May I ask why some people think unarmed attacks are manufactured weapons? [3.5]

[SangoProduction]

The only reference I could find was this single line from monk.


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.

This doesn't make the unarmed strike a manufactured weapon, only let it count as one so it may be enhanced. Indeed, the wording would imply that if you're using the rule that you can enchant existing weapons, then you can enchant your unarmed strike, which is interesting. You might not have to buy an overpriced item that enchants them indirectly.

Even the SRD entry for Unarmed Strike under Weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm), makes no mention of this. The closest it says is "it's always a light weapon", which, under light weapons, doesn't say it has to be manufactured.

[eggynack]

Is that a thing people think? I'm not sure if that's a thing people think. If it is something people think, then does that have any ramifications? If it doesn't in and of itself, then they probably thought something else that does have ramifications. Could be they're specifically using the term in the context you've laid out.

[SangoProduction]

Is that a thing people think? I'm not sure if that's a thing people think. If it is something people think, then does that have any ramifications? If it doesn't in and of itself, then they probably thought something else that does have ramifications. Could be they're specifically using the term in the context you've laid out.

On one of my previous posts, asking about how claws interact with flurry of attacks, me asking "Do they just become "secondary" attacks?"


The claws or the unarmed attacks? Unarmed Strikes are Manufactured Weapons for these types of purposes, so the claws would be secondary weapons.

However, I've seen it claimed multiple times before. Can't really remember the context though. I felt like asking for clarification, on the more general notion that Unarmed Strikes are manufactured, since I'm playing a monk, and there might be rules out there that I haven't read yet...which might become pertinent.

[eggynack]

I think Necrotic meant that figuratively. He was just creating a distinction between traditional natural weapons and unarmed strike, with the latter being a thing that makes other things secondary, which is true to the rules. I dunno when manufactured weapons are relevant, but I think monk unarmed strikes mostly aren't them. Unarmed strikes are weird though, what with the monk's technical non-proficiency with them, and all the weapon enhancement stacking, and just the fact that they exist at the confluence of all these disparate weapon types. But you're probably fine for this one.

[daremetoidareyo]

Makes me wonder if you can add a wand chamber.

"No I don't want to hold the wand, I want a surgical implant!"

Can a duskling monk consider their unarmed strikes feycraft?

[KillianHawkeye]

I think they just meant that unarmed strikes use the normal rules for BAB and iterative attacks rather than behaving like the natural weapons of monsters. The Monk's unarmed strike goes a half step beyond that and allows their fists (or whatever) to literally count itself as a manufactured weapon for the purposes of being the target for a Magic Weapon spell or similar effect.

[Telonius]

. Indeed, the wording would imply that if you're using the rule that you can enchant existing weapons, then you can enchant your unarmed strike, which is interesting. You might not have to buy an overpriced item that enchants them indirectly.

Unfortunately, manufactured or not, unarmed strike still does not qualify for becoming a magic weapon:


Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon

Unarmed strikes aren't masterwork, so they don't get to add enhancements unless the item or effect specifically says that it ignores the regular rule. Ki Strike doesn't help matters either, since it makes the strike magic (and lawful) only for DR purposes; it doesn't give it the +1 enhancement bonus that's required for additional enhancing.

(Personally I waive this requirement in my houserules; Monks can enchant their own body as both a magic weapon and as armor, as though they had the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat).

[Gruftzwerg]

The only reference I could find was this single line from monk.


This doesn't make the unarmed strike a manufactured weapon, only let it count as one so it may be enhanced. Indeed, the wording would imply that if you're using the rule that you can enchant existing weapons, then you can enchant your unarmed strike, which is interesting. You might not have to buy an overpriced item that enchants them indirectly.

Even the SRD entry for Unarmed Strike under Weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm), makes no mention of this. The closest it says is "it's always a light weapon", which, under light weapons, doesn't say it has to be manufactured.

enhance!=enchant
you can treat your unarmed strike for the propose of "spells & effects" like a manufactured weapon to enhance it, not for "enchanting" your unarmed strikes.

