3.5 Monk, Unarmed + TWF

[SirNibbles]

I am writing this thread in response to numerous incorrect answers posted regarding Monks attacking with Unarmed Strikes as a main-hand attack and an off-hand attack as part of Two-Weapon Fighting.


The Two-Weapon Fighting feat line allows you to make extra attacks with your off hand weapon at a penalty.
The monk's Unarmed Stike ability says that "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

Now let's say, hypothetically, I wanted to level as a fighter with Superior Unarmed Strike intending to be a better fistfighter than a regular monk. Naturally, the two-weapon fighting feat chain will give me extra attacks.
However, let's say that I hypothetically want to dip two levels of monk for Evasion and saving throw bonuses. I now have the monk's special Unarmed Strike qualities, meaning that there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for me any more.


Sooo... Q372
Does taking a level or two of monk mean that my unarmed attacks can no longer benefit from the effects of Two-Weapon Fighting?



No, it only means you can't use it as an offhand weapon. You can still use it as your main hand.


I meant for the purposes of using exclusively unarmed strikes. I mean, yeah, I could be throwing a right hooks while slashing someone with a sword in my left hand, but it looks like I technically can't just use both of my fists for TWF.


Whether monk or not, an unarmed strike only ever is one weapon.


Where is this at? All I can find regarding unarmed stikes and off-hand attacks is in Two-Weapon Fighting, were it says penalties are lessened if your off-hand weapon is light and that unarmed strikes are always considered light for this purpose. I'm not seeing anything, other than the monk's class description, which says that you can't make unarmed attacks both main- and off-handed simultaneously.


Q 374



A 374

An unarmed strike is a natural weapon. Nowhere does it say that anyone has more than one of those. Just as you cannot use a dagger as both the main hand weapon and the off-hand weapon, if you only have one, you cannot use the unarmed strike to use as both.



Let's start by answering the original question: Can you, as a monk, attack with Unarmed Strike in your main hand and then in your off-hand (Two Weapon Fighting)?

Yes.

Can you do this with flurry of blows too?

Yes.

Source: FAQ page 19-20

The description of the flurry of blows ability says
there’s no such thing as a monk attacking with an off-hand
weapon during a flurry of blows. What does that mean,
exactly? Can the monk make off-hand attacks in addition to
flurry attacks?

Actually, the text to which you refer appears in the entry
for unarmed strikes. When a monk uses her unarmed strike
ability, she does not suffer any penalty for an off-hand attack,
even when she has her hands full and attacks with her knees
and elbows, using the flurry of blows ability to make extra
attacks, or both.

The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t
use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact
wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and
no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists.
When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk
suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting
(see Table 8–10 in the PH) and the monk adds only half her
Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed
strike hits.

To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack
whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if
any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s
full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains
only half Strength bonus to damage.


Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine
a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her
penalties on attack rolls?

A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other
character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her
attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand
weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with
a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but
remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special
monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for two weapon
fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows.


Regarding the claim that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon- this is completely false. Rules Compendium page 16 directly contradicts this statement.

Long story short: You can TWF Unarmed Strike as a Monk, with or without Flurry of Blows. Offhand Unarmed Strike only gets 1/2 Str to damage. If you use both TWF and Flurry, the attack penalties stack (with Unarmed Strikes being treated as light for the TWF penalty).

Edit: Additional quote about TWF: "If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)"

Why would this be mentioned if you couldn't strike with an Unarmed Strike as your off-hand attack?

[Ludic]

Regarding the claim that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon- this is completely false. Rules Compendium page 16 directly contradicts this statement.
Keep going in the monk section for unarmed strike and you'll see where the confusion comes.


A Monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon . . .

However, it goes on to state.


. . . for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells) .

So I can see where the confusion comes from, it both is and isn't a natural weapon, depending on what is going on.

[KillianHawkeye]

The FAQ isn't considered a very reliable source due to a history of wrong and sometimes contradictory answers. Nothing in the FAQ counts as rules text, it's just somebody's interpretation.

Moreover, there are numerous rules sources which list "unarmed strike" as an example of a natural weapon.

And finally, nothing in your quote from the FAQ says anything about using unarmed strikes as both the main hand AND the off-hand side of a Two-Weapon Fighting routine (which was what the question from the Simple Q&A thread was actually about).

[Troacctid]

An unarmed strike is not two weapons. You can use it as one of your two weapons when fighting with two weapons (although for Monks it cannot be an offhand weapon), but not as both.

[SirNibbles]

So I can see where the confusion comes from, it both is and isn't a natural weapon, depending on what is going on.

I've read that part and I can understand it causing confusion. However, Rules Compendium page 16 clearly makes a distinction between Unarmed Attacks and Natural Attacks.


____


An unarmed strike is not two weapons. You can use it as one of your two weapons when fighting with two weapons (although for Monks it cannot be an offhand weapon), but not as both.

"A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand."

"A light weapon is used in one hand."

"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."

__

"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes."

The context surrounding this is more likely to mean that when you TWF with Unarmed Strikes, you get to use your full Strength bonus for both your 'main' and 'off-hand' attacks. I'm sure there's quite a bit of interpretation surrounding this.

Either way, it's not too overpowered to get one extra hit in exchange for a penalty.

[Andezzar]

I've read that part and I can understand it causing confusion. However, Rules Compendium page 16 clearly makes a distinction between Unarmed Attacks and Natural Attacks.an unarmed attack is not the same as an Unarmed Strike. Yes, you can make more than one unarmed attack in a round, but that does not mean you have more than one unarmed strike to make them with. Just as a fighter does not magically acquire a second greatsword as soon has he gets BAB 6, you only have one Unarmed Strike. Some unarmed attacks aren't even performed by an unarmed Strike (such as the touch attack to initiate a grapple)



"A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand."This clearly is an exclusive or. If it wasn't, you could use a single dagger as the main hand weapon AND as the off-hand weapon with the same full attack. Does that make sense?



"A light weapon is used in one hand."Yes, in one hand, not in one hand and also in the other one hand at the same time.



"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."Exactly, it is considered a (as in one) light weapon, not as two or more.


Either way, it's not too overpowered to get one extra hit in exchange for a penalty.Of course it wouldn't be overpowered, but the rules do not allow it. And if you ask what the rules say, you should get an answer telling you what the rules say and not how to change them to make them better.

[Necroticplague]

Let's start by answering the original question: Can you, as a monk, attack with Unarmed Strike in your main hand and then in your off-hand (Two Weapon Fighting)?

Yes.
No, you can't. You only have one Unarmed Strike. Doing this would be like a normal human TWFing a greatsword with itself. Or, to point to an explicit part of TWF that disallows this:



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:
Wielding an unarmed strike in your offhand and in your mainhand is not wielding a second weapon. It's wielding the same weapon.

[Jack_McSnatch]

No, you can't. You only have one Unarmed Strike. Doing this would be like a normal human TWFing a greatsword with itself.

That doesn't even remotely make sense. You'really comparing using the same weapon as two weapons to throwing a punch with your right hand, and then punching with your left hand. I fon't see any reason this wouldn't work, besides the terrible wording we see everywhere in d&d.

[Crake]

No, you can't. You only have one Unarmed Strike. Doing this would be like a normal human TWFing a greatsword with itself. Or, to point to an explicit part of TWF that disallows this:
Wielding an unarmed strike in your offhand and in your mainhand is not wielding a second weapon. It's wielding the same weapon.

Can you give me a rules quote on that?

[Darrin]

Can you give me a rules quote on that?

There isn't any. I've looked (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279079-3-5-The-TWF-OffHandbook).

While the FAQ does discuss unarmed strikes as offhand attacks, all the examples it gives involve a manufactured weapon in the primary hand.

For the counter-argument, there's the Kensai referring to each fist individually, but this is a bad example, as I suspect whoever wrote that didn't understand how unarmed strikes work.

The argument boils down to whether you prefer unarmed strikes to be treated as a single striking surface or multiple striking surfaces. The RAW on this isn't clear, so you have to decide which way works best for your group.

For the purposes of RAW discussions on forums, I tend to lean towards the "single" side of things, but in actual play, I prefer "multiple". Not that this really helps the discussion in any meaningful way.

[Ruethgar]

If a Barbarian can TWF(City Brawler) with unarmed I think a monk should be able to as well. Though honestly, what Monk build wouldn't benefit from a Barbarian dip anyway. May need to Chaos Monk unless your DM hand waves that stupid alignment rule.

[Necroticplague]

Can you give me a rules quote on that?Conversely, where does it say you have multiple unarmed strikes? I don't see anything that supports that, and UAS lack any text like Double Weapons do that would allow them to be held in both the main and off hand at the same time.

That doesn't even remotely make sense. You'r really comparing using the same weapon as two weapons to throwing a punch with your right hand, and then punching with your left hand. I don't see any reason this wouldn't work, besides the terrible wording we see everywhere in d&d.

Except that throwing a punch with your left hand, and throwing it with your right hand, are using the same weapon. Either way, that's your unarmed strike. It's the same weapon. Just as one edge of the greatsword, and it's opposite edge, are still the same weapon.

The fact it doesn't make sense is the point. It's a reducto ad absurdum ("If this is true, this other clearly false thing is also true. Ergo, this is also false").

For a more related one, what about non-hand unarmed strikes? Can a basic human monk make 8 attacks at level one (left fist, left knee, left elbow, left foot,right fist, right knee, right elbow,right foot)? After all, by your own logic, each of those is a different weapon (monk notes you can attack from any of those). Or are these somehow limited by amount of hands, despite making no use of them?So a normal human monk can kick twice, while a thri-kreen monk can kick twice and knee twice, somehow, despite the same amount of legs?

[Mato]

I like how everyone assumes that if there is no such thing as an off-hand attack then it means you cannot use unarmed strike as an off-hand weapon that makes "on"-hand attacks but they are willing to go so far as to argue meaningless personal opinions on how to split hairs in anything else in just about every other thread.


The FAQ isn't considered a very reliable source due to a history of wrong and sometimes contradictory answers. Nothing in the FAQ counts as rules text, it's just somebody's interpretationWell, over looking that it was officially listed as part of the game rules and is official content written by a guy that helped write several rule books making it far more than "somebody's interpretation". There is nothing in your post full of wrong and contradictory points that counts as rules text to persuade me into supporting sombody's opinion otherwise.

You'll just have to settle with I like the FAQ better than you. :smallsmile:

[Darrin]

[...] but they are willing to go so far as to argue meaningless personal opinions on how to split hairs in anything else in just about every other thread.


You're welcome!



Well, over looking that it was officially listed as part of the game rules and is official content written by a guy that helped write several rule books making it far more than "somebody's interpretation". There is nothing in your post full of wrong and contradictory points that counts as rules text to persuade me into supporting sombody's opinion otherwise.


The FAQ is a hodge-podge of Sage Advice articles, custserv responses, and anonymous off-the-cuff answers of uncertain provenance. A good chunk of them contradict each other, misunderstand the core rules, and a few even manage to completely fail to answer the question altogether. I will continue to remain deeply suspicious of anything in the FAQ until I see it enshrined in an actual rules update or in the official errata. (Unless the FAQ agrees with me, in which case it's obviously gospel.)

[Mato]

The FAQ is a hodge-podge of Sage Advice articles, custserv responses, and anonymous off-the-cuff answers of uncertain provenance. Unless the FAQ agrees with me, in which case it's obviously gospel.And that's an accurate summery of the entirety GitP and how it treats all of the rule books.

I think you won the thread.

[Jack_McSnatch]

For a more related one, what about non-hand unarmed strikes? Can a basic human monk make 8 attacks at level one (left fist, left knee, left elbow, left foot,right fist, right knee, right elbow,right foot)? After all, by your own logic, each of those is a different weapon (monk notes you can attack from any of those). Or are these somehow limited by amount of hands, despite making no use of them?So a normal human monk can kick twice, while a thri-kreen monk can kick twice and knee twice, somehow, despite the same amount of legs?

No, why would that make sense either? Use all the fancy latin phrases you like, At first level, there's no way anybody is fast enough to attack with 8 accurate, damage dealing strikes. But 3 isn't unreasonable. A punch, a kick, and lets say an elbow strike. There's your flurry of blows.

As for the thri-kreen example, I couldn't tell you. I make it a point to mention that I don't know everything about d&d. I don't know every spell, feat, skill, and obscure rule, but it's pretty obvious there's some stupidly written stuff. Why should they get more kicks than a human with the same number of legs? They shouldn't, that's dumb. Getting the kicks, and then extra punches thanks to their multiple limbs makes perfect sense, and there's a feat specifically for that sort of thing.

How often do people complain about monk being a basket of crap and scented soaps on this site? Here's a simple fix. Don't read "no off hand attacks" like a jerk dm. Let them have their extra twf attacks. Hell, let them take supreme twf and double their flurry of blows. It's no worse than the dervish, the ubercharger, or any other ridiculous class build that gets absurd numbers of devestating attacks. It still wouldn't make monk 20 worth it, but it'd make it more worthwhile than the two level dip that you never touch on again.

[Andezzar]

No, why would that make sense either? Use all the fancy latin phrases you like, At first level, there's no way anybody is fast enough to attack with 8 accurate, damage dealing strikes. But 3 isn't unreasonable. A punch, a kick, and lets say an elbow strike. There's your flurry of blows.Actually there would be a crerature fast enough if each punch, kick etc. were a separate natural weapon. Any creature with n natural weapons would have n attacks on a full attack regardless of BAB.


How often do people complain about monk being a basket of crap and scented soaps on this site? Here's a simple fix. Don't read "no off hand attacks" like a jerk dm. Let them have their extra twf attacks. Hell, let them take supreme twf and double their flurry of blows. It's no worse than the dervish, the ubercharger, or any other ridiculous class build that gets absurd numbers of devestating attacks. It still wouldn't make monk 20 worth it, but it'd make it more worthwhile than the two level dip that you never touch on again.This thread is about what the rules are, not how they can be improved. Sure you can houserule that you can TWF with a single Unarmed Strike, but that is a houserule just like removing the multi-class penalties.

[Necroticplague]

No, why would that make sense either? Use all the fancy latin phrases you like, At first level, there's no way anybody is fast enough to attack with 8 accurate, damage dealing strikes. But 3 isn't unreasonable. A punch, a kick, and lets say an elbow strike. There's your flurry of blows. Why would the 8 be impossible? It uses the same logic that allows for the 3. If each of those listed are a different unarmed attack, then you can lash out with all of them at once, just like how a kraken can lash out with 8 9 attacks at once on it's full-round attack action.

[Jack_McSnatch]

Why would the 8 be impossible? It uses the same logic that allows for the 3. If each of those listed are a different unarmed attack, then you can lash out with all of them at once, just like how a kraken can lash out with 8 9 attacks at once on it's full-round attack action.

