100 Fists - The Centipede Monk

[SirNibbles]

Before the forums went offline for a week, there was a thread talking about the most effective creature for natural attacks (assuming you were going to use Giant Size after changing forms).

At ECL 11
Highlights:
100 Unarmed Strikes per round at 2d8 damage each or +294 Strength if using Fuse Arms
Issues:
To-hit is too low

I posit that the Monstrous Centipede/Fiendish Monstrous Centipede is the best due to the number of limbs it has. You may say, "But the (Fiendish) Monstrous Centipede doesn't get any natural attacks with its limbs!", and you'd be right.

The Fangshields Druid 5th level substitution grants the user the Wild Shape Hands (Su) ability:

"Wild Shape Hands (Su): At 5th level, a Fangshields druid can use her wild shape ability to create simple dexterous hands if she doesn’t have them already. For example, a giant eagle, lammasu, or unicorn could use wild shape to change her feet, paws, or hooves into hands that work as well as human hands. These hands lose any natural attacks they previously possessed, but otherwise still function like their original shape (a unicorn could walk or run at normal speed on her hoof-hands, for example). She can make this change whenever she uses her wild shape, even when she assumes another form. For example, a unicorn druid could take the form of a wolf with functional paw-hands. This benefit is in addition to the standard druid’s wild shape ability."
- Champions of Valor, page 41

Thus, when wild shaping, the Druid can choose to replace the legs of a centipede with human hands which "work as well as human hands."

How many legs does a Monstrous Centipede actually have? The rules do not tell us. A centipede, according to Wikipedia, has between 30 and 354 legs. It always has an odd number of pairs of legs, and so it will never have exactly 100 legs (50 pairs). The average of 30 and 354 gives us 192 legs, but let's just call it 100.

Carrying 100 weapons is a bit of a hassle, so we're better off using Unarmed Strikes. We don't need to take more than 1 or 2 Monk levels.

EDIT: I've been informed that we can use the feats Child of Winter (Eberron Campaign Setting, page 51) and Vermin Shape (Eberron Campaign Setting, page 62) to Wild Shape into vermin as early as 5th level, eliminating the need for Master of Many Forms. Thanks, inevitability!

Druid 5/Monk 1 gets us Wild Shape and a Monk's Unarmed Strike. Unfortunately, we're not able to shift into a Monstrous Centipede (Vermin) or Fiendish Monstrous Centipede (Magical Beast) yet- for that, we will need to take levels in the Master of Many Forms PrC (Complete Adventurer, page 58). Five levels of MoMF gets us Improved Wild Shape (Vermin), allowing us to Wild Shape into a Vermin of a size category available to us. Currently, the largest size category would be Large.

Druid 5/Monk 1/Master of Many Forms 5 (ECL 11)
Full attack:
+2/-3 (Unarmed Strike)
-2/-2 (Unarmed Strike) * 99

The Two-Weapon fighting penalty is really hurting here. Perhaps starting as a race with three or more hands in order to pick up Multiweapon Fighting would be worth it.

Each successful Unarmed Strike deals 1d8 damage. Assuming a 15% hit rate, that's 15d8 damage per round- far from impressive. Let's jack up that hit rate and damage output.

A Monk's Tattoo (Magic of Faerun, page 163) combined with a Wilding Clasp (Magic of Faerun, page 167) will increase that damage to 2d6. Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle, page 33) increases this to 2d8. That's now 30d8 damage per round. We need some way to increase our hit rate.

How would you further optimise this?

The 2nd level Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer spell, Fuse Arms (Spell Compendium, page 100), is a viable option thanks to Wild Shape Hands, especially when combined with Ability Enhancer (Dragon Magazine #325, page 77) for a total of +294 Strength at the expense of 98 of your limbs. If it's deemed necessary, you can completely regain any mobility lost by sacrificing your legs via the 2nd level Cleric spell, Spider Legs (Book of Vile Darkness, page 105).

[Nebuul]

Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike)
Giant Size (Wu Jen 7)

If you use Giant Size, you don't even need a monstrous centipede. Giant Size doesn't increase your size catagory by X levels, it increases to huge/gargantuan/colossal.

[bekeleven]

Thus, when wild shaping, the Druid can choose to replace the legs of a centipede with human hands which "work as well as human hands."
[...]
Carrying 100 weapons is a bit of a hassle, so we're better off using Unarmed Strikes.Did you notice the line "Doesn't lose any natural attacks" was not accompanied by a mention of gaining natural attacks?

Or do humans have two unarmed strikes now?

[SangoProduction]

You could go ahead and do multi-weapon fighting, if you wanted to, but additional limbs do not equate to additional unarmed strikes. But, as for the above question, yes, you should be allowed to TWF with unarmed strikes.

[SirNibbles]

Did you notice the line "Doesn't lose any natural attacks" was not accompanied by a mention of gaining natural attacks?

Or do humans have two unarmed strikes now?

That line actually says that you do lose natural attacks, as the limbs are replaced with human hands. Human hands are capable of performing unarmed strikes or attacks with weapons. You can make an attack with your main hand (plus iterative attacks for your main hand) and each off hand you possess. In the case of Two Weapon Fighting, this leads to two attacks with your main hand and one with your off hand. In the case of Multiweapon Fighting with 100 weapons, you make two attacks with your main hand and one attack with each of your 99 off hands.

[bekeleven]

You can make an attack with your main hand (plus iterative attacks for your main hand) and each off hand you possess. In the case of Two Weapon Fighting, this leads to two attacks with your main hand and one with your off hand.So a level 1 monk can flurry to attack twice with their fist and once with their other fist?