Since English is my 3rd language, I had the same problems with the english rules at the beginning.

enhance = buff/bonus
enchant = magical item

as far as I am aware, this is the how 3.5 uses these words.

edit: if OP shouldn't be aware of it. If you want to magically enchant your unarmed strikes, Kensai (prc) is the way to go.
edit2: unarmed strikes just count as manufactured, but aren't. just to clarify. but was already mentioned.

[Necroticplague]

I think Necrotic meant that figuratively. He was just creating a distinction between traditional natural weapons and unarmed strike, with the latter being a thing that makes other things secondary, which is true to the rules. I dunno when manufactured weapons are relevant, but I think monk unarmed strikes mostly aren't them. Unarmed strikes are weird though, what with the monk's technical non-proficiency with them, and all the weapon enhancement stacking, and just the fact that they exist at the confluence of all these disparate weapon types. But you're probably fine for this one.

My key word is "for these purposes". Unarmed Strikes are in an incredibly wierd limbo between natural weapons and manufactured weapons, and the most honest answer is 'both and neither'.Or that it's its own category, separate from both of those two, with rules that are a poorly-thought-out-and-organized mess. However, for purposes of how you make attacks with them,they're much like manufactured weapons. You get attacks from iteritives and can use them in combination with the TWF rules (as opposed to using them as secondary natural attacks).

[SangoProduction]

Unfortunately, manufactured or not, unarmed strike still does not qualify for becoming a magic weapon:



Unarmed strikes aren't masterwork, so they don't get to add enhancements unless the item or effect specifically says that it ignores the regular rule. Ki Strike doesn't help matters either, since it makes the strike magic (and lawful) only for DR purposes; it doesn't give it the +1 enhancement bonus that's required for additional enhancing.

(Personally I waive this requirement in my houserules; Monks can enchant their own body as both a magic weapon and as armor, as though they had the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat).

Damn I forgot that that was a thing. You're right.

[bekeleven]

My favorite trick is how by RAW a monk can wield weapons in one or both hands, perform an attack routine of his or her choice, and then hit with an unarmed strike as a secondary natural attack at the end. Arguably, this is possible even if the initial attack routine includes unarmed strikes.

[weckar]

Unarmed strikes aren't masterwork, so they don't get to add enhancements unless the item or effect specifically says that it ignores the regular rule. Ki Strike doesn't help matters either, since it makes the strike magic (and lawful) only for DR purposes; it doesn't give it the +1 enhancement bonus that's required for additional enhancing.Slightly tangential pershaps. but doesn't the Kensei prestige class specifically circumvent this for both unarmed strikes and natural weapons?

[zergling.exe]

Slightly tangential pershaps. but doesn't the Kensei prestige class specifically circumvent this for both unarmed strikes and natural weapons?

Unfortunately the rules are a bit vague due to unarmed strike's classification.
If it is treated as both a manufactured and a natural weapon, then Kensai cannot boost it, as manufactured weapons must be masterwork, and your fists are not. So a Monk Kensai is out of luck.

If it is only a natural weapon, then you can boost it, but you wouldn't gain iterative attacks with it. However, unarmed strikes get iterative attacks for a high BAB, so they cannot actually be natural weapons, as those do not get iteratives.

So a non-monk's unarmed strike cannot be a natural weapon, but are they a manufactured weapon? The rules are unfortunately not clear on this point, so a Kensai is ambigious on whether or not they can choose it, but Monks (and Unarmed Swordsages by definition) cannot as they're unarmed strikes are explicitly manufactured.

[weckar]

So the whole line calling out applying the Kensai ability to a human with WF(Unarmed Strike) does not refer to Monks - the most obvious characters to take that?

WotC you magnificent bastards...

[Vizzerdrix]

What about a warforged? They are manufactured. Or an incarnum construct. Where would an incarnum construct monk fit into all of this?