Because in order to deliver a proper unarmed attack you need to stand, pivot, step, and/or otherwise move in all the right ways. The same things you have to do to deliver a blow with a manufactured weapon. A kraken is a multiple HD creature with a ton of natural attacks, compared in this example to a level 1 human(oid) monk who just spent at least 10 years learning proper form. Natural attacks don't require proper form, it's literally just flailing the most dangerous part of your body. Hell, the flurry of blows ability even mentions that it can't be used with natural weapons. Natural weapon damage dice doesn't increase with monk levels. Natural weapons are natural. You just know how to do it. An unarmed strike isn't natural, because humanoids need a proficiency feat to use it, just like a sword. Ergo, unarmed attacks are not natural weapons.

Just like everything else on this site, we could argue about it til the pigs come home. I think the only thing this thread will be able to determine is that there is no official, recognized ruling on unarmed attacks + twf, and that lots of people on this site disagree on simple things.

[Necroticplague]

Because in order to deliver a proper unarmed attack you need to stand, pivot, step, and/or otherwise move in all the right ways. The same things you have to do to deliver a blow with a manufactured weapon. A kraken is a multiple HD creature with a ton of natural attacks, compared in this example to a level 1 human(oid) monk who just spent at least 10 years learning proper form. Natural attacks don't require proper form, it's literally just flailing the most dangerous part of your body. Hell, the flurry of blows ability even mentions that it can't be used with natural weapons. Natural weapon damage dice doesn't increase with monk levels. Natural weapons are natural. You just know how to do it. An unarmed strike isn't natural, because humanoids need a proficiency feat to use it, just like a sword. Ergo, unarmed attacks are not natural weapons.
And, this is relevant to my argument......how? My argument relies on all unarmed attacks, regardless of what extremity they come from, being the same weapon. Whether that weapon is a natural attack or not it entirely irrelevant, at least at this point in the argument. I'm saying 'you can't TWF with only an unarmed strike because it violates TWF's requirement for a second weapon'.


Just like everything else on this site, we could argue about it til the pigs come home. I think the only thing this thread will be able to determine is that there is no official, recognized ruling on unarmed attacks + twf, and that lots of people on this site disagree on simple things.
Agree, the rules about unarmed strikes in this addition are a poorly organized, poorly thought out clusterf***. However, I would argue that makes this not a simple thing. Simple things don't take much arguing over.

[Mato]

Agree, the rules about unarmed strikes in this addition are a poorly organized, poorly thought out clusterf***.If only WotC thought about doing a three part article for celerity and releasing under the game rules tab on the web site.

Oh yeah, they did. And all GitP did was denounce it with ad hominem attacks because they love arguing more than they like the rules or resolutions. It's the festering cancer of this forum but why change right? I'll see you all next monkday!

[Pleh]

an unarmed attack is not the same as an Unarmed Strike.

Hang on a moment.

So, if a Monk cannot use TWF with an Unarmed Strike by itself with each hand, then can they do it with one hand wielding Unarmed Strike and one hand using an Unarmed Attack (thus using the normal Unarmed Attack rules for non-monks)?

It could be like the difference between a Jab and a solid Punch, where the offhand isn't meant to deal damage like the followup punch does.

If we're looking for justification for this, isn't it legal for a monk to TWF with Unarmed Strike and a Manufactured Weapon in another? Or am I misunderstanding things?

[Necroticplague]

If only WotC thought about doing a three part article for celerity and releasing under the game rules tab on the web site.

Oh yeah, they did. And all GitP did was denounce it with ad hominem attacks because they love arguing more than they like the rules or resolutions. It's the festering cancer of this forum but why change right? I'll see you all next monkday!

The article doesn't cover this scenario. It covers using a different weapon+unarmed strike offhand (and even delineates between natural, manufactured, and monks in the same scenarios). However, it is very quiet on the possibility of using an unarmed strike in the mainhand and the offhand.

Hang on a moment.

So, if a Monk cannot use TWF with an Unarmed Strike by itself with each hand, then can they do it with one hand wielding Unarmed Strike and one hand using an Unarmed Attack (thus using the normal Unarmed Attack rules for non-monks)?

It could be like the difference between a Jab and a solid Punch, where the offhand isn't meant to deal damage like the followup punch does.

Sorry, but the Rules of the Game articles specifically states Unarmed Strike and Unarmed Attack are synonyms.

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. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked.


If we're looking for justification for this, isn't it legal for a monk to TWF with Unarmed Strike and a Manufactured Weapon in another? Or am I misunderstanding things?Yes, indeed, it is. In fact, the same articles go over how doing so works.

[Andezzar]

Sorry, but the Rules of the Game articles specifically states Unarmed Strike and Unarmed Attack are synonyms.

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. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked.
And this is why you should disregard the RoTG articles as source for rules. It directly contradict the actual rules from the PHB.
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strikeEmphasis mine.
If the writers intended to change a rule they would have issued an erratum.

[Pleh]

Sorry, but the Rules of the Game articles specifically states Unarmed Strike and Unarmed Attack are synonyms.

I was checking my copy of UA, but it looks like you're referencing something else? I'm not familiar with RotG.

But Rules Compendium (Page 16) really goes into some detail about the differences between Unarmed Attacks, Natural Weapons, and the Monk abilities (which are categorized as "Armed" Unarmed Attacks).

Basically this section of the rules gives me the impression that the best definition for "Unarmed Attacks" is a catchall term for any attack that cannot be considered "armed" in any sense. No Natural Weapons, no Manufactured Weapons, and no Unarmed Strikes that can still be considered "Armed". These "truly" unarmed attacks provoke AoOs from the person you're attacking (if they're considered armed) and you cannot make AoO at all if you are "truly" unarmed.

The exact words for "Armed" Unarmed Attacks:

Sometimes a creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character who has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell all count as armed. Being armed in this way counts for both offense and defense. So a creature armed in this way can make attacks of opportunity, and such a creature doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking. (The act of casting a spell provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.)

Of course, this means that my post earlier is wrong because a Monk is ALWAYS considered Armed, even when supposedly unarmed, so they are actually incapable of making "truly" unarmed attacks (so they can't pair Unarmed Strike with an Unarmed Attack).

On a different point, what if we considered Unarmed Strike to be a Double Weapon? A common argument in this thread is you can't use TWF with a single weapon, but a double weapon is a single weapon that happens to be armed on both ends. Since it doesn't matter which arm the monk uses for his Unarmed Strike, wouldn't it be fair to argue that his arms linked by his shoulders form a double weapon?

[Necroticplague]

On a different point, what if we considered Unarmed Strike to be a Double Weapon? A common argument in this thread is you can't use TWF with a single weapon, but a double weapon is a single weapon that happens to be armed on both ends. Since it doesn't matter which arm the monk uses for his Unarmed Strike, wouldn't it be fair to argue that his arms linked by his shoulders form a double weapon?

If we consider it a double weapon, that would allow for the basics idea of using it as a main hand and an off hand, and be consistent with Kensai. However, that would lead to it's own wierdness, due to this:

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
This is in contradiction to the SRD entry for unarmed Strike

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.
There's also the fact that there's nothing that explicitly states Unarmed Strikes are double weapons, so saying they are without some extraordinary evidence is very questionable.

That also still leaves a problem that pops up "what about non-hand-using unarmed strikes?" How many 'sides' does this weapon have, and how many can you use at once?

[Tectorman]

This is one of those things that I remember really irritating me about this edition. Of course, you can two weapon fight with just your unarmed strikes. It's called "left punch, right punch, continue as necessary". Heck, by the rules, you can legitimately TWF with gauntlets, since they're two separate weapons. But what they actually are is you making punches with a pound of metal around your hands. Are we really going to say that adding weight makes you go faster? If adding two pounds of metal to my fists lets me TWF with my punches where I couldn't before, can I add more weight to get faster? How much to get to up to Saitama's level?

And why doesn't this work with the encumbrance rules? They say you get slower the more weight you have, while the number of punches I can do gets higher.

Oh, but wait. What if the gauntlets are the ones that automatically come with a suit of full plate armor? They're two gauntlets, but it's only one suit of armor. If two fists connected by one body only count as one unarmed strike, then shouldn't two gauntlets connected by one suit count as one gauntlet, as well.

Such a disconnect between what the rules seem to be saying and basic common sense and logic.

[Andezzar]

I was checking my copy of UA, but it looks like you're referencing something else? I'm not familiar with RotG.

But Rules Compendium (Page 16) really goes into some detail about the differences between Unarmed Attacks, Natural Weapons, and the Monk abilities (which are categorized as "Armed" Unarmed Attacks).

Basically this section of the rules gives me the impression that the best definition for "Unarmed Attacks" is a catchall term for any attack that cannot be considered "armed" in any sense. No Natural Weapons, no Manufactured Weapons, and no Unarmed Strikes that can still be considered "Armed". These "truly" unarmed attacks provoke AoOs from the person you're attacking (if they're considered armed) and you cannot make AoO at all if you are "truly" unarmed.

The exact words for "Armed" Unarmed Attacks:


Of course, this means that my post earlier is wrong because a Monk is ALWAYS considered Armed, even when supposedly unarmed, so they are actually incapable of making "truly" unarmed attacks (so they can't pair Unarmed Strike with an Unarmed Attack).

On a different point, what if we considered Unarmed Strike to be a Double Weapon? A common argument in this thread is you can't use TWF with a single weapon, but a double weapon is a single weapon that happens to be armed on both ends. Since it doesn't matter which arm the monk uses for his Unarmed Strike, wouldn't it be fair to argue that his arms linked by his shoulders form a double weapon?People seem to forget that even non-monks already use their whole body for their one unarmed strike.

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.So while you can add another gauntlet and thus have two weapons and be eligible for TWF, you cannot with the unarmed strike, because the whole body already is in use.

Additionally unarmed attacks =/= Unarmed Strike whether "armed" or not. A touch attack to initiate a grapple definitely is an unarmed attack (the rules say so) but not an unarmed strike (it does not deliver damage. the same goes for the attack used to deliver a touch spell.

[Mato]

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strikean erratum.Did you know the errata tells you to handle any contradictions by using the primary source?

Like if you thought unarmed strikes were a natural weapon,

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon,

Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weaponsThen you'd have a contradiction where the MM, primary source on monsters and natural weapons, resolves natural weapons not to have iterative attacks. And the PHB, primary source on equipment/BAB/unarmedstrike, resolves unarmed strikes to have iterative attacks. Which means the two cannot be the same thing. And reaching clear into the magic weapon spell's rules isn't really going to help you claim other wise according to the erratum. :smallsmile:
So now that we know you're wrong, let's take a better look at the rules. First off "unarmed attack" and "unarmed strike" are not the same thing, they even have two different glossary entries. The unarmed strike entry is about characters with no weapons. But according to the glossary an unarmed attack is any attack without a weapon in hand. So a spell, tentacle, blowdart, a telekinetically thrown sword, a knife glued to your foot, and so on are all "technically" unarmed attacks. PHB139 even supports this.

“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 (page 96), a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense. Not only does a monk not provoke an attack opportunity when attacking an armed foe, but you provoke an attack of opportunity from a monk if you make an unarmed attack against her.See? When the PHB was printed everything in that book thought natural weapons were armed unarmed attacks.

But thankfully we had the FAQ, Rules of the Game, and other rule updates to help us understand that the PHB's concept of what is or isn't an unarmed attack isn't very accurate. And since many people think unarmed "attacks" were unarmed "strikes", because those words are almost identical to the untrained eye, they provided a little extra help in this area. Like

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks
Sometimes a creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character who has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell all count as armed. Being armed in this way counts for both offense and defense. So a creature armed in this way can make attacks of opportunity, and such a creature doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking. (The act of casting a spell provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.)They completely removed removed the concept that natural weapons should be treated as armed unarmed attacks so you wouldn't get confused and try looking in the spell descriptions chapter for the rules on combat and weapons. :smallsmile:
They even tried to make it abundantly clear

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.That natural weapons should never be considered an unarmed strike, ever, by anyone that has read the rule books. :smallsmile:

Then they also published an official rules article that further explained in easy to understand text

A manufactured weapon allows a combatant with a high base attack bonus to make iterative attacks when using the full attack action.

Natural Weapon: An appendage or other body part (such as teeth or claws) that a creature can use to attack other creatures or objects. Natural weaponry can deal normal (lethal) damage without recourse to a class feature or feat, such as Improved Unarmed Strike. Creatures fighting with natural weapons do not gain iterative attacks from a high base attack bonus when using the full attack action.

A creature could have fighting appendages that are not natural weapons. For example, a human's fists are not natural weapons. A human fighting with her fists is considered unarmed and she deals nonlethal damage with her attacks. A class feature or a feat such as Improved Unarmed Strike allows a human to function as though armed with a manufactured weapon.
And a rule FAQ

You can’t use a natural weapon (claw, bite, or whatever) as part of a flurry of blows—only unarmed strikes and special monk weapons can be used in a flurry of blows.To try and help you really understand the picture they were trying to paint.

And they never even got paid for many of these helpful guides and explanations that they for provided for free or even a decent thank you. Instead they subsequently were verbally attacked by people with an obvious misunderstanding of the rules and an unwillingness to concede that there is more than one paragraph to read just so they can remain argumentative on an anonymous forum. :smallfrown:

But I'm sure you're not one of those guys right? :smallsmile:
But has famous movies have taught me,
https://i.imgflip.com/b49zg.jpg
Not everyone can understand stuff that others take for granted.

So if you want help Andezzar, there is all kinds of resources to help you understand the rules. All you have to do is come forward with an open mind and want to learn about them. I'm sure someone will help you. :smallsmile:

[Pleh]

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that the "double weapon" solution wouldn't have problems or have the right justification. I meant it as a question of the entirely non-rhetorical variety.

It WOULD allow the following kinds of shenanigans for wielding your Unarmed Strike as a Double Weapon used as a single weapon with THF:

http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/fight4.jpg

I wasn't ignoring the problem of "Monks are an Omni Sided Weapon." Just wanted to clear some of the air before we tried to tackle that one. First we had to know a bit more about what we're dealing with, then we can ask about what to do when there's more of them.

Another non-rhetorical question: Does the variability of the Monk's attacks mean they should instead be using Multiweapon Fighting rather than TWF? What are the implications of that?


Finally, I think I see an important distinction on the issue of monks having "natural weapons." What I see in the RAW is that Unarmed Strike is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of magical buffs that normally only benefit natural weapons. However, RAW also seems to indicate that they are considered Natural Weapons for no other purpose AND it also indicates that Natural Weapons are not considered unarmed strikes in any capacity. The exception goes one way and only for specific purposes.

[Stealth Marmot]

Could you two weapon fighting unarmed weapons if you hacked off another person's arms and used them? Then you have two sets of unarmed arms for weapons.

