attack" and "weapon" seem to be used interchangeably sometimes. I mean, you attack with a weapon.

[Curmudgeon]

Natural weapons are weapons that are part of a creature.
... or something that's treated as a weapon (has a Weapons table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons) entry) that's part of a creature.

[Necroticplague]

The two-weapon fighting rules.

Why? The two-weapon fighting rules refer to off-hand weapons, which a UAS can't be if it's a strike without weapon.

[Taelas]

Why? The two-weapon fighting rules refer to off-hand weapons, which a UAS can't be if it's a strike without weapon.


Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:

If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

The last bit is the relevant part.

[Hiro Quester]

Wait. I don't get what's at stake here. We all seem to agree about what you can do. Don't we?

Iterative weapons or UAS attacks, plus all natural weapons (not UAS) as secondary attacks at -5..

Or weapon attack plus UAS as TWF second attack (but that also imposes negatives on the main weapon attack). Plus natural attacks if you gottem.

Or is there a particular action that hangs on this interpretation of UAS as a weird thing, both light weapon (for TWF) and also not-a-weapon (for nonlethal damage and for provoking AoO; unless you're a monk)?

[Taelas]

Mostly a semantic issue, I think. Not really important.

[danzibr]

Right, semantics.

In several places, unarmed strikes are referred to/listed as/whatever a weapon. But in the very definition of unarmed strike, this is not possible.

[Curmudgeon]

Mostly a semantic issue, I think. Not really important.
Well, it certainly matters if you're trying to take Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike).

[Andezzar]

Right, semantics.

In several places, unarmed strikes are referred to/listed as/whatever a weapon. But in the very definition of unarmed strike, this is not possible.Please quote that definition that says UAS is not a weapon. It fits the definition for a natural weapons.

[Taelas]

That's already been done several times. An unarmed strike is defined as an attack without weapons.

[danzibr]

Please quote that definition that says UAS is not a weapon. It fits the definition for a natural weapons.
Your wish is my command.


A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage.
Emphasis mine.

HOWEVER, I just read the definition for Unarmed Attack, which goes like this.


A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.

Emphasis mine.

Regardless, again what bothers me is a strike/attack is not a weapon. You strike/attack *with* a weapon. It'd be like saying you slice/stab with a sword, and calling a slice/stab a weapon.

This reminds me of an old issue I had while writing my handbook. The word ``weapon'' is never defined in all of 3.5, at least that I've seen, and I'd love someone to prove me wrong.

[Hiro Quester]

Please quote that definition that says UAS is not a weapon. It fits the definition for a natural weapons.

In some ways it counts as a natural weapon (e.g. enhancement by Magic Fang, Amulet of Mighty Fists, Necklace of Natural Attacks).

But it does not count as a natural weapon in other ways. When you make a secondary attack with an Unarmed Strike it counts as TWF, and the penalties for Two Weapon Fighting apply to your primary attack also.

But when you make a secondary attack with natural weapons you get to use all your natural attacks, at -5 penalty, without interfering with your primary attack.

[Andezzar]

But it does not count as a natural weapon in other ways. When you make a secondary attack with an Unarmed Strike it counts as TWF, and the penalties for Two Weapon Fighting apply to your primary attack also.

But when you make a secondary attack with natural weapons you get to use all your natural attacks, at -5 penalty, without interfering with your primary attack.The UAS has specific rules that overwrite the general rules for Natural Weapons. This does not make the UAS not a natural weapon. It is just like the rapier or the spiked chain. Both have specific rules (rapier can be used with weapon finesse, spiked chain can be used to attack foes within your reach) that set them apart from other weapons in their respected categories (one-handed weapons do not work with WF, reach weapons cannot attack within the wielder's reach). You wouldn't say that rapiers and spiked chains aren't one-handed or reach weapons respectively, would you?

[Taelas]

The difference is, they are specifically called by those appellations. Unarmed strikes are never explicitly called natural weapons. Their status is ambiguous. Rapiers' and spiked chains' aren't.

[Curmudgeon]

Unarmed strikes are never explicitly called natural weapons.
The Fanged Ring description does so, when the item grants Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike).

[Necroticplague]

The difference is, they are specifically called by those appellations. Unarmed strikes are never explicitly called natural weapons. Their status is ambiguous. Rapiers' and spiked chains' aren't.

I direct you to exhibit a; magic weapon

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. They are explicitly called natural weapons. Not any wiggle room here.

[Taelas]

They are not the primary source for unarmed strikes. The definition of unarmed strike takes precedence.

[Andezzar]

The PHB, which I believe is the primary source for UAS, does not say the the UAS is not a weapon either:


Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat (page 102) to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.
On top of that, the quoted passage is in the section called Weapon Descriptions. So what makes you think that an UAS is not a weapon?

[Taelas]

I have quoted the relevant sections before. Here they are again (emphasis mine):


http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gloss/window&term=Glossary_dnd_naturalweapon&alpha=N
natural weapon
Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach.

Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack -- generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or armlike limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.


http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gloss/window&term=Glossary_dnd_unarmedstrike&alpha=U
unarmed strike
A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#unarmedAttacks
Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity
Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks
Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

As for the PHB, the relevant section that covers what I quoted from the SRD above is on page 139, under "Actions in Combat" -> "Standard Actions" -> "Attack" -> "Unarmed Attacks"; and the definition is from page 314.