[Necroticplague]

So the whole line calling out applying the Kensai ability to a human with WF(Unarmed Strike) does not refer to Monks - the most obvious characters to take that?

WotC you magnificent bastards...

Obviously. The Kensai class mentions each fist as if it was a separate weapon, in blatant violation of monk's "whole body is an unarmed strike" text.

[Gruftzwerg]

Obviously. The Kensai class mentions each fist as if it was a separate weapon, in blatant violation of monk's "whole body is an unarmed strike" text.

yeah, Kensai can enchant each hand/arm or leg/foot seperate.
and the "whole body is an unarmed strike" is a wrong assumption.
Monks Unarmed Strike mentions hands, elbow, leg & feet. no torso and not even head (yeah, a monk may not even headbutt -.-)

A monk Kensai can either just enchant 1 hand/arm or everything (hands/arms, leg/feet: = 4x times the cost; or 8x times if your DM is an as.... and you need to enchant hands/elbow seperate and feet /knee seperate).
One arm/hand is enough to use all your flurry attacks. It would be just limiting in special situations (e.G. you hurt your enchanted arm or it's for some other reason not usable).

[Necroticplague]

yeah, Kensai can enchant each hand/arm or leg/foot seperate.
and the "whole body is an unarmed strike" is a wrong assumption.
Monks Unarmed Strike mentions hands, elbow, leg & feet. no torso and not even head (yeah, a monk may not even headbutt -.-)

The 'whole body' was a paraphrasing, not an exact turn of phase. My point is, it mentions hands as if those are the only things you can make unarmed strikes from, which clearly isn't true for a monk, thus the fact it wasn't intended for monk is very clear.

[Âmesang]

Isn't the monk's whole shtick trying to make his body and mind "masterwork?" :smalltongue:

[Gruftzwerg]

The 'whole body' was a paraphrasing, not an exact turn of phase. My point is, it mentions hands as if those are the only things you can make unarmed strikes from, which clearly isn't true for a monk, thus the fact it wasn't intended for monk is very clear.

- the "whole body" parse will just mislead newbies, that's why I dislike it^^

- if you go strict by raw, monk has 8 bodyparts which can be used for his unarmed strike. Now imagine a monk enemy. You want do disable his magical weapon. You would need to take care of 8 points, to disable 1 magical enhancement effect, if he could enchant that cheap. That's why monk pays separately. (but I would house-rule 4 enchantable points and only enchant 2 of them for my monk).

[KillianHawkeye]

Unfortunately the rules are a bit vague due to unarmed strike's classification.
If it is treated as both a manufactured and a natural weapon, then Kensai cannot boost it, as manufactured weapons must be masterwork, and your fists are not. So a Monk Kensai is out of luck.

If it is only a natural weapon, then you can boost it, but you wouldn't gain iterative attacks with it. However, unarmed strikes get iterative attacks for a high BAB, so they cannot actually be natural weapons, as those do not get iteratives.

So a non-monk's unarmed strike cannot be a natural weapon, but are they a manufactured weapon? The rules are unfortunately not clear on this point, so a Kensai is ambigious on whether or not they can choose it, but Monks (and Unarmed Swordsages by definition) cannot as they're unarmed strikes are explicitly manufactured.

All of your reasoning here is erroneous.

First, a Monk's unarmed strike is not a manufactured weapon. We have already covered that in this thread. All the rules say is that it 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." Note how it doesn't actually change what category the unarmed strike falls under, which the evidence from many items and skill descriptions is clearly a form of natural attack.

Second, the Kensai has a built-in exception for unarmed strikes. They don't need to be masterwork because that's impossible.

Third, just because unarmed strikes don't follow the same rules as other natural weapons does not mean that it isn't a natural attack. It is simply an exception to those rules, something which is extremely common in an exception-based ruleset such as D&D. The reason that unarmed strikes function like weapon attacks rather than as the natural weapons of monsters is obviously out of simplicity and necessity (how would the Monk class even work otherwise?).