[Pleh]

Could you two weapon fighting unarmed weapons if you hacked off another person's arms and used them? Then you have two sets of unarmed arms for weapons.

I think you've perfectly touched on the main difference between Natural Weapons and Armed Unarmed attacks. Natural weapons, yes, you could cut them off and turn them into a manufactured weapon, but a monk's hands aren't natural weapons.

[Stealth Marmot]

If you hack off a monk' arms that were without armor, and someone used the disarmed action on you, you were disarmed of unarmormored unarmed unarmed arm arms.

[Necroticplague]

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that the "double weapon" solution wouldn't have problems or have the right justification. I meant it as a question of the entirely non-rhetorical variety.

It WOULD allow the following kinds of shenanigans for wielding your Unarmed Strike as a Double Weapon used as a single weapon with THF:

http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/fight4.jpg
There's already a feat for that, which would indicate that's not a default option available to everyone. Unless you are of the belief that Hammer Fist literally does nothing.


I wasn't ignoring the problem of "Monks are an Omni Sided Weapon." Just wanted to clear some of the air before we tried to tackle that one. First we had to know a bit more about what we're dealing with, then we can ask about what to do when there's more of them.
Fair Enough.


Another non-rhetorical question: Does the variability of the Monk's attacks mean they should instead be using Multiweapon Fighting rather than TWF? What are the implications of that?
1. No. The thing that determines which you should use is how many arms you have, not how many weapons you wield. Thanks to things like Braid Blades, various Hidden Blades, Gauntlets, Spiked Gauntlet, Armor Spikes, Armor Razors, Axe-Bucklers, and probably a few more things I'm forgetting, it's trivial for even a two-handed race to be wielding more than a half-dozen different manufactured weapons at once.
2. There really aren't any, either way. TWF and MWF literally do the exact same thing, just with different prerequisites. Reduce main hand penalties for wielding by two, and the off-hand by 6.



Finally, I think I see an important distinction on the issue of monks having "natural weapons." What I see in the RAW is that Unarmed Strike is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of magical buffs that normally only benefit natural weapons. However, RAW also seems to indicate that they are considered Natural Weapons for no other purpose AND it also indicates that Natural Weapons are not considered unarmed strikes in any capacity. The exception goes one way and only for specific purposes.
The fact that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are different things doesn't rule out the possibility that one is a subset of the other. The Fanged Ring requires that the Unarmed Strike be a natural weapon in order for that item to function, in addition to the flat-out being called such in Magic Fang and Magic Weapon. So, while a monk's claws don't do more damage as they level (because their claws aren't unarmed strikes), they could take Improved Natural Attack for their Unarmed Strikes, because Unarmed Strikes are a subset of natural weapons (that are given exceptions to the normal rules of natural weapons by stating they normally provoke, don't threaten, and get iteratives).

[Pleh]

There's already a feat for that, which would indicate that's not a default option available to everyone. Unless you are of the belief that Hammer Fist literally does nothing.

I didn't know that feat existed, so fair enough on that point.


1. No. The thing that determines which you should use is how many arms you have, not how many weapons you wield. Thanks to things like Braid Blades, various Hidden Blades, Gauntlets, Spiked Gauntlet, Armor Spikes, Armor Razors, Axe-Bucklers, and probably a few more things I'm forgetting, it's trivial for even a two-handed race to be wielding more than a half-dozen different manufactured weapons at once.
2. There really aren't any, either way. TWF and MWF literally do the exact same thing, just with different prerequisites. Reduce main hand penalties for wielding by two, and the off-hand by 6.

Okay, okay. Just checking. It was a fun thought.


The fact that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are different things doesn't rule out the possibility that one is a subset of the other. The Fanged Ring requires that the Unarmed Strike be a natural weapon in order for that item to function, in addition to the flat-out being called such in Magic Fang and Magic Weapon. So, while a monk's claws don't do more damage as they level (because their claws aren't unarmed strikes), they could take Improved Natural Attack for their Unarmed Strikes, because Unarmed Strikes are a subset of natural weapons (that are given exceptions to the normal rules of natural weapons by stating they normally provoke, don't threaten, and get iteratives).

Hang on, Fanged Ring must not be OGL, because google isn't finding it. What resource is that from, so I can look up the rules? The one site I saw (http://realmofadventure.wikia.com/wiki/Fanged_ring) with text (but sadly no citations) mentioned that the ring grants Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) feats. I don't see that as requiring Unarmed Strike to be a natural attack to work, it seems to just cover all the bases to make sure it works no matter how you're interpreting it.

Also, the Monk class feature Unarmed Strike specifically mentions that Unarmed Strikes are treated as both manufactured and natural weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that buff or enhance manufactured or natural weapons. The wording "being treated as" rather implies that it is not actually one of those things, only that it gets to benefit from buffs as if it were.

It looks like Fanged Ring is meant to let a non-monk punch like a monk and let real monks get more punching goodness out of their fist attacks. I don't see a lot of need for Unarmed Strike to be a subset of Natural Attacks for it to function.

EDIT: I think I understand better. You're saying "truly" unarmed attacks are a subset of natural attacks. I can see that, but I don't see the rules explicitly saying that anywhere.

[SirNibbles]

For those discussing Unarmed/Natural, I urge you to please read page 16 of the Rules Compendium.

Natural Weapons are a subheading under the Unarmed Attacks and it is clearly stated that you can't make Unarmed Attacks with Natural Weapons. It also states that you don't get the benefit of effects that only affect Unarmed Attacks when you attack with your Natural Weapons.

Fanged Ring is not proof that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Attacks. It grants you a feat. That feat benefits Natural Weapons. 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. That's why it benefits from the feat/item. It's not because Unarmed Strikes are Natural Attacks.

[Necroticplague]

Hang on, Fanged Ring must not be OGL, because google isn't finding it. What resource is that from, so I can look up the rules? The one site I saw (http://realmofadventure.wikia.com/wiki/Fanged_ring) with text (but sadly no citations) mentioned that the ring grants Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) feats. I don't see that as requiring Unarmed Strike to be a natural attack to work, it seems to just cover all the bases to make sure it works no matter how you're interpreting it.

It looks like Fanged Ring is meant to let a non-monk punch like a monk and let real monks get more punching goodness out of their fist attacks. I don't see a lot of need for Unarmed Strike to be a subset of Natural Attacks for it to function.
That's the magic item I refer to. It's from Dragon Magic. It's the 'Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed strike)' that requires Unarmed Strike to be a Natural Weapon for it to work. After all, let's take a look at the Improved natural Attack feat.


Benefit
Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category.
Therefore (as per the bolded), Improved natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) only functions if an unarmed strike is a natural weapon. So, the only way to interpret it such that that portion actually does anything, is that an unarmed Strike is a natural weapon. It seems quiet a bit of a stretch to say that that portion of the items only works for monks, despite the item itself providing no wording to this effect.


EDIT: I think I understand better. You're saying "truly" unarmed attacks are a subset of natural attacks. I can see that, but I don't see the rules explicitly saying that anywhere.
Even a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon. I think the heirarchy goes like this: Monk unarmed strikes are a subset of normal unarmed strikes, normal unarmed strikes are a subset of natural weapons. Also, in addition to the Fanged Ring abover, there's also several cases of a similar nature.


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.)
The bolded portion would only be of any relevance if you could cast Magic Fang on an unarmed strike. Thus, an Unarmed Strike must be a natural weapon.
Or, for a more explicit source:

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.
Flat out says it's a natural weapon, plain and simple.


Also, the Monk class feature Unarmed Strike specifically mentions that Unarmed Strikes are treated as both manufactured and natural weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that buff or enhance manufactured or natural weapons. The wording "being treated as" rather implies that it is not actually one of those things, only that it gets to benefit from buffs as if it were.
That's just basic idiot-proofing. By saying that it counts as both manufactured and natural, it can just as easily be saying that a monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon for some purposes now, without stopping itself from being a natural weapon for those same purposes.

[Necroticplague]

Fanged Ring is not proof that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Attacks. It grants you a feat. That feat benefits Natural Weapons. 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. That's why it benefits from the feat/item. It's not because Unarmed Strikes are Natural Attacks.

And for non-monks, for whom that clause is irrelevant?

[Andezzar]

Did you know the errata tells you to handle any contradictions by using the primary source?

Like if you thought unarmed strikes were a natural weapon,

Then you'd have a contradiction where the MM, primary source on monsters and natural weapons, resolves natural weapons not to have iterative attacks. And the PHB, primary source on equipment/BAB/unarmedstrike, resolves unarmed strikes to have iterative attacks. Which means the two cannot be the same thing. And reaching clear into the magic weapon spell's rules isn't really going to help you claim other wise according to the erratum. :smallsmile:Of course I know the primary source rule, however there is no contradiction. That unarmed attacks work "much like attacking with a melee weapon", does not mean that An Unarmed Strike is not a natural weapon. That creatures genrally do not get extra attacks for high BAB with their natural weapons, does not prevent a specific natural weapon to gain such extra attacks.
I just leave this for your consideration:

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.So are you saying that the Unarmed strike is not physically part of a creature? That is just plain weird.

Are you saying that the Unarmed Strike is not a weapon? The PHB contradicts that claim, not just through the magic weapon quote but by putting the unarmed strike in a list of melee weapons. I am pretty sure there is other evidence as well.


First off "unarmed attack" and "unarmed strike" are not the same thing, they even have two different glossary entries. The unarmed strike entry is about characters with no weapons. But according to the glossary an unarmed attack is any attack without a weapon in hand. So a spell, tentacle, blowdart, a telekinetically thrown sword, a knife glued to your foot, and so on are all "technically" unarmed attacks. PHB139 even supports this.I don't know why you bring that up. I said the exact same thing earlier.


See? When the PHB was printed everything in that book thought natural weapons were armed unarmed attacks.So? I don't see how that follows an attack isn't even the same as a weapon.



But thankfully we had the FAQ, Rules of the Game, and other rule updates to help us understand that the PHB's concept of what is or isn't an unarmed attack isn't very accurate.The FAQ can only explain rules, not change them, the rules of the game articles have no authority to change the rules either and I have yet to see a rule in the RC that states that the Unarmed Strike is not a natural weapon.


They even tried to make it abundantly clear
That natural weapons should never be considered an unarmed strike, ever, by anyone that has read the rule books. :smallsmile:specific natural weapons can still have rules that contradict the genral rules for antural weapons. The PHB, the primary source for the Unarmed Strike, says that the UAS is a natural weapon (as quoted multiple times before).


Then they also published an official rules article that further explained in easy to understand textSo an arm is not an appendage that can be used to attack? Also the RotG articles have no authority to change rules.


And a rule FAQ
To try and help you really understand the picture they were trying to paint.That article can only mean that you cannot use natural weapons besides the UAS for flurry of blows. It does not say that the UAs is not a natural weapon. So it either it means only other natural weapons or it says that flurry of blows can only be used with monk weapons, because the UAs is a natural weapon. Again the FAQ cannot change rules.
So the UAS still is a natural weapon as per the PHB.


But has famous movies have taught me,
https://i.imgflip.com/b49zg.jpg
Not everyone can understand stuff that others take for granted.

So if you want help Andezzar, there is all kinds of resources to help you understand the rules. All you have to do is come forward with an open mind and want to learn about them. I'm sure someone will help you. :smallsmile:You can keep that condescending attitude to yourself.

[Pleh]

That's the magic item I refer to. It's from Dragon Magic.

Got the book open. Having trouble finding it. Got a page number? I can't find it in the list of magic items the game introduces.


Getting back on the point:

It's the 'Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed strike)' that requires Unarmed Strike to be a Natural Weapon for it to work. After all, let's take a look at the Improved natural Attack feat.

Therefore (as per the bolded), Improved natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) only functions if an unarmed strike is a natural weapon. So, the only way to interpret it such that that portion actually does anything, is that an unarmed Strike is a natural weapon. It seems quiet a bit of a stretch to say that that portion of the items only works for monks, despite the item itself providing no wording to this effect.

Okay, I'm starting to see it now. I was asking myself why the ring bothers giving you both feats if they do the same thing. Then I reread them and saw that Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't increase your unarmed damage dice, but makes Unarmed Attacks consider to be armed (for dealing lethal damage and concerning AoO). Then Improved Natural Attack only increases your unarmed damage dice as if you were a size larger and only for the type of natural attack the feat was applied to. The problem comes when the ring autosets the feat to apply to Unarmed Strikes, which means they must be Natural Weapons or the feat the ring grants becomes useless.

So the writer of the magic item must have considered "truly" unarmed attacks to be a type of natural weapon subject to special limitations.

I feel this contradicts the PHB/RC ruling on the distinction between Natural Weapons and Unarmed Attacks, but since we're here to determine what the rules say and not fix them, I have to concede the point here. At least some of the authors must have considered Unarmed Attacks to be a special form of natural weapons (whether they were making a mistake in doing so or not).

This really should have been an Errata/FAQ clarification on their part. I know they don't exactly get paid for that kind of thing, but it's a bit of a nightmare to hunt down the clues behind their thought process.


Fanged Ring is not proof that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Attacks. It grants you a feat. That feat benefits Natural Weapons.

Except that the ring *specifies* Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike). It can't be applied to any natural attack you want, it must be applied only to Unarmed Strikes. So even if your race has claws on every hand and foot, a scorpion tail, 8 tentacles, a gore attack, and a natural bite attack, none of those natural weapons can benefit from the feat the ring gives you, because the ring gives you the feat that is selected for your Unarmed Attacks. That's why it fizzles if Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Attacks and the writer must have meant to imply that they are.

---

So what I've got now is this:


You can't TWF with two Unarmed Strikes because Unarmed Strikes are a type of Natural Weapon subject to special limitations.
The fact that a Monk's Unarmed Strikes are considered to be armed does not remove the normal limitations of how many attacks an Unarmed Strike can make per round.
The limitations of Unarmed Strike as a special kind of Natural Weapon is that Natural Weapons can all be used in a full attack without regard to BAB, but Unarmed Strikes cannot be used this way (essentially, because they are not "armed" even if they are natural attack).
I suppose this retains the value of Disarming your opponent (since Unarmed Strikes are normally so limited, you don't threaten AoO, you provoke AoO, and can't deal lethal damage).
Monk's Unarmed Strike WOULD count as a weapon and thus work with TWF, EXCEPT that the monk class rules explicitly say, "there is no such thing as an off hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."


Making it sound as if the writers intended for Unarmed Strike to work with TWF (just saying that their off hand gets to benefit from full Strength bonus like a primary hand attack), but the poor wording breaks it so they do not work together.

[Necroticplague]

Got the book open. Having trouble finding it. Got a page number? I can't find it in the list of magic items the game introduces.
Page 101.

Some words to fill space.

[Troacctid]

It's pretty well-established that the rules contradict themselves on unarmed strikes a lot. They're not a weapon, but they are a weapon. They're not a natural attack, but they are a natural attack. Etc.

But there's still no support for them being two weapons.

[Darrin]

But there's still no support for them being two weapons.

Well. Kensai. But as I said, it's shaky.

[Mato]

I just leave this for your consideration:

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.
Thanks but I already have a better consideration that's worth reading from an official source.

The unarmed attack entry in Chapter 8 of the Player's Handbook contains most of the rules for fighting without weaponry. Here's an overview, along with a few additions and comments:
* If your base attack bonus is high enough to give you iterative attacks, you can make multiple unarmed attacks when you use the full attack action.
This makes unarmed attacks fairly odd. Natural weaponry does not allow iterative attacks, but unarmed attacks -- which you make with part of your body -- do. This arises from the rules' attempt to simulate the sheer mastery some pugilists and martial artists achieve with unarmed strikes.
You should take a look at it some time :smallsmile:

[Pleh]

Well. Kensai. But as I said, it's shaky.

Yes, imbuing their fists as natural weapons seems to treat each fist as a weapon and strangely disregards the other limbs/extremities/etc that can be used for an unarmed strike. I guess the author would say "add 10% for each imbued appendage," but this would be a unique treatment of unarmed attacks, since most buffs to unarmed strikes would buff them universally.

Being able to strike with any nonlethal part of your body is kind of the point, so imbuing only some unarmed attacks makes the distinction fuzzy.

[Psyren]

Thanks but I already have a better consideration that's worth reading from an official source.
You should take a look at it some time :smallsmile:

Skip's articles also contain dubious rulings like AMF somehow blocking line of effect, so take them with a grain of salt.

(I don't have a dog in this fight either way as Pathfinder is blessedly clear on this issue.)

[Andezzar]

Thanks but I already have a better consideration that's worth reading from an official source.
You should take a look at it some time :smallsmile:I don't see how that is relevant. Neither does this say that the unarmed strike is not a natural weapon nor that it is multiple weapons nor can those articles change any rule from the PHB.

[Mato]

Skip's articles also contain dubious rulings like AMF somehow blocking line of effect, so take them with a grain of salt.I'd take any of Skip's twitter "rulings" with a grain of salt, but we're talking 3rd not 5th where officially his feeds are not actually part in the rule structure until they appear else where. :smallsmile:

But at the time only the PHB had any say on the matter.

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.And saying AMF blocks line of effect would have been pretty accurate. But antimagic is a fairly complex subject that had several updates and clarifications. The RotG archive's entries are just as subject to updates as any other platform which will eventually bring us to the RC's update where antimagic effects don't truly break line of effect so they are not impervious barriers as previously described.

When you think the rules disagree with each other, either you are wrong or seeing an older rule updated. Here is to hoping all your complaints are you just missing the update. :smallsmile:


I don't see how that is relevant. Neither does this say that the unarmed strike is not a natural weapon nor that it is multiple weapons nor can those articles change any rule from the PHB.And here we can seen it corrects the glossary entry on unarmed attack and confirms unarmed attacks are not natural weapons as all the other rules confirm.

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. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked.I deeply apologize on me and for not previously highlighting it. I can understand if English is not your primary language or if you have developmental problems and large sections of text present difficulties for you to understand. If you like we can move to private messaging and I will make my best attempts to help you understand within my allotted timetable. :smallsmile:

[Andezzar]

There is no update. Not even the irrelevant publications (FAQ, RotG) claim that an Unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon or that a creature can have more than one.

[Mato]

There is no update. Not even the irrelevant publications (FAQ, RotG) claim that an Unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon or that a creature can have more than one.But there are some things I have to admit I cannot help. :smallfrown:

[Andezzar]

OK, I revise my statement only irrelevant publications erroneously claim that an unarmed attack is an unarmed strike and that both are not a natural weapon. The whole statement is total nonsense. An attack is not a weapon according to plain English and the rules.

Neither the FAQ nor the RotG articles have any authority to change the actual rules and the rules are perfectly clear. The Unarmed Strike is one natural weapon.

[Psyren]

I'd take any of Skip's twitter "rulings" with a grain of salt, but we're talking 3rd not 5th where officially his feeds are not actually part in the rule structure until they appear else where. :smallsmile:

Er, I didn't say anything about Twitter :smallconfused: I was referring to his Rules of the Game articles, and the example I listed came from one of them. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a)

[Mato]

Er, I didn't say anything about Twitter :smallconfused: I was referring to his Rules of the Game articles, and the example I listed came from one of them. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a)I know.


But at the time only the PHB had any say on the matter.

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects , including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.
And saying AMF blocks line of effect would have been pretty accurate. But antimagic is a fairly complex subject that had several updates and clarifications.You should make a habit of reading the post that you reply to in case they already responded to you. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

I know.
You should make a habit of reading the post that you reply to in case they already responded to you. :smallsmile:

That's not what line of effect means. "Blocking line of effect" means nothing can pass through the AMF, much like a wall of force (or an actual wall.)

Also, adding a smiley to snark (and wrong snark at that) doesn't stop it from being snark, just FYI.

[Pleh]

Also, adding a smiley to snark (and wrong snark at that) doesn't stop it from being snark, just FYI.:smallsmile:

Fixed it for you. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

Fixed it for you. :smallsmile:

You're right, thank you! :smile:

[Keld Denar]

I've tried to look at it outside of the standard and oftenly cited rules and look for patterns in game design. I'd like to address a couple of things.

It seems consistent that the number of offhand attacks a creature can make is determined by the number of limbs that character has that are capable of wielding weapons (typically arms, but not always) minus 1. Thus, a human would have one offhand (2 arms) while a thri-kreen would have 3 (4 arms) and a marilith would have 5 (6 arms). A creature with a fully prehensile tail and two arms would have 2 offhands (3 "arms"). This does not include most extraneous magical things like Mouthpick weapons Complete Scoundrel concealed weapons or similar abilities that grant abilities that a creature doesn't normally have. This is evidenced by the fact that if you were fighting with weapons such as concealed boot blades, you still only get one mainhand and one offhand despite potentially holding 4 weapons ready to strike with (right hand, left hand, right boot, left boot). Similarly to this, a monk doesn't have eleventy offhands with their unarmed strike simply by being able to strike with that many surfaces of their body. They have one set of "mainhand" attacks and one set of "offhand" attacks, regardless if their attack routine is left/right/left, left/kick/right, head/shoulders/knees/toes, etc. Attacks designated as mainhand receive full strength bonus and suffer mainhand attack penalties while offhand attacks receive only half strength bonus and suffer offhand penalties. Again, this is the most consistent model I can come up with that incorporates the rules and monsters and various weapons and abilities. As far as how many UAS's a character can "equip", I think that the answer is infinite. Again, it doesn't matter how many the character has available to bring to bear on a foe since the number of available offhands is determined by normal wieldable weapons (in most case arms).

As far as the "no offhand for monks" clause, my interpretation of this is that it is redundant with the normal rules for handedness. Or the lack of normal rules for handedness. If your character holds a sword in his right hand and attacks with it, its a mainhand attack. If the character moves the sword to his left hand and attacks with it the next round, it is ALSO a mainhand attack. If the character attacks with a boot blade only in a round, it is also a mainhand attack, despite not being a hand at all. This is consistent with all of the rules, or lack of rules governing handedness. Monks don't violate this rule, or lack there of. If a player says that they are attacking with their right hand, its their mainhand attack. If they are attacking with their left hand, it's a mainhand attack. If they headbutt someone, it's a mainhand attack, despite not using a hand at all. If you have a BAB of +11 and you attack first with a longsword in your right at +11, its a mainhand attack. If you drop it and quickdraw a bow and shoot it at +6, its a mainhand attack. If you drop that and quickdraw a dagger in your left hand at +1, it is also a mainhand attack. Thus, in my interpretation, handedness is a pure mechanical term that has no bearing the the physical world. An attack is determined as mainhand or offhand by what bonuses and penalties affect it, not by what hand (or lack there of) is used. The text that a monk has no handedness is a reminder that nobody has handedness. It follows the sentence that states that a monk may strike with any part of their body interchangeably, probably to remind players and DMs not to enforce TWFing penalties where none are warranted because the character is not TWFing, even if it may look like it in the classical sense. Thus, I see no reason why a monk couldn't TWF, even combined with Flurry of Blows. After all, a dagger thrower can TWF when combined with Rapid Shot, and Rapid Shot and Flurry are almost identical in their base mechanics.

My interpretation doesn't break any of the rules cited above and is relatively simple to interpret and apply to monsters and PCs alike. It's even applicable to fringe examples the urban barbarian TWFing with fists, the kensai enchanting multiple body parts (mainhand and offhand), and even the Necklace of Natural Attacks and it's price multiplier for additional natural weapons (2x for a TWFing humanoid using UASs, 4x for a thri-kreen MWFing with UASs, 6x for a marilith MWFing with UASs (or 7x to include the tail)).

[Andezzar]

This reasoning requires a creature to have more than one UAS. There is no rule allowing this.

Every creature has "eleventy" surfaces to strike with their one unarmed strike. That is not limited to monks. (cf. PHB p. 121)

Also that monk class feature that gives him an extra attack is already sometimes called Flurry of Misses. Another -2 won't make it any easier to hit.

[Necroticplague]

@keld:Doesn't that at lead to the irrational problem I mentioned before where attack forms that don't use you arms are somehow limited by the amount of arms? So having more arms suddenly lets you kick more?

[Keld Denar]

This reasoning requires a creature to have more than one UAS. There is no rule allowing this.
There is no rule stating that there is only one. All cases of singular references to the UAS are non-limiting and there are several cases of having more than one (including the above mentioned Kensi and urban barbarian). Dagger is also listed and referenced singularly in the PHB, yet no one would ever believe that there is only one dagger allowed per character, or even one dagger in existance in a D&D world.


Every creature has "eleventy" surfaces to strike with their one unarmed strike. That is not limited to monks. (cf. PHB p. 121)


I never said that that was an exclusive monk feature, just referencing that its often called out that a monk has that many striking surfaces. I'm aware that anyone can use an UAS with any part of their body, according to this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack).

Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:


@keld:Doesn't that at lead to the irrational problem I mentioned before where attack forms that don't use you arms are somehow limited by the amount of arms? So having more arms suddenly lets you kick more?

As far as arms and kicking goes, its mostly a function of mechanical balance and partly a function of coordination. Mechanically, allowing a +0 LA humanoid to MWF with near infinite striking surfaces breaks the game. Even allowing a +0 LA humanoid to MWF with 4-5 body parts stretches balance, esp at low levels. Most things like thri-kreen that allow for large numbers of attacks have +LA or RHD or have higher CRs (for monsters) that account for these extra attacks. Maybe creatures with more limbs are are more balanced or coordinated with striking with a larger proportion of their body. I dunno, it's fantasy.

[Mato]

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects , including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.
That's not what line of effect means. "Blocking line of effect" means nothing can pass through the AMF, much like a wall of force (or an actual wall.)I see what the problem is and I can help with that, here.

impervious
adjective
1. not permitting penetration or passage; impenetrable:
[I]The coat is impervious to rain.
All better. :smallsmile:

[Andezzar]

There is no rule stating that there is only one. All cases of singular references to the UAS are non-limiting and there are several cases of having more than one (including the above mentioned Kensi and urban barbarian). Dagger is also listed and referenced singularly in the PHB, yet no one would ever believe that there is only one dagger allowed per character, or even one dagger in existance in a D&D world.For the dagger there is a clear mechanism on how to acquire another one and how many a creature can use in one round of combat. For the UAs there is only a mechanism for using one.

That the Kensai has to pay for an enchanted UAS based on the number of hands he has, does not mean he gets more than one UAS. Even if it did, the Primary Source for the UAS still is the PHB which says how many attacks a character gets with it. So paying more does not give the Kensai more attacks.

I cannot find what barbarian ACF you are referring to.


I never said that that was an exclusive monk feature, just referencing that its often called out that a monk has that many striking surfaces. I'm aware that anyone can use an UAS with any part of their body, according to this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack).We are in agreement then.


As far as arms and kicking goes, its mostly a function of mechanical balance and partly a function of coordination. Mechanically, allowing a +0 LA humanoid to MWF with near infinite striking surfaces breaks the game. Even allowing a +0 LA humanoid to MWF with 4-5 body parts stretches balance, esp at low levels. Most things like thri-kreen that allow for large numbers of attacks have +LA or RHD or have higher CRs (for monsters) that account for these extra attacks. Maybe creatures with more limbs are are more balanced or coordinated with striking with a larger proportion of their body. I dunno, it's fantasy.2d6 with no penalty to the attack is hardly less powerful than 4-5 1d3 with -8 to the 2 "main hand" attacks and -12 to the "off hand" attacks if both attacks are supposed to do lethal damage. You can mitigate the penalty to -2, but that cost you two feats or one feat and a class level.

[Psyren]

I see what the problem is and I can help with that, here.

All better. :smallsmile:

So by your reading, could you cast a lightning bolt through an AMF and hit a target behind the person using it?

[Pleh]

Hey guys, lookie what I found!

The Battle Dancer was up for debate in the Community Tiering thread and I was looking into it (since I'm not too familiar with it).

I understand it's like a Monk with even fewer good abilities (I'm probably overgeneralizing it) but as I was reading the class features, I saw some text that caught my attention:


Unarmed Strike: A battle dancer uses unarmed strikes in a manner similar to a monk.
-snip-
Note that, unlike a monk, the battle dancer does not gain the ability to use a flurry of blows, but she can make an off hand attack as normal using a weapon or unarmed strike.

This language seems to specifically allow an off hand unarmed strike, which would mean TWF would apply for a Battle Dancer.

Even if Unarmed Strikes normally couldn't count as two weapons and even if the Monk's Unarmed Strikes have "no such thing as an off hand attack," the Battle Dancer's Unarmed Strike rather specifically indicates that it *can*.

Even better: this is a first level ability for the Battle Dancer, meaning that even if the class is terrible, you could 1 level dip for TWF fisticuffs. Bonus: This dip also gives CHA to AC.

[Necroticplague]

Hey guys, lookie what I found!

The Battle Dancer was up for debate in the Community Tiering thread and I was looking into it (since I'm not too familiar with it).

I understand it's like a Monk with even fewer good abilities (I'm probably overgeneralizing it) but as I was reading the class features, I saw some text that caught my attention:



This language seems to specifically allow an off hand unarmed strike, which would mean TWF would apply for a Battle Dancer.

Even if Unarmed Strikes normally couldn't count as two weapons and even if the Monk's Unarmed Strikes have "no such thing as an off hand attack," the Battle Dancer's Unarmed Strike rather specifically indicates that it *can*.