[Deophaun]

If it is only a natural weapon, then you can boost it, but you wouldn't gain iterative attacks with it. However, unarmed strikes get iterative attacks for a high BAB, so they cannot actually be natural weapons, as those do not get iteratives.
From what I can see, you would be correct except that, when to get to the spell section in the PHB, you find:

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
And then you have items like the fanged ring, which gives you Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike).

When talking about generally, the rules talk about "unarmed strikes and natural attacks" as if they are two separate things but never officially drawing a line between them, then once you get to how specific things interact with them, the rules talk as if unarmed strikes were always natural weapons (note: it's not "for the purpose of this spell" in the above quotes).

[zergling.exe]

From what I can see, you would be correct except that, when to get to the spell section in the PHB, you find:


And then you have items like the fanged ring, which gives you Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike).

When talking about generally, the rules talk about "unarmed strikes and natural attacks" as if they are two separate things but never officially drawing a line between them, then once you get to how specific things interact with them, the rules talk as if unarmed strikes were always natural weapons (note: it's not "for the purpose of this spell" in the above quotes).

Which is why the rules get screwy. Unarmed strikes are not natural attacks, but the writers always assumed that they are. They don't follow the rules for natural weapons (always armed, no iteratives), but are not manufactured (as they are part of the body), but are also light weapons.

[Deophaun]

Which is why the rules get screwy. Unarmed strikes are not natural attacks
No. The reason the rules are screwy is because they are natural attacks. If they were their own thing, but were also called out on occasion as also being a valid target for such-and-such effect or such-and-such feat that was primarily for natural weapons, there wouldn't be a problem. But no, RAW actually calls them natural weapons after applying completely different rules to them.

[zergling.exe]

No. The reason the rules are screwy is because they are natural attacks. If they were their own thing, but were also called out on occasion as also being a valid target for such-and-such effect or such-and-such feat that was primarily for natural weapons, there wouldn't be a problem. But no, RAW actually calls them natural weapons after applying completely different rules to them.

I have looked in both the PHB and the MM and found nothing (aside from specific mentions in spells and such) that says that they are in fact natural weapons. The MM glossary entry on natural weapons doesn't even mention them. Where is it claiming that they are (aside from the afore mentioned spells)?

edit: A bit more confusion to add: Attack Your Opponent in a Grapple calls out unarmed strikes, natural weapons and light weapons. Meaning that an unarmed strike would be neither of these.:smallsigh:

[StreamOfTheSky]

I know the rules are muddied on this. And I never claimed to try or want to follow strict RAW. I treat unarmed as manufactured weapons in my games because I find it to just be...cleaner. They already work mechanically more like a manufactured weapon than a natural one (iterative attacks), and without training, you don't threaten with unarmed (and in fact draw an AoO for using it)...so in a way even thought it's an attack every creature has, it's one that must be "manufactured." I also want to avoid all the silly/ugliness of "secondary unarmed strikes." As a definitely manufactured weapon, you can combine it with secondary natural weapon attacks, though.

As far as enhancing it magically...in my current game I just adopted the PF Amulet of Mighty Fists (2x the cost instead of 3x; doesn't need a +1 before adding special properties) and made Ki Strike (magic) an outright +1 per 4 levels enhancement bonus. To minimize differences from RAW. But IMO, anyone who has Improved Unarmed Strike should probably get to count as meeting the "masterwork" requirement for enhancing a weapon, and I'll probably handle it that way in future campaigns.

(It's probably off-topic, but related: Aside from *very specific* exceptions where the rules outright say you can TWF with only unarmed strikes like Wolf Fang Strike or City Brawler Barbarian, I vehemently stick to the ruling that all of your unarmed strikes are the same weapon. Whether it's a kick, punch, elbow, headbutt, knee, whatever. You enhance your "unarmed strike" by +1, all of those get it. But you also are not going to freaking "Multi-Weapon Fight" with a dozen different variations of unarmed strikes, either. Again...just cleaner that way, mechanically)

[Deophaun]

I have looked in both the PHB and the MM and found nothing (aside from specific mentions in spells and such)
I love the arbitrary selectiveness of that:

I just can't find anywhere where the rules say that (aside from the places where it does).