Even better: this is a first level ability for the Battle Dancer, meaning that even if the class is terrible, you could 1 level dip for TWF fisticuffs. Bonus: This dip also gives CHA to AC.
I didn't think anyone has been arguing about being able to TWF using an unarmed strike (I.e, punch a man, then stab them). This still doesn't do much to answer the question that I thought was up for debate, that of being able to TWF with an unarmed strike in both the mainland and the offhand

[Troacctid]

Well yeah. Nobody said unarmed strikes in general can't be used for offhand attacks. They just don't work as both the offhand and the main, and Monks can't use them as the offhand. Battle Dancers don't have the restriction that Monks do.

[Doctor Despair]

Could you technically wield a gauntlet on your left hand and attack unarmed in your off hand at no penalty with the dancer alternate ability then? Iirc boosts to unarmed damage don't affect damage done with a gauntlet, though, so it'd be more for flavor if it works.

[Mato]

So by your reading, could you cast a lightning bolt through an AMF and hit a target behind the person using it?No, and it's really hard to explain this to you since you clearly have not understood anything every step of the way. But simply put, Skip's RotG entry that said AMF blocks spells was supported at the time the entry was created by the PHB. The antimagic rules were changed in updates and thinking you can cast through an AMF is the correct idea, but it is a newer idea.

You fictitiously created an ad hominem campaign against Skip and the entirety of the RotG archive by citing how an updated rule contradicts a single sentence and so through a fallacy of composition all of Sip/RotG must be wrong and ignored. This chronological snobbery then turns to kettle logic to avoid someone begging the question over how the PHB also stated something that's inaccurate and so by your method of measurement it must be ignored in it's entirety as well. And now you're moving to poisoning the well because you are unable to grasp the discussion at hand but you are clearly willing to attempt baited defamation because you think that's how you win a rules debate.

I'm sorry Psyren, about a lot of things. Not being able to create a post you can understand, not having the same logical or moral standards as you, about how I'm willing to use everything that was labeled to be part of the rules structure and every resource WotC officially provided for us while you prefer omitting much of it and using houserules, but I cannot help you with any of this and I just don't feel like I should anyway. Take care Pys, may everything you read be simplistic. :smallsmile:

[Necroticplague]

Could you technically wield a gauntlet on your left hand and attack unarmed in your off hand at no penalty with the dancer alternate ability then? Iirc boosts to unarmed damage don't affect damage done with a gauntlet, though, so it'd be more for flavor if it works.
Yes, you could. After all, a gauntlet and an unarmed strike are two different weapons. Guantlets are considered an unarmed attack, but if you consider unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks to be distinct (the rules of the game article says they aren't, but the glossary entries and other rules seem to contradict this), that would mean guantlets would miss out on most unarmed boosts (which benefit unarmed strikes,not unarmed attacks).

[Troacctid]

Gauntlets are weird because they're weapons, but they're also, like, not weapons, and they augment your other weapon which is also not a weapon but also is a weapon. Anyway, they don't really work at all, really? But whatever.

[Pleh]

Gauntlets are weird because they're weapons, but they're also, like, not weapons, and they augment your other weapon which is also not a weapon but also is a weapon. Anyway, they don't really work at all, really? But whatever.

Well, shoot. Now I had to look them up and I learned ANOTHER thing I hadn't ever seen before.

Medium and Heavy armor (except breastplate) come fully equipped with gauntlets. So literally every character wearing that kind of armor can deal lethal punches (if only with the normal Unarmed Damage Dice) without going out of their way to buy and equip gauntlets.

Anyway, while the Battle Dancer thing might not be news to most of you, my grok of the nuances of Unarmed Strikes continues to grow.

I now have a picture of Unarmed Strikes that's somewhat based on the evolution of combat. Before civilization, when we were all monsters and humans hadn't evolved yet out of the Animal type, all we had were unarmed attacks. Our only Natural Weapons were Unarmed Strikes, because we didn't have claws, weaponized bites, goring horns, or anything else. Monsters ruled the land with their mighty Natural Weapons that allowed Secondary Natural Attacks, while we were stuck with the one Natural Weapon: Unarmed Strikes.

But primordial humanoids had one advantage: the ability to accrue XP with which they could master the Unarmed Strike's secret power: Iterative Attacks. Monsters and beasts trained themselves for combat through natural selection, meaning that the discovery of combat techniques took generations to develop, but also meant that each successive generation had much less work to do in performing martial feats. The proto-humanoids, however, unlocked the secret of knowledge. By gaining experience and understanding, by studying the techniques the monsters and beasts had learned through trial and error, they could teach themselves techniques their own species had never before been exposed to, adapting centuries of another species hard earned evolution and appropriating it for their own.

They also learned the power of Hardness and took up tools made from bone, wood, and stone. Now humanoids had improvised weapons at their disposal and their Iterative Unarmed Attacks became Iterative Armed Attacks capable of dealing lethal damage (probably a few of the strongest warriors had lethal unarmed strikes). It probably wasn't until they started wielding these improvised weapons against one another that the arms race truly began and the manufacture of reliable weapons first took hold.

[Psyren]

No, and it's really hard to explain this to you since you clearly have not understood anything

One thing I can definitely understand is when someone's posts are no longer worth wasting my time on. Arrivederci!

[Keld Denar]

Instead of coming up with reasons why things are more complex, why not simply use the patterns given to make them more simple. The above example of not being able to punch someone with both hands unless one hand wears a gauntlet is an exception based interpretation, and a bit absurd. There are rules, then there are exceptions, but then there are exceptions to exceptions and so on. The interpretation I gave above is simple, consistent, and fairly balanced. Sets of "offhands" are determined by normal weapon wielding patterns and UASs are allowed to fill any or all of those slots as desired. An offhand is not something intrinsic to a creature, but rather created by a particular fighting style to designate less able secondary attacks because focus is devoted to the primary mainhand. It's also easy to apply to humanoid and monsters alike.

[Andezzar]

So why can't humans have a fighting style that uses both hands, both elbows, both knees, both feet etc.? Restricting humans (and other creatures with a humanoid shape) two regular TWF for UAS is entirely arbitrary and has little verisimilitude.

It is much easier to say that a creature only has one UAS and it does not matter whether the creature performs all attacks of the UAS with its head/leg/other reasonable body par tor whether it distributes them across several body parts. Extra attacks can be gained through various other feats/abilities only snap kick, FoB etc.

[Troacctid]

So why can't humans have a fighting style that uses both hands, both elbows, both knees, both feet etc.? Restricting humans (and other creatures with a humanoid shape) two regular TWF for UAS is entirely arbitrary and has little verisimilitude.
They can. It's called Flurry of Blows.

[Andezzar]

They can. It's called Flurry of Blows.Not really, FoB only grants at best two extra attacks and Thri-keen (spelling?) don't get more attacks either. No one gets one extra per involved limb.

[SirNibbles]

So why can't humans have a fighting style that uses both hands, both elbows, both knees, both feet etc.? Restricting humans (and other creatures with a humanoid shape) two regular TWF for UAS is entirely arbitrary and has little verisimilitude.

It is much easier to say that a creature only has one UAS and it does not matter whether the creature performs all attacks of the UAS with its head/leg/other reasonable body par tor whether it distributes them across several body parts. Extra attacks can be gained through various other feats/abilities only snap kick, FoB etc.

Number of attacks is based on number of arms, or number of natural weapons. This is implied by the descriptions for Natural Weapons and Multiweapon Fighting.

A monk can attack with his fists, elbows, legs, knees, etc. but is limited to attacks based on how many arms he has because his other attacks aren't Natural Weapons.

[Andezzar]

A monk can attack with his fists, elbows, legs, knees, etc. but is limited to attacks based on how many arms he has because his other attacks aren't Natural Weapons.What makes you think that an UAS attack performed with a knee is less an attack with a natural weapon than an UAS attack performed with an arm?

[SirNibbles]

What makes you think that an UAS attack performed with a knee is less an attack with a natural weapon than an UAS attack performed with an arm?

They're only Natural Weapons if they're called out as such in a creature/race entry. The UAS with the arm isn't a Natural Attack either.

"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."

This is in direct contrast to the unarmed strike which is not considered an armed attack and does provoke AoO. Unarmed Strikes are only treated as Natural Weapons for beneficial feats and magic effects.

[Andezzar]

As stated multiple times before the UAS is a natural weapon (cf. PHB p. 251) and it also fits with the first sentence of the definition you quoted, which tells us what a natural weapon is. The rest tells us how Natural weapons usually work. However the UAS has different rules. This does not make it not a natural weapon. The only way to make the UAS something other than a natural weapon is an explicit rule saying it isn't or a rule saying the UAS is not part of a creature.

[SirNibbles]

As stated multiple times before the UAS is a natural weapon (cf. PHB p. 251) and it also fits with the first sentence of the definition you quoted, which tells us what a natural weapon is. The rest tells us how Natural weapons usually work. However the UAS has different rules. This does not make it not a natural weapon. The only way to make the UAS something other than a natural weapon is an explicit rule saying it isn't or a rule saying the UAS is not part of a creature.

Disclaimer: All material published has been released under OGL and/or is protected under Fair Use, 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Magic Fang is not proof that an UAS is a Natural Weapon. One poorly worded spell does not override clearly written definitions. Let's look at the definitions for UAS and Natural Weapons, plus rulings from the Rules Compendium (which supersedes other sources).

If you don't feel like reading this entire post, skip to the last spoiler. That one alone makes everything perfectly clear. If you disagree, read the last 3.

I'm going to be extremely thorough here so that we can finally come to a conclusion. Let's start with every occurrence of 'Natural Weapon' in the PHB- there are 20, some of which occur multiple times in the same quote.


Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if
it has three or more natural attacks (see the Monster Manual for details
on this feat) and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the
requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead
gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5
penalty.

_

Not too helpful, but states that not everything has Natural Attacks.



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 (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells).

_

This specifically talks about a monk's UAS rather than all UASs, but it's still useful. This passage clearly states that the monk's UAS would benefit from both spells which is different from a normal UAS and different from a Natural Weapon.



Attacks: Use the master’s base attack bonus, as calculated from all his
classes. Use the familiar’s Dexterity or Strength modifier, whichever is
greater, to get the familiar’s melee attack bonus with natural weapons.
Damage equals that of a normal creature of the familiar’s kind.

_

Useless, but included for completeness.



Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed
weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number
subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from
Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with
unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the
penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double
weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose
to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with
only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)

_

Interesting that it clearly differentiates between UAS and Natural Weapons.



Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not
including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield
bonus to your AC.

_

Again, clearly differentiates between UAS and Natural Weapons.



Natural weapons are always considered light weapons.

_

Not too useful. This quote is from Weapon Finesse.



Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or
an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this
case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of
opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or
natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity,
neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage
for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges.
If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

_

Says UAS and Natural Weapons are different.



Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an
unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another
character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks.
You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are
light weapons.

_

They're different again.



Magic Fang: One natural weapon of subject creature gets +1 on
attack and damage rolls.

_

Just the summary text, not helpful. Included for completeness.



Magic Fang, Greater: One natural weapon of subject creature gets
+1/three levels on attack and damage rolls (max +5).

_

Same as above.



Magic Fang: One natural weapon of subject creature gets +1 on
attack and damage rolls.

_

Same as above.



Magic Fang, Greater: One natural weapon of subject creature gets
+1/three caster levels on attack and damage rolls (max +5).

_

Same as above.



You can’t cast this spell on a natural
weapon, such as an unarmed strike.

_

Contradicts what I'm saying completely. Then again, it also contradicts numerous sources above. WOTC like contradicting themselves, it seems. This quote is from Align Weapon.



Physical qualities include natural size,
mundane movement capabilities (such as
burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming,
and flight with wings, to a maximum speed
of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for
nonflying movement), natural armor
bonus, natural weapons (such as claws,
bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial
bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities
(presence or absence of wings, number
of extremities, and so forth).

_

Not terribly useful, but included for completeness.



You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon,
such as a claw.

_

This is from Keen Edge. Since Unarmed Strike is bludgeoning (unless you do special things), it's not affected by Keen Edge, so this isn't helpful.



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.)

_

This spell (Magic Fang) affects Natural Weapons. It also affects UAS. Does it affect UAS because they are Natural Weapons? I don't think so. It's more likely poor wording, but I'll still give you the point on this one.



This spell functions like magic fang, except
that the enhancement bonus on attack and
damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels
(maximum +5).
Alternatively, you may imbue all of the
creature’s natural weapons with a +1 enhancement
bonus (regardless of your caster
level).

_

Magic Fang, Greater- This doesn't give any useful information.



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.

_

Point, Andezzar. Magic Weapon.



Third, the spell prevents bodily contact
by summoned creatures. This causes the
natural weapon attacks of such creatures to
fail and the creatures to recoil if such
attacks require touching the warded creature.

_

Useless.



damage reduction (DR): A special defense that allows a creature
to ignore a set amount of damage from most weapons, unarmed
attacks, or natural weapons, but not from energy attacks, spells,
spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

_

Again it differentiates between UAS and Natural Weapons.


Finally I'm done with the PHB.

Now, moving on to the Monster Manual. We're not going to find every occurrence because I would have to be here for hours.


Natural Weapons: 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.

Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical
hit on a natural attack roll of 20.

When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of
them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon.
All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.

The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and
the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full
Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective
natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology,
training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary
natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks
with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made
with a –5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are.
(Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a –2 penalty on secondary
attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature
makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the
attack action or as an attack of opportunity.

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most
common are summarized below.

Bite: The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing,
slashing, and bludgeoning damage.

Claw or Talon: The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing
piercing and slashing damage.

Gore: The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or
similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.

Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage,
dealing bludgeoning damage.

Sting: The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage.
Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to
hit point damage.

Tentacle: The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle,
dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage.

_

The main part is the fact that a Natural Weapon is considered armed, deals lethal damage, and you don't get extra attacks from BAB. This is directly in contrast to the text for Unarmed Strike, which I've put in the next spoiler.





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, as
shooting a bow does, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity
from an unarmed foe. You provoke the attack of opportunity because
you have to bring your body close to your opponent.

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 (page 96), a spellcaster delivering
a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar
natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being
armed counts for both offense and defense. Not only does a monk
not provoke an attack opportunity when attacking an armed foe, but
you provoke an attack of opportunity from a monk if you make an
unarmed attack against her.

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium
character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier,
as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of
damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of
damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage.
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of twoweapon
attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike
will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you
take a –4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to strike a
particularly vulnerable spot to deal lethal damage. . If you have the
Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an
unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

_

So as we can see, Unarmed Strikes are not the same Natural Weapons based on the definitions of each. If we go by examples of spells/effects, there are more that agree with that statement than contradict it.


To top it off, just to be completely sure, let's look at page 16 of the Rules Compendium.