Besides, you're just repeating what I said in my first post.

[zergling.exe]

I love the arbitrary selectiveness of that:

I just can't find anywhere where the rules say that (aside from the places where it does).

Besides, you're just repeating what I said in my first post.

If there is no general rule stating that they are natural weapons, it backs up my claim that they are not, but that the writers were assuming that they are. That these spells state that unarmed strikes natural weapons, and nothing else does, means that while they are natural weapons, they would not be so if not called out in those spells. And of course other places where RAW contradicts that they are, notably the the Natural Weapon glossary entry makes no mention of them, and the Monster Manual would supercede the PHB when it comes to natural weapons.

[weckar]

Crazy thought, but why can't unarmed strike be masterwork? If the mommy works real hard and rolls high on her Craft(baby) checks?

- - and of course crafts the masterwork part separately as per the masterwork crafting rules (even though the masterwork quality cannot be added after creation; seriously what's up with that?)

[Gruftzwerg]

Natural Attack != Natural Weapon

unarmed strike is a natural attack but not a natural weapon (it just counts as natural weapon for spells/effects).

that should clear some thought up.

[icefractal]

Personally, I have no problem with Unarmed Strikes counting in a different and more favorable way than most weapons. Such as being a single weapon for enchanting but you can still TWF with it, and being light but it applies your full Strength.

I figure that:
1) Monks can use the benefit.
2) For non-Monks, the benefits don't outweight the downsides until very high level, and even then only for some combat styles.
3) High-level people being more likely to be kung-fu badasses sounds just fine to me. :smallwink:

However, getting infinite secondary attacks does sound undesirable. So I would say that they probably just shouldn't count for secondary attack purposes at all. Which, since they use iterative attack rules instead of natural weapon rules in other ways, seems reasonable.

And I like the idea of enchanting yourself - it fits very well with "internal alchemy" traditions, if you think of the time + cost as spending eight hours a day doing specific exercises and consuming medicines which contain rare and expensive ingredients. There could be a feat which made your body count as masterwork (+1 to hit with unarmed strikes, although it wouldn't stack with magic), and allowed enchanting your unarmed strikes and skin (as armor) this way. Maybe make a Heal check (as if it were UMD) to emulated required spells. Monk would get it for free, naturally.

[bekeleven]

Personally, I have no problem with Unarmed Strikes counting in a different and more favorable way than most weapons. Such as being a single weapon for enchanting but you can still TWF with it

...Ish.


There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

This single sentence caused CaptnQ to write a 2000-word treatise once.

[Andezzar]

yeah, Kensai can enchant each hand/arm or leg/foot seperate.
and the "whole body is an unarmed strike" is a wrong assumption.
Monks Unarmed Strike mentions hands, elbow, leg & feet. no torso and not even head (yeah, a monk may not even headbutt -.-)That is not a monk thing. Anyone can use his whole body for an unarmed strike, including the head:
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.Emphasis mine.

As to whether the Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon, look at the definition of Natural Weapons:
Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.Last time I checked you cannot really detach an unarmed strike from a creature.

[Zanos]

If it is only a natural weapon, then you can boost it, but you wouldn't gain iterative attacks with it. However, unarmed strikes get iterative attacks for a high BAB, so they cannot actually be natural weapons, as those do not get iteratives.
Does it say Unarmed Strikes get iterative attacks anywhere?

[ben-zayb]

As to whether the Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon, look at the definition of Natural Weapons:Last time I checked you cannot really detach an unarmed strike from a creature.
Of course, because punches, kicks, and headbutts, among other type of offensive moves that can be done with body parts, can't ever be attached or detached in the first place, by virtue of obviously not being body parts themselves.