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.

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks
Sometimes a creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed
attack. A monk, a character who has the Improved Unarmed
Strike feat, and a spellcaster delivering a touch attack
spell all count as armed. Being armed in this way counts
for both offense and defense. So a creature armed in this
way can make attacks of opportunity, and such a creature
doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking.
(The act of casting a spell provokes attacks of opportunity
as normal.)

_

I don't know if there's anyone who can read page 16 and think "Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons". Natural weapons are included as a sub-heading of Unarmed Attacks. They have properties that are directly contradictory. They are only similar in that you don't have to hold a weapon and you sometimes benefit from the same feats/spells.

[Pleh]

Saying that unarmed strikes are natural attacks is not saying unarmed strikes use natural weapons.

Unarmed strikes are natural attacks being made unarmed. Even a creature with natural weapons may make an unarmed strike if it does not use its natural weapons. A creature whose bite is not a natural weapon can still bite as an unarmed strike. It deals nonlethal damage and provokes AoO if you don't have the feat.

All of the places in the PHB that you listed as distinguishing between unarmed strikes and natural weapons are only highlighting the fact that unarmed strikes cannot be armed with natural weapons. They are not saying that unarmed strikes are not a type of natural attack.This is why they count for Magic Fang: UAS is a natural attack without being a natural weapon. Hence UAS gains +1 from magic fang, but isn't changed to lethal damage, indicating that Magic Fang does not make UAS into an armed strike.

This is also why Fanged Ring grants the feat: Improved Natural Attack (UAS). UAS is a natural attack, making it like a natural weapon with special rules, much like how grapple is a melee attack with special rules.

[SirNibbles]

Saying that unarmed strikes are natural attacks is not saying unarmed strikes use natural weapons.

Unarmed strikes are natural attacks being made unarmed. Even a creature with natural weapons may make an unarmed strike if it does not use its natural weapons. A creature whose bite is not a natural weapon can still bite as an unarmed strike. It deals nonlethal damage and provokes AoO if you don't have the feat.

All of the places in the PHB that you listed as distinguishing between unarmed strikes and natural weapons are only highlighting the fact that unarmed strikes cannot be armed with natural weapons. They are not saying that unarmed strikes are not a type of natural attack.This is why they count for Magic Fang: UAS is a natural attack without being a natural weapon. Hence UAS gains +1 from magic fang, but isn't changed to lethal damage, indicating that Magic Fang does not make UAS into an armed strike.

This is also why Fanged Ring grants the feat: Improved Natural Attack (UAS). UAS is a natural attack, making it like a natural weapon with special rules, much like how grapple is a melee attack with special rules.

You remind me of a CollegeHumor sketch where Google is actually a person. One lady asks for 'vaccines cause autism'. Google replies that he has 1,000,000 results that say they don't, and 1 result that says they do. She takes the 1 result and says "I KNEW IT!"

_

"unarmed strikes cannot be armed with natural weapons"

What? What does that even mean? You can't make unarmed strikes with natural weapons, full stop. Do you know where it says that? It's in the part where I said "read this single tiny excerpt that definitively explains everything".

from RC, page 16: "it can't use its natural weapons as if they were unarmed attacks"

You can't make unarmed attacks with natural weapons, so how can unarmed weapons be natural attacks? Do you know why I went through every single occurrence of the term 'natural weapon' in the PHB? I did it knowing that people like you would still cherry-pick examples of individual spells and such which contradicted the rules. I did it so that you could see that more spells agree with the rule than contradict it, yet you seem to think that the exceptions make the rule.

The rules are not set by contradictory statements in spell descriptions. The rules are set in the book that says "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."

[Andezzar]

I went though all of SirNibbles's quotes. Those I did not comment on did not add anything to the discussion.




Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if
it has three or more natural attacks (see the Monster Manual for details
on this feat) and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the
requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead
gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5
penalty.

_

Not too helpful, but states that not everything has Natural Attacks.
Where does it say that Natural Attacks are the same as Natural Weapons?



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 (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells).

_

This specifically talks about a monk's UAS rather than all UASs, but it's still useful. This passage clearly states that the monk's UAS would benefit from both spells which is different from a normal UAS and different from a Natural Weapon.
This in no way implies that the UAS isn't either one or the other already. It is a Natural Weapon.



Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed
weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number
subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from
Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with
unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the
penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double
weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose
to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with
only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)

_

Interesting that it clearly differentiates between UAS and Natural Weapons.
Mentioning the UAS separately does not mean that the UAS is not a Natural Weapon



Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not
including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield
bonus to your AC.

_

Again, clearly differentiates between UAS and Natural Weapons.
See above.




Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or
an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this
case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of
opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or
natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity,
neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage
for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges.
If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

_

Says UAS and Natural Weapons are different.
Where does it say a) that UAS = normal unarmed attack b) that a normal unarmed attack cannot be performed with the natural weapon UAS?



Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an
unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another
character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks.
You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are
light weapons.

_

They're different again.
Again being mentioned separately does not say the UAS is not a natural weapon. Look at this sentence: "You can make an attack with a dagger, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling." Unless there is some other rule saying a dagger is or is not a light weapon, you cannot make a statement as to its classification.




You can’t cast this spell on a natural
weapon, such as an unarmed strike.

_

Contradicts what I'm saying completely. Then again, it also contradicts numerous sources above. WOTC like contradicting themselves, it seems. This quote is from Align Weapon.
There is no contradiction. You just quoted further proof that the UAS is a Natural Weapon.




Physical qualities include natural size,
mundane movement capabilities (such as
burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming,
and flight with wings, to a maximum speed
of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for
nonflying movement), natural armor
bonus, natural weapons (such as claws,
bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial
bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities
(presence or absence of wings, number
of extremities, and so forth).

_

Not terribly useful, but included for completeness.
Actually that passage is somewhat helpful. Since the list of natural weapons is not exhaustive, it implies that the UAS could be a Natural Weapon.



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.)

_

This spell (Magic Fang) affects Natural Weapons. It also affects UAS. Does it affect UAS because they are Natural Weapons? I don't think so. It's more likely poor wording, but I'll still give you the point on this one.
Yes, Magic Fang does add an Enhancement bonus to attacks and damage to the UAS, because the UAs is a Natural Weapon. The spell only does not change the damage type (lethal or non-lethal) of the UAS. The latter statement is superfluous as the spell does not change the damage type for other Natural Weapons either, but it is not contradicting the fact that the UAS is a natural weapon.



This spell functions like magic fang, except
that the enhancement bonus on attack and
damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels
(maximum +5).
Alternatively, you may imbue all of the
creature’s natural weapons with a +1 enhancement
bonus (regardless of your caster
level).

_

Magic Fang, Greater- This doesn't give any useful information.
Not very useful, but it has interesting consequences for those that claim the UAS was more than one 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.

_

Point, Andezzar. Magic Weapon.
That's what I have been saying all along.



Third, the spell prevents bodily contact
by summoned creatures. This causes the
natural weapon attacks of such creatures to
fail and the creatures to recoil if such
attacks require touching the warded creature.

_

Useless.
Not entirely useless. If the UAS weren't a natural weapon, this would mean that a summoned creature could use its UAS to harm a character under the effect of Protection from Evil.



damage reduction (DR): A special defense that allows a creature
to ignore a set amount of damage from most weapons, unarmed
attacks, or natural weapons, but not from energy attacks, spells,
spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

_

Again it differentiates between UAS and Natural Weapons.
No, it mentions Unarmed Attacks and Natural Weapons seprately. This in no way means that a UAS is not a Natural Weapon. It does not even say that an UAS is an Unarmed Attack



Natural Weapons: 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.

Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical
hit on a natural attack roll of 20.

When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of
them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon.
All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.

The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and
the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full
Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective
natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology,
training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary
natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks
with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made
with a –5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are.
(Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a –2 penalty on secondary
attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature
makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the
attack action or as an attack of opportunity.

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most
common are summarized below.

Bite: The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing,
slashing, and bludgeoning damage.

Claw or Talon: The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing
piercing and slashing damage.

Gore: The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or
similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.

Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage,
dealing bludgeoning damage.

Sting: The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage.
Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to
hit point damage.

Tentacle: The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle,
dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage.

_

The main part is the fact that a Natural Weapon is considered armed, deals lethal damage, and you don't get extra attacks from BAB. This is directly in contrast to the text for Unarmed Strike, which I've put in the next spoiler.
You omit the first sentence: "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature." So unless the UAS is not part of the creature or not a weapon, the UAS qualifies as a Natural weapon. There are no rules claiming either and the UAS is explicitly considered a light weapon, and it should be quite obvious that it is part of the creature. Disarming or sundering an UAS would be quite silly, wouldn't it?



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, as
shooting a bow does, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity
from an unarmed foe. You provoke the attack of opportunity because
you have to bring your body close to your opponent.

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 (page 96), a spellcaster delivering
a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar
natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being
armed counts for both offense and defense. Not only does a monk
not provoke an attack opportunity when attacking an armed foe, but
you provoke an attack of opportunity from a monk if you make an
unarmed attack against her.

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium
character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier,
as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of
damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of
damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage.
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of twoweapon
attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike
will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you
take a –4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to strike a
particularly vulnerable spot to deal lethal damage. . If you have the
Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an
unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

_

So as we can see, Unarmed Strikes are not the same Natural Weapons based on the definitions of each. If we go by examples of spells/effects, there are more that agree with that statement than contradict it.
This first talks about Unarmed Attacks and not about the UAS, it then talks about the damage of the UAS, not the UAS in its entirety.




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.

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks
Sometimes a creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed
attack. A monk, a character who has the Improved Unarmed
Strike feat, and a spellcaster delivering a touch attack
spell all count as armed. Being armed in this way counts
for both offense and defense. So a creature armed in this
way can make attacks of opportunity, and such a creature
doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking.
(The act of casting a spell provokes attacks of opportunity
as normal.)

_

I don't know if there's anyone who can read page 16 and think "Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons". Natural weapons are included as a sub-heading of Unarmed Attacks. They have properties that are directly contradictory. They are only similar in that you don't have to hold a weapon and you sometimes benefit from the same feats/spells.
Same point as above.

So we have multiple quotes that say the UAS is a natural weapon, and none that say it isn't. All we have is that the UAs works somewhat differently than most other natural weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't at least one monster whose Natural Weapons do not conform to all rules presented in MM p. 312. I admit I am too lazy to look through all 3.5 books.

[SirNibbles]

I've answered within Andezzar's quote in bold for ease of posting.

Where does it say that Natural Attacks are the same as Natural Weapons?

You make Natural Attacks with Natural Weapons. From MM 312: "A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack..." Basically that whole paragraph says that.

This in no way implies that the UAS isn't either one or the other already. It is a Natural Weapon.

That quote is only useful in that it clearly differentiates between a Monk's Unarmed Strike and a non-Monk's Unarmed Strike. You can't say UAS is a Natural Weapon from that quote.

Mentioning the UAS separately does not mean that the UAS is not a Natural Weapon.

See above.

Yes, but it's an example of the rule being followed.

Where does it say a) that UAS = normal unarmed attack

PHB 116

b) that a normal unarmed attack cannot be performed with the natural weapon UAS?

Rules Compendium 16

It does not even say that an UAS is an Unarmed Attack

PHB 116

You omit the first sentence: "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature." So unless the UAS is not part of the creature or not a weapon, the UAS qualifies as a Natural weapon. There are no rules claiming either and the UAS is explicitly considered a light weapon, and it should be quite obvious that it is part of the creature. Disarming or sundering an UAS would be quite silly, wouldn't it?

This first talks about Unarmed Attacks and not about the UAS, it then talks about the damage of the UAS, not the UAS in its entirety.

Same point as above.

So we have multiple quotes that say the UAS is a natural weapon, and none that say it isn't. All we have is that the UAs works somewhat differently than most other natural weapons.

If we're trying to find the truth, can we both be intellectually honest? When a piece of text said something along the lines of 'a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike' I conceded. When I point to them deliberately differentiating between the two, you say it doesn't count because they don't say 'natural weapons aren't unarmed strikes/attacks', even though I also gave you a quote that said 'Natural weapons aren't unarmed strikes'.




1234567890

[Pleh]

You remind me of a CollegeHumor sketch where Google is actually a person. One lady asks for 'vaccines cause autism'. Google replies that he has 1,000,000 results that say they don't, and 1 result that says they do. She takes the 1 result and says "I KNEW IT!"

You're getting worked up over nothing. I'm not ignoring your point. I was trying to make the argument that most of your evidence cited from the PHB supports your position circumstantially. Just because the book lists unarmed strikes and natural weapons separately doesn't necessarily mean they are completely separate things. The rules might be listing them both to be emphatic in closing off potential loopholes.


"unarmed strikes cannot be armed with natural weapons"

What? What does that even mean?

I'm going back to RC pg 16 that you keep citing. (For the remainder of this post, Unarmed Strike is meaning the universal ability, not the special Monk ability. If I mean to reference the monk ability, I'll specify it).

Unarmed Strikes can be considered armed with the Improved UAS feat, otherwise they are Unarmed.
Natural Weapons make a Natural Attack into an Armed Attack.
A Natural Attack is still defined as making an attack with any part of the attacking creature's physical body. This makes an Unarmed Strike still a Natural Attack, even if it doesn't obey the normal rules for a Natural Attack with a Natural Weapon (because they are not using a Natural Weapon).
You can't use natural weapons as if they were unarmed attacks because they are not unarmed if they are armed with a natural weapon.


So my point stands. An unarmed strike and an attack with a natural weapon are both ways to make a Natural Attack, but they use different rules. You can make Natural Attacks either armed or unarmed, but you can't allow your Natural Weapons to benefit from spells or effects that benefit Unarmed Strikes
You can't make unarmed strikes with natural weapons, full stop. Do you know where it says that? It's in the part where I said "read this single tiny excerpt that definitively explains everything".

But let's keep moving through your post point by point if it helps me seem less like the woman from the If Google Was A Guy video series (a good series, btw).


from RC, page 16: "it can't use its natural weapons as if they were unarmed attacks"

You can't make unarmed attacks with natural weapons, so how can unarmed weapons be natural attacks? Do you know why I went through every single occurrence of the term 'natural weapon' in the PHB? I did it knowing that people like you would still cherry-pick examples of individual spells and such which contradicted the rules. I did it so that you could see that more spells agree with the rule than contradict it, yet you seem to think that the exceptions make the rule.

They do when the exceptions are more definitive than a bunch of places where the rule makers happened to list similar terms pedantically to avoid confusion or ambiguity in the rules.