[Âmesang]

…and of course crafts the masterwork part separately as per the masterwork crafting rules (even though the masterwork quality cannot be added after creation; seriously what's up with that?)
I tend to imagine the masterwork component is often the material being used specially forged/ready for use—i.e., a regular longsword is made from iron, while a masterwork longsword is made from steel (Wootz, Dasmacus, &c.), so you have to prepare the steel first (a separate check) before crafting the sword.

[Andezzar]

I tend to imagine the masterwork component is often the material being used specially forged/ready for use—i.e., a regular longsword is made from iron, while a masterwork longsword is made from steel (Wootz, Dasmacus, &c.), so you have to prepare the steel first (a separate check) before crafting the sword.Making a sword from iron is a pretty stupid idea. It will most likely shatter on impact.

You don't actually craft a masterwork component separately, it is just an additional test to represent the greater effort and time put into a masterwork item.

[weckar]

If that's how it is supposed to be interpreted the Craft skill is really worded poorly.

[Andezzar]

I don't know what you mean. the text is pretty explicit and clear:
You can make a masterwork item—a weapon, suit of armor, shield, or tool that conveys a bonus on its use through its exceptional craftsmanship, not through being magical. To create a masterwork item, you create the masterwork component as if it were a separate item in addition to the standard item1. The masterwork component has its own price (300 gp for a weapon or 150 gp for a suit of armor or a shield) and a Craft DC of 20. Once both the standard component and the masterwork component are completed, the masterwork item is finished2.
1 This tells us that it isn't really a separate item
2 Both components are just part of one item.

[Calthropstu]

A person's fist IS technically man made...

[Gruftzwerg]

As to whether the Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon, look at the definition of Natural Weapons:Last time I checked you cannot really detach an unarmed strike from a creature.

"unarmed strikes" are not "weapons" to begin with.
"imp. unarmed strike" lets your unarmed strikes count as "weapons" (natural/manufactored).

a "Natural Weapon" is a part of your body which is biologically designed/optimized for attacking.

Hands/fists, have nothing special to make em natural weapons. Cause if, than they would count as claws and not as hand/fist anymore.

Improved unarmed strike makes em just count as either manufactured/natural weapons.

[Andezzar]

"unarmed strikes" are not "weapons" to begin with.
"imp. unarmed strike" lets your unarmed strikes count as "weapons" (natural/manufactored).No, Improved Unarmed Strike does no such thing:
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. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.



a "Natural Weapon" is a part of your body which is biologically designed/optimized for attacking.The rules say nothing about design/optimization being required.


Improved unarmed strike makes em just count as either manufactured/natural weapons.Still not true, even if you repeat it. You are probably thinking about the Monk Class Feature called Unarmed Strike, which among other things, gives Improved Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Feat. Your statement isn't even true about that rule.
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. So a monk's unarmed strike is only treated as a manufactured/natural weapon when you apply spells or effects to enhance it. It already is a natural (but not a manufactured) weapon for other purposes as referenced in various rules.

[bekeleven]

Can we all just agree:


The RAW doesn't conclusively define whether unarmed strikes are natural attacks or weapons. (Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.)
Parts of the RAW seem to imply one way or the other, based on wording or rules implications. (Otherwise, this discussion wouldn't have gone on this long.)
Many game rules break down unless you rule unarmed strikes using the weapon rules. Rules in other locations break down unless you treat them as natural weapons. (Otherwise, this discussion would have no purpose.)
We are thinking about this much harder than the designers ever did. (Otherwise, we wouldn't all be on GitP.)

[eggynack]

The RAW doesn't conclusively define whether unarmed strikes are natural attacks or weapons. (Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.)

I disagree. I think that we have rather conclusively proved that unarmed strikes are, in fact, weapons in the past. Or at least weapons enough for any relevant purposes. In particular, it is ambiguous whether or not they are weapons, but it is not ambiguous that, in any circumstance in which the rules ask unarmed strike whether it's a weapon, unarmed strike says yes.

[weckar]

A blanket solution would be to use the template formed by Powerful Build: It is one, the other or both depending on what is convenient at the time.

[Andezzar]

A blanket solution would be to use the template formed by Powerful Build: It is one, the other or both depending on what is convenient at the time.Powerful Build is not one or the other (medium or large) or both, but there are clearly stated situations where the Goliath (or other creature with that ability) is large and anywhere else it is not.

[Necroticplague]

Can we all just agree:


The RAW doesn't conclusively define whether unarmed strikes are natural attacks or weapons. (Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.)
Parts of the RAW seem to imply one way or the other, based on wording or rules implications. (Otherwise, this discussion wouldn't have gone on this long.)
Many game rules break down unless you rule unarmed strikes using the weapon rules. Rules in other locations break down unless you treat them as natural weapons. (Otherwise, this discussion would have no purpose.)
We are thinking about this much harder than the designers ever did. (Otherwise, we wouldn't all be on GitP.)


I think points 1 and 2 are actually the same (it's not conclusive because they point in different directions). Other than that, yeah.

Personally, here's how I treat them to try and get consistency:
Treat them as natural weapons for all purposes except determining how you wield them, for which treat them as light weapons requiring no hands, much like armor spikes. So they get iteratives, stabbing and punching someone uses TWF/MWF (not natural weapon secondary). All creatures have one, though it usually sucks, and only one (so no dual-wielding your unarmed strike with your unarmed strike, which makes about as much sense as dual wielding a greatsword with itself). Disregard kensai rule on unarmed strikes, due to above logic.

[Andezzar]

Personally, here's how I treat them to try and get consistency:
Treat them as natural weapons for all purposes except determining how you wield them, for which treat them as light weapons requiring no hands, much like armor spikes. So they get iteratives, stabbing and punching someone uses TWF/MWF (not natural weapon secondary). All creatures have one, though it usually sucks, and only one (so no dual-wielding your unarmed strike with your unarmed strike, which makes about as much sense as dual wielding a greatsword with itself). Disregard kensai rule on unarmed strikes, due to above logic.FWIW I do the same in my games.

[Willie the Duck]

I disagree. I think that we have rather conclusively proved that unarmed strikes are, in fact, weapons in the past. Or at least weapons enough for any relevant purposes. In particular, it is ambiguous whether or not they are weapons, but it is not ambiguous that, in any circumstance in which the rules ask unarmed strike whether it's a weapon, unarmed strike says yes.

You disagreed with his assertion that RAW doesn't conclusively define something, and then asserted a position so wishy-washy, it nearly synonymous with inconclusivity. Are you sure you're disagreeing?

[eggynack]

You disagreed with his assertion that RAW doesn't conclusively define something, and then asserted a position so wishy-washy, it nearly synonymous with inconclusivity. Are you sure you're disagreeing?
Reasonably sure. I recognized part way through that my actual RAW stance is that it may or may not be a weapon, but it's definitely always treated as one. If bekeleven's position is merely that unarmed strikes could technically not be weapons, with no attention paid to the ramifications of that fact, then I suppose I agree with him, to some extent, but only to some extent, because there is way way more evidence on the weapon side than the non-weapon side*. If, however, he was implying that this ambiguity has any impact on the game whatsoever, then I disagree completely. For all intents and purposes, unarmed strike is a weapon. It is only from the most technical perspective that it could maybe not be one, to the extent where characterizing the unarmed strike as a possible non-weapon just seems misleading.

*From my recollection participating in these arguments, the anti-weapon side comes purely from a somewhat ambiguous glossary entry, "unarmed strike: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons." The pro-weapon side has "Weapons are described below," right above a list that includes unarmed strike, the general fact that it's on the weapons table at all, and all those spell entries that indicate that it's a natural weapon (which is, in turn, a weapon). There might be another citation on the pro-side too, but I do not recall the specifics. The reason I tend to use the "Always treated as a weapon" argument is that it avoids that single glossary reference.