You can't make unarmed attacks with natural weapons because wielding a natural weapon is an armed attack as per RC page 16, but Natural Attacks are defined as any attack with a physical part of the creature's body (including parts that are not natural weapons). Attacking with a part of your body that is not a natural weapon is the definition of an unarmed attack.

Be careful not to confuse a Natural Attack with an Attack that uses a Natural Weapon.

You are making the point that UAS is not a Natural Weapon, which is 100% correct. But the point I'm making is that not all Natural Attacks use Natural Weapons. Attacks that have no weapons of any kind (manufactured, improvised, or natural) are still using a part of the creature's body and therefore are a form of natural attack.

Therefore, UAS is a Natural Attack that does not use a Natural Weapon. Natural Attack is not defined exclusively to the use of Natural Weapons, or else you would be correct.

Now, to satisfy your need for attention to the total extent of your hard work, let's review your evidence from the rule books point by point.


Magic Fang is not proof that an UAS is a Natural Weapon.

No, it is proof that it is a Natural Attack. The fact that it does not grant UAS the ability to deal Lethal Damage only further supports the notion that it is a natural attack sufficiently to qualify for benefiting from the spell, but that the spell does not transform UAS into an Armed Attack (the was the monk ability would).



Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if
it has three or more natural attacks (see the Monster Manual for details
on this feat) and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the
requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead
gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5
penalty.

_

Not too helpful, but states that not everything has Natural Attacks.

This is not completely correct. It doesn't say that there are any creature that lacks Natural Attacks. It says some creatures may not have as many as 3 natural attacks. If UAS is a Natural Attack, then even creatures that have no Natural Weapons still have a Single Natural Attack available to them: The Unarmed Natural Attack (AKA the Unarmed Strike).

Also note that this does not mean Multiattack grants a second UAS, since it says you gain a second attack with your primary natural weapon, for which UAS does not qualify, as it is an attack, not a weapon (specifically an attack without a weapon).



A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects
that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural
weapons (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells).

_

This specifically talks about a monk's UAS rather than all UASs, but it's still useful. This passage clearly states that the monk's UAS would benefit from both spells which is different from a normal UAS and different from a Natural Weapon.


Yes, a monk's UAS is a completely different story. It says that a Monk is never Unarmed, even when they have no weapon of any kind (manufactured, improvised, or natural). Even their UAS is considered to be a weapon and they never have to use the Unarmed Rules even when they attack without a weapon.



Attacks: Use the master’s base attack bonus, as calculated from all his
classes. Use the familiar’s Dexterity or Strength modifier, whichever is
greater, to get the familiar’s melee attack bonus with natural weapons.
Damage equals that of a normal creature of the familiar’s kind.

_

Useless, but included for completeness.


Likewise.



Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed
weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number
subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from
Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with
unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the
penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double
weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose
to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with
only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)

_

Interesting that it clearly differentiates between UAS and Natural Weapons.


Yes, but it doesn't indicate a reason to say that UAS is not a Natural Attack, only that both UAS and attacks with Natural Weapons are expressly allowed to use the feat. This evidence is circumstantial, since it is just as likely the authors wrote it this way to be clear as to how it is to be used, not because they were trying to point out that Unarmed Strikes are not also Natural Attacks. They just didn't want players to get confused since the two attacks, while functioning differently, still benefit from the feat the same way.



Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not
including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield
bonus to your AC.

_

Again, clearly differentiates between UAS and Natural Weapons.


Again, circumstantial. There's no reason in this text to presume they were trying to say that natural weapons and UAS are not both Natural Attacks, only that the benefit is unavailable to them equally, regardless their relation (or lack thereof).

This is language to cover their bases, not distinguish nuances and terminology.



Natural weapons are always considered light weapons.

_

Not too useful. This quote is from Weapon Finesse.


Moving on



Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or
an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this
case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of
opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or
natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity,
neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage
for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges.
If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

_

Says UAS and Natural Weapons are different.


Actually, at this point the number of times these two terms are qualifying and not qualifying for certain benefits simultaneously with one another is beginning to suggest a relationship between them. Perhaps they are both the same sort of combat maneuver... like a natural attack?

But if that were the case, why wouldn't they just say, "Natural Attack" instead of "Unarmed Strike and/or Natural Weapons"? Maybe the rules were badly written?

Nah. It's only Magic Fang that was poorly defined. After all, we all know the wealth of forum debates centered around Magic Fang. No one has ever had trouble understanding the relationship between Unarmed Strike and Natural Attacks.



Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an
unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another
character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks.
You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are
light weapons.

_

They're different again.


They're listed together again. Birds of a feather do seem to flock together. Again there is a suspicious lack of language to suggest UAS is a fundamentally different kind of combat maneuver than an attack with a natural weapon.



Magic Fang: One natural weapon of subject creature gets +1 on
attack and damage rolls.

_

Just the summary text, not helpful. Included for completeness.


Skip



Magic Fang, Greater: One natural weapon of subject creature gets
+1/three levels on attack and damage rolls (max +5).

_

Same as above.


Again



Magic Fang: One natural weapon of subject creature gets +1 on
attack and damage rolls.

_

Same as above.


Once More



Magic Fang, Greater: One natural weapon of subject creature gets
+1/three caster levels on attack and damage rolls (max +5).

_

Same as above.


Okay, now back into the points.



You can’t cast this spell on a natural
weapon, such as an unarmed strike.

_

Contradicts what I'm saying completely. Then again, it also contradicts numerous sources above. WOTC like contradicting themselves, it seems. This quote is from Align Weapon.


Well, it contradicts your position, but not the sources you cited because they didn't actually say that UAS isn't a Natural Attack, only that it isn't a Natural Weapon. The way this is poorly worded is that the authors never thought to clearly define how UAS is a Natural Attack without a Natural Weapon (or any other type of weapon).

The interpretation that UAS is an unarmed Natural Attack fits with your "numerous sources" just fine when you remember that the authors were probably just trying to foolproof their rules. They wouldn't have needed so many words repeated over and over if they had clearly defined the difference between Natural Weapons and Natural Attacks (and how UAS slips between the gaps precisely in that distinction).



Physical qualities include natural size,
mundane movement capabilities (such as
burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming,
and flight with wings, to a maximum speed
of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for
nonflying movement), natural armor
bonus, natural weapons (such as claws,
bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial
bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities
(presence or absence of wings, number
of extremities, and so forth).

_

Not terribly useful, but included for completeness.


Here we go again.



You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon,
such as a claw.

_

This is from Keen Edge. Since Unarmed Strike is bludgeoning (unless you do special things), it's not affected by Keen Edge, so this isn't helpful.


"Special Things" being Versatile Unarmed Strike? Still doesn't seem helpful because you have to have Improved UAS (or the Monk UAS) so you have Armed Unarmed attacks anyway.



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.)

_

This spell (Magic Fang) affects Natural Weapons. It also affects UAS. Does it affect UAS because they are Natural Weapons? I don't think so. It's more likely poor wording, but I'll still give you the point on this one.


Poor wording, indeed. The Spell probably would have been better written: "Magic Fang gives one natural attack of the subject +1 enhancement bonus..."

If they had worded it that way, it wouldn't have implied UAS to be a Natural Weapon, which it isn't by RC page 16. Instead, UAS would be free to qualify for the spell's benefit as a Natural Attack (which it is) without having to be "pseudo natural weapon". But it's hardly this one spell that was poorly written in this regard.



This spell functions like magic fang, except
that the enhancement bonus on attack and
damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels
(maximum +5).
Alternatively, you may imbue all of the
creature’s natural weapons with a +1 enhancement
bonus (regardless of your caster
level).

_

Magic Fang, Greater- This doesn't give any useful information.


Doesn't give any useful information, Greater



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.

_

Point, Andezzar. Magic Weapon.


Unlike your other sources, which only support your argument based on the specific circumstance of having been listed together, this language actually DOES suggest a fundamental relationship existing.



Third, the spell prevents bodily contact
by summoned creatures. This causes the
natural weapon attacks of such creatures to
fail and the creatures to recoil if such
attacks require touching the warded creature.

_

Useless.


Well, this may be more interesting than it originally seems. See, this is just about the first instance the spell affects "natural weapon attacks" rather than "unarmed strikes or natural weapons". By the theory I'm suggesting, does the spell affect attacks with Natural Weapons, or any sort of Natural Attack? I mean, the part about "the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures" would suggest it doesn't matter if they are using natural weapons or UAS: they can't touch physically. So any substantial distinction is lost in the catchall "no touching" policy.

But that brings back up the question of the Gauntlet. Does UAS get past this spell if the summoned creature is wearing a glove?



damage reduction (DR): A special defense that allows a creature
to ignore a set amount of damage from most weapons, unarmed
attacks, or natural weapons, but not from energy attacks, spells,
spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

_

Again it differentiates between UAS and Natural Weapons.


And we're back to the circumstantial evidence that doesn't actually imply a distinction.



Natural Weapons: 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.

Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical
hit on a natural attack roll of 20.

When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of
them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon.
All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.

The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and
the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full
Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective
natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology,
training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary
natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks
with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made
with a –5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are.
(Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a –2 penalty on secondary
attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature
makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the
attack action or as an attack of opportunity.

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most
common are summarized below.

Bite: The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing,
slashing, and bludgeoning damage.

Claw or Talon: The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing
piercing and slashing damage.

Gore: The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or
similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.

Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage,
dealing bludgeoning damage.

Sting: The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage.
Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to
hit point damage.

Tentacle: The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle,
dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage.

_

The main part is the fact that a Natural Weapon is considered armed, deals lethal damage, and you don't get extra attacks from BAB. This is directly in contrast to the text for Unarmed Strike, which I've put in the next spoiler.


Yes, because UAS is a Natural Attack, but uses its own rules. You get extra attacks with natural weapons because your race was biologically designed to use all of your natural weapons in sequence. Unarmed weapons are not biologically designed for attacking, but can be used in that manner, making them use the rules for Iterative attacks since you need personal martial skill to make extra attacks. No evolutionary help to be had for natural attacks that do not possess naturally evolved weapons.



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, as
shooting a bow does, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity
from an unarmed foe. You provoke the attack of opportunity because
you have to bring your body close to your opponent.

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 (page 96), a spellcaster delivering
a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar
natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being
armed counts for both offense and defense. Not only does a monk
not provoke an attack opportunity when attacking an armed foe, but
you provoke an attack of opportunity from a monk if you make an
unarmed attack against her.

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium
character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier,
as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of
damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of
damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage.
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of twoweapon
attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike
will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you
take a –4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to strike a
particularly vulnerable spot to deal lethal damage. . If you have the
Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an
unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

_

So as we can see, Unarmed Strikes are not the same Natural Weapons based on the definitions of each. If we go by examples of spells/effects, there are more that agree with that statement than contradict it.


No, you are quite right. Unarmed Strikes are quite definitively not Natural Weapons and do not use the rules for attacks made with Natural Weapons. Other rules, such as Fanged Ring, indicate that they ARE Natural Attacks that do not use Natural Weapons and they use different rules than Natural Attacks using Natural Weapons.

After all, it would be highly strange to use Improved Disarm on a goblin, taking away its manufactured weapon only to grant it 5 natural weapons: 2 legs, 2 arms, and 1 headbutt. Doesn't seem like Disarming the opponent really did much to disadvantage them. So yes, UAS is in no way a Natural Weapon. It is still a Natural Attack.



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.

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks
Sometimes a creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed
attack. A monk, a character who has the Improved Unarmed
Strike feat, and a spellcaster delivering a touch attack
spell all count as armed. Being armed in this way counts
for both offense and defense. So a creature armed in this
way can make attacks of opportunity, and such a creature
doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking.
(The act of casting a spell provokes attacks of opportunity
as normal.)

_

I don't know if there's anyone who can read page 16 and think "Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons". Natural weapons are included as a sub-heading of Unarmed Attacks. They have properties that are directly contradictory. They are only similar in that you don't have to hold a weapon and you sometimes benefit from the same feats/spells.


Natural Weapons are NOT Unarmed Attacks. You have a weapon that you were born with. Your attacks are "Fully Armed and Operational." Unarmed Strikes, however, are attacks that deal damage with a physical portion of your body, therefore they are natural attacks (even if they use different rules than Natural Weapons).

And to remind you, it's not that strange for a type of attack to have different subset attacks that use different rules. Grapple is a Melee attack that uses completely different rules than most types of Melee Attacks.

[Keld Denar]

I agree with Pleh. UASs are natural, but they are not natural weapons.

Now, because I love monkey wrenches, let's take a humanoids shaped monster with slam attacks like many giants or lizardfolk and give them IUAS. How do their natural attacks interact with UASs? Clearly, in both cases, the natural weapons are hand based because they lose them in a full attack routine with a manufactured weapon. Then throw TWFing into the mix.

How would you stat out that full attack routine? Rawr!

[Pleh]

I agree with Pleh. UASs are natural, but they are not natural weapons.

Now, because I love monkey wrenches, let's take a humanoids shaped monster with slam attacks like many giants or lizardfolk and give them IUAS. How do their natural attacks interact with UASs? Clearly, in both cases, the natural weapons are hand based because they lose them in a full attack routine with a manufactured weapon. Then throw TWFing into the mix.

How would you stat out that full attack routine? Rawr!

Nah, if it's a slam attack, it's a natural weapon, deals lethal damage, and it's a Natural Attack with a Natural Weapon. It is not an Unarmed Strike to use a slam attack, even if you could use the arms to wield a manufactured weapon.

Because a slam attack is an Armed attack. It can't make Unarmed strikes.

[SirNibbles]

Let's define the following terms and summarise their properties

Unarmed Attack | Unarmed Strike | Natural Attack | Natural Weapon

Disclaimer:All material used is published under the OGL and/or being used under Fair Use, 17 U.S.C. § 107.


Sources, in order of reference: Rules Compendium, page 16; Player's Handbook, page 116


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.

_

Properties of Unarmed Attacks:
-identical to using a melee weapon, with the following exceptions:

-provoke AoO from the person you attack
-cannot make attacks of opportunity



Simple Weapons

Unarmed Attacks

Gauntlet
Unarmed Strike
Light Melee Weapons

_

Properties of Unarmed Attacks:
-Unarmed Attacks are Simple Weapons
-two weapons are considered to be Unarmed Attacks: the Gauntlet and the Unarmed Strike



Properties of Unarmed Attacks:
-identical to using a melee weapon, with the following exceptions:

-provoke AoO from the person you attack
-cannot make attacks of opportunity
-Unarmed Attacks are Simple Weapons
-two weapons are considered to be Unarmed Attacks: the Gauntlet and the Unarmed Strike


Sources, in order of reference: Player's Handbook, page 116; Player's Handbook, page 121


Simple Weapons

Unarmed Attacks

Gauntlet
Unarmed Strike
Light Melee Weapons

_

Properties of Unarmed Strikes:
-Unarmed Strikes are a type of Unarmed Attack
-Unarmed Strikes are a Simple Weapon



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.

_

Properties of Unarmed Strikes:
-Unarmed Strikes deal nonlethal damage
-any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at their option
-Unarmed Strike damage counts as weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus to weapon damage
-an Unarmed Strike is always considered a light weapon



Properties of Unarmed Strikes:
-Unarmed Strikes are a type of Unarmed Attack
-Unarmed Strikes are a Simple Weapon
-Unarmed Strikes deal nonlethal damage
-any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at their option
-Unarmed Strike damage counts as weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus to weapon damage
-an Unarmed Strike is always considered a light weapon


Sources, in order of reference: Rules Compendium, page 100


Natural Attacks

Natural attacks come in two forms—natural weapons and
special attacks. Natural weapons, such as fangs or claws, are
physically a part of a creature. Special attacks are special
ways a creature can use its inborn attributes to harm other
creatures.

_

Properties of Natural Attacks:
-Natural Attacks are either natural weapons (like claws or tentacles) or special attacks (like breath or gaze attacks)



Properties of Natural Attacks:
-Natural Attacks are either natural weapons (like claws or tentacles) or special attacks (like breath or gaze attacks)


Sources, in order of reference: Rules Compendium, page 100; Rules Compendium, page 16; Rules Compendium, page 45


ATTACKS

A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is
considered armed and doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.
Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Unless otherwise
noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural
attack roll of 20.

Creatures don’t 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—a creature can make one bite attack,
one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack,
or one slam attack. Large or larger creatures that hav
arms or armlike limbs can make a slam attack with each arm.
Refer to the individual monster descriptions, which take
precedence over these general rules.

_

Properties of Natural Weapons:
-creatures attacking with Natural Weapons are considered armed and don't provoke AoOs
-Threatens any space it can reach
-don't receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus
-attack number based on the type of attack



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.

_

Properties of Natural Weapons:
-considered armed
-can't use Natural Weapons to make unarmed attacks
-can't apply abilities that affect only unarmed attacks to its natural weapons



Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are considered
light weapons

_

Properties of Natural Weapons
-they are considered light weapons



Properties of Natural Weapons:
-creatures attacking with Natural Weapons are considered armed and don't provoke AoOs
-Threatens any space it can reach
-don't receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus
-attack number based on the type of attack
-they are considered light weapons

[Pleh]

Okay, so... what's your point?

If you want to argue that by these definitions, UAS is not a natural attack, then it does not qualify for Improved Natural Attack and half the benefits of Fanged Ring completely fizzle as the rules perform an illegal feat selection.

[SirNibbles]

Okay, so... what's your point?

If you want to argue that by these definitions, UAS is not a natural attack, then it does not qualify for Improved Natural Attack and half the benefits of Fanged Ring completely fizzle as the rules perform an illegal feat selection.

"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."

You are right. A normal UAS does not qualify for Improved Natural Attack. A Monk's UAS is special, and does. I cannot find any quote that rules either for or against the idea that it is the Improved Unarmed Strike that grants this quality to the Monk's UAS, along with other similar classes like the Battle Dancer.

EDIT: minor typo fix: it it > it is

[Andezzar]

"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."

You are right. A normal UAS does not qualify for Improved Natural Attack. A Monk's UAS is special, and does. I cannot find any quote that rules either for or against the idea that it it the Improved Unarmed Strike that grants this quality to the Monk's UAS, along with other similar classes like the Battle Dancer.Why do you ignore the fact that the PHB says that the any UAS is a natural weapon, not just a monk's? Anyone wit an UAS and BAB 4 can take Improved natural Attack.

[SirNibbles]

Why do you ignore the fact that the PHB says that the any UAS is a natural weapon, not just a monk's? Anyone wit an UAS and BAB 4 can take Improved natural Attack.

I must've missed that. What page is that?

Edit: Are you referring to the descriptions for Magic Fang/Weapon and Align Weapon?

The rules for what makes a Natural Weapon a Natural Weapon and an Unarmed Strike an Unarmed Strike clearly mean that an Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon. If you want to claim that two spell descriptions overrule those rules, I suppose we're at an impasse.

[Pleh]

"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."

You are right. A normal UAS does not qualify for Improved Natural Attack. A Monk's UAS is special, and does. I cannot find any quote that rules either for or against the idea that it it the Improved Unarmed Strike that grants this quality to the Monk's UAS, along with other similar classes like the Battle Dancer.

I would vote against it in this case, since Improved UAS as the feat does not contain the language of the monk's special ability.

The feat says nowhere that it allows your normal UAS to be considered a natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that benefit natural weapons. Improved Natural Attack needs UAS to be considered a Natural Weapon to allow it to be selected. It doesn't grant that, only the Monk special ability does, so only Monks can benefit from that part of the ring.

Therefore, Fanged Ring under your interpretation only grants Non-Monks the Improved UAS feat (if they didn't already have it) and the extra Con damage on criticals. Meanwhile, Monks get Improved Natural Attack (if they didn't already have it) and extra Con damage on criticals.

I just feel like that isn't what the authors of the magic item really had in mind. It seems more that they intended UAS to be considered a Natural Attack so that anyone wearing the ring would get the benefit of both feats (if they hadn't already taken them) and Monks would get an extra boost to damage above the average pugilist.

It feels like this thinking leads to an THIS OR THAT benefit to the ring where I think it was meant to be "THIS AND THAT"

[Andezzar]

I must've missed that. What page is that?

Edit: Are you referring to the descriptions for Magic Fang/Weapon and Align Weapon?
Yes those two and also this:
Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.The UAS clearly is part of the creature and it is a weapon. The rest of the Natural Weapons entry just tells us how Natural Weapons (generally) work, the only part telling us what they are is the quoted sentence.

[Pleh]

Yes those two and also this:The UAS clearly is part of the creature and it is a weapon. The rest of the Natural Weapons entry just tells us how Natural Weapons (generally) work, the only part telling us what they are is the quoted sentence.

Actually, this may be wrong. It is absolutely a part of the creature, but if it were a weapon, it wouldn't be "unarmed". UAS satisfies one, but not both of these conditions.

EDIT: perhaps it might be helpful to think of UAS as an Improvised Natural Attack. Just in the same way you can't use an improvised weapon as effectively as a manufactured weapon, UAS is not as effective as a true natural weapon.

And just like the Monk ability to master improvised natural attacks, some fighters master using improvised weapons.

[Andezzar]

Just because wielding certain weapons items does not classify the wielder as armed, does not mean they can't be weapons. The UAS is clearly a weapon (Table 7-5:Weapons) and its description does not tell us it isn't a weapon, only that the wielder is not considered armed unless he as some other abilities.

[Pleh]

Just because wielding certain weapons items does not classify the wielder as armed, does not mean they can't be weapons. The UAS is clearly a weapon (Table 7-5:Weapons) and its description does not tell us it isn't a weapon, only that the wielder is not considered armed unless he as some other abilities.

Okay, let's bring the SRD under some closer inspection if that's the source we're using.


Strike, Unarmed
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. 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 to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

Unarmed Strike is listed on the weapons table, but again, this is more likely an inclusion for completeness, so that people don't forget or overlook the fact that unarmed strike can benefit from things that weapons can benefit from.

The first three sentences don't tell us much except that Unarmed Strike deals nonlethal damage based on your size unless you have Improved UAS or a class feature that says otherwise.

The fourth sentence is where things get interesting. "The damage from an unarmed strike is is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls."

The fact that UAS is "considered" weapon damage implies that it is actually NOT weapon damage and it just gets the benefit of being treated as such.

We find the same language in sentence 5 where it says, "[UAS] is always considered a light weapon." Notice again that it functions as if it were a light weapon, which implies that it is not a light weapon, but gets the benefits of being a light weapon despite not being one.

Finally, the last sentence simply reiterates the value of sentence 5.

Did I miss anything on the PHB's Equipment Chapter on UAS? Looks pretty comprehensive to me. The language states that UAS is considered a light weapon for benefiting from spells and effects that affect damage rolls and light weapon attack rolls. But the fact that the language specifies this as an exception implies that it is not a weapon. The fact that UAS is listed on the table doesn't make it a weapon, it is included for completeness since the table is meant to be a reference to help create characters quickly.

[Darrin]

It's murky. Decide what works best for your group.

[/thread]

[Necroticplague]

Okay, let's bring the SRD under some closer inspection if that's the source we're using.



Unarmed Strike is listed on the weapons table, but again, this is more likely an inclusion for completeness, so that people don't forget or overlook the fact that unarmed strike can benefit from things that weapons can benefit from.

The first three sentences don't tell us much except that Unarmed Strike deals nonlethal damage based on your size unless you have Improved UAS or a class feature that says otherwise.

The fourth sentence is where things get interesting. "The damage from an unarmed strike is is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls."

The fact that UAS is "considered" weapon damage implies that it is actually NOT weapon damage and it just gets the benefit of being treated as such.

We find the same language in sentence 5 where it says, "[UAS] is always considered a light weapon." Notice again that it functions as if it were a light weapon, which implies that it is not a light weapon, but gets the benefits of being a light weapon despite not being one.

Finally, the last sentence simply reiterates the value of sentence 5.

Did I miss anything on the PHB's Equipment Chapter on UAS? Looks pretty comprehensive to me. The language states that UAS is considered a light weapon for benefiting from spells and effects that affect damage rolls and light weapon attack rolls. But the fact that the language specifies this as an exception implies that it is not a weapon. The fact that UAS is listed on the table doesn't make it a weapon, it is included for completeness since the table is meant to be a reference to help create characters quickly.
O.k, but the fact it's always considered a light weapon means that, even if it technically isn't a weapon, isn't it basically the same as it being one? Since any time a mechanic would look for 'a weapon' the 'considered a light weapon' property of the UAS would cause it to ding positive.
(also, always being considered a light weapon is consistent with with being a Natural Weapon, since those are also always considered light weapons).

[SirNibbles]

O.k, but the fact it's always considered a light weapon means that, even if it technically isn't a weapon, isn't it basically the same as it being one? Since any time a mechanic would look for 'a weapon' the 'considered a light weapon' property of the UAS would cause it to ding positive.
(also, always being considered a light weapon is consistent with with being a Natural Weapon, since those are also always considered light weapons).

An Unarmed Strike is a weapon but what part of the body is the Unarmed Strike? It can be made with any part of the body, apparently. The leg isn't a weapon, though you can make Unarmed Strikes with it. The head isn't a weapon. The elbow isn't a weapon. The knee isn't a weapon. If any of these body parts were weapons, you would be considered armed at all times.

[Pleh]

An Unarmed Strike is a weapon but what part of the body is the Unarmed Strike? It can be made with any part of the body, apparently. The leg isn't a weapon, though you can make Unarmed Strikes with it. The head isn't a weapon. The elbow isn't a weapon. The knee isn't a weapon. If any of these body parts were weapons, you would be considered armed at all times.

Actually, no. Not just any part of your body. The rules specifically say you can't make UAS with natural weapons, so you can't do it with any part of your body. You can make an UAS with any part of your body that isn't a natural weapon.


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.

You can only make UAS with parts of your body that are not considered weapons (unless monk/feat/etc).

So, while the attack is considered a light weapon, the body parts they use are not. And no, being considered in all cases to be a light weapon doesn't make it a natural weapon. More circumstantial evidence. It's clear UAS and natural weapons are related, but different.

[Andezzar]

You can only make UAS with parts of your body that are not considered weapons (unless monk/feat/etc).That is not what the section says It says the creature cannot use its natural weapons as if they were unarmed attacks, which means it cannot gain extra attacks with them for having BAB 6+, it cannot use them when an unarmed attack is required (grapple etc.) unless it has an additional rule saying so or removing the requirement entirely.

If it said what you think it means it would have to override the PHB, which the RC cannot according to the primary source rule.

[Pleh]

That is not what the section says It says the creature cannot use its natural weapons as if they were unarmed attacks, which means it cannot gain extra attacks with them for having BAB 6+, it cannot use them when an unarmed attack is required (grapple etc.) unless it has an additional rule saying so or removing the requirement entirely.

If it said what you think it means it would have to override the PHB, which the RC cannot according to the primary source rule.

We have cited so many sources from the PHB that I need you to be more specific as to where the contradiction is.

Your first paragraph here I agree with entirely. Your second paragraph claims there is a contradiction and I don't see it.

I will, however, point out that the Primary Source Rule makes no sense when applied to errata. Errata, by definition, informs us of mistakes in the primary source and it's meaningless if the source it is correcting or clarifying always takes precedence over it.

Primary Source Rule works best for splat books that are adding new content where the authors may have overlooked a balancing issue.

But the rules compendium is more about correcting, clarifying, and compiling all the rules into one place, not so much adding new content. It was written expressly to help with obscure rules like this one where the PHB scattered the rules over various chapters.

Arguing that a book about rules clarification falls under the primary source rule just doesn't make sense. Errata type documents are intended to be representative of the primary source and they have no meaning if they have no authority to correct the primary source.

It's just nonsense and madness.

[Doctor Despair]

Iirc errata is considered the primary source for rules text and so trumps other instances where they rule appears.

[Andezzar]

The rules compendium is not a collection of errata. It is a rulebook. According to the primary source rule if two rulebooks can be considered the primary source of a rule, we are instructed to use the most recent rulebook. There has been a printing of the PHB (September 18, 2012) after the RC (October 2007). So any changes that made it into the RC but not into the last printing of the PHB are for naught according to WotC own rules.

[SirNibbles]

Actually, no. Not just any part of your body. The rules specifically say you can't make UAS with natural weapons, so you can't do it with any part of your body. You can make an UAS with any part of your body that isn't a natural weapon.



You can only make UAS with parts of your body that are not considered weapons (unless monk/feat/etc).

So, while the attack is considered a light weapon, the body parts they use are not. And no, being considered in all cases to be a light weapon doesn't make it a natural weapon. More circumstantial evidence. It's clear UAS and natural weapons are related, but different.

That's the point I was making.


That is not what the section says It says the creature cannot use its natural weapons as if they were unarmed attacks, which means it cannot gain extra attacks with them for having BAB 6+, it cannot use them when an unarmed attack is required (grapple etc.) unless it has an additional rule saying so or removing the requirement entirely.

If it said what you think it means it would have to override the PHB, which the RC cannot according to the primary source rule.

"When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."

[Andezzar]

"When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."The PHB from 2012 did not exist when the RC was printed. So the RC cannot overwrite it.

[Pleh]

While you may be technically right, Andezzar, which printings of the PHB have we been using all this time? A lot of the SRD has probably been pulled off of OGL websites like hypertextSRD, which could have been referencing the old printing.

Either way, it seems clear the rules compendium was meant to correct the PHB.