[Rebel7284]

I see several problems with this:

1. It's not clear that you can gain more than two hands or that ALL limbs transform. But I can see such a reading.
2. Unarmed Strike uses iterative attack rules and you get a number of attacks based on your BAB, regardless of the number of hands you have. As a matter of fact, Unarmed Strike doesn't have to use hands at all! It could be kicks and headbutts and stuff.

For this to work, you would need to get the hands to count as natural weapons (perhaps with Warshaper) or alternatively, be able to take Perfect Multiweapon Fighting[epic] feat and use that many weapons.

Fuse arms may work, assuming point 1. is approved and the example text in the spell that explicitly calls out centipedes as not qualifying is ignored. :P

Also, I think there are other ways for a Druid to wildshape into vermin and not lose caster levels. Check Eggy's handbook.

[Celestia]

So a level 1 monk can flurry to attack twice with their fist and once with their other fist?
Sure, but good luck hitting anything with the stacked flurry and dual wielding penalties on that 0 BAB. You may actually miss the 5 AC of the broad side of a barn.

[Inevitability]

I suggest replacing the MoMF levels with the Child of Winter and Vermin Shape feats, which allows it to assume centipede form a whole five levels earlier.

[SirNibbles]

So a level 1 monk can flurry to attack twice with their fist and once with their other fist?

Yes. You can combine Flurry of Blows with Two Weapon Fighting as long as you're using UAS/Monk Weapons. They would take massive penalties if they didn't have the Two Weapon Fighting feat, attacking at -6/-6 with the main hand and -10 with the off hand.


I suggest replacing the MoMF levels with the Child of Winter and Vermin Shape feats, which allows it to assume centipede form a whole five levels earlier.

I thought Vermin Wild Shape was an Epic feat, but apparently that's a different feat. Thanks!


I see several problems with this:

1. It's not clear that you can gain more than two hands or that ALL limbs transform. But I can see such a reading.
2. Unarmed Strike uses iterative attack rules and you get a number of attacks based on your BAB, regardless of the number of hands you have. As a matter of fact, Unarmed Strike doesn't have to use hands at all! It could be kicks and headbutts and stuff.

For this to work, you would need to get the hands to count as natural weapons (perhaps with Warshaper) or alternatively, be able to take Perfect Multiweapon Fighting[epic] feat and use that many weapons.

Fuse arms may work, assuming point 1. is approved and the example text in the spell that explicitly calls out centipedes as not qualifying is ignored. :P

Also, I think there are other ways for a Druid to wildshape into vermin and not lose caster levels. Check Eggy's handbook.

1. Definitely vague wording, could go either way.

2. You're not getting iteratives, you're getting off hand attacks. You can attack once with each off hand as part of a full attack action.

Centipedes are called out as not working because their limbs can't hold weapons. They can now hold weapons thanks to Wild Shape Hands and are thus eligible. There can still be an argument as to the difference between arms and hands in regards to Fuse Arms.

[Jormengand]

Given that "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed" it should be relatively intuitive that you cannot use a fighting style that involves making offhand attacks. That, and the fact that the TWF (or XWF where X is the number or weapons you're wielding) rules don't work with natural weapons such as the unarmed strike anyway.

[Gruftzwerg]

That line actually says that you do lose natural attacks, as the limbs are replaced with human hands. Human hands are capable of performing unarmed strikes or attacks with weapons. You can make an attack with your main hand (plus iterative attacks for your main hand) and each off hand you possess. In the case of Two Weapon Fighting, this leads to two attacks with your main hand and one with your off hand. In the case of Multiweapon Fighting with 100 weapons, you make two attacks with your main hand and one attack with each of your 99 off hands.

You don't gain unarmed offhand attacks in the way you can get extra natural attacks.

1.) US don't care how many limbs/hands/feet whatsoever you have. You can attack with either of em. You attacks per round are fixed to your BaB.

2.) You can combine US with TWF. It just gives you one offhand attack (per TWF-chain feat) and the penalties tied to it.

So in the end, it doesn't matter if you have 100 hands or just only 1, you attacks/round are limited to BaB, TWF feats, flurry and similar things.

You aren't adding your additional hands as "natural attacks" to your attack routine. That's not how it works.

to further clarify: if you go the with US and TWF, you can still make all attacks with the same limb/hand.

[SirNibbles]

Given that "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed" it should be relatively intuitive that you cannot use a fighting style that involves making offhand attacks. That, and the fact that the TWF (or XWF where X is the number or weapons you're wielding) rules don't work with natural weapons such as the unarmed strike anyway.

"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."

ROTG and FAQ both discuss TWF with UAS.

UAS is not a Natural Weapon.

I think I'll add my breakdown of UAS/UAA/NW/NA to my signature.

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

[5ColouredWalker]

I wouldn't bother turning them into arms. You've over complicated things.

Complete Scoundrel has Knee and Boot Blade, giving you a sword and dagger / Limb, that's two attacks.
Combine with Legions (Greater) Magic Weapon from Magic of Ebberon, and those are all magical, because all weapons in the area are enchanted. All 100+ of them.

Add Multiweapon Fighting, and because all your weapons are light you're only looking at a -2 to hit on each weapon.

You now have 100+ Magical Swords to attack with per full attack. You're welcome.

(Personally, I use this plus the arm weapons for a Thri-Kreen/Diopsid. They may not be a blade dancer, but I call them one.)

Now, having between 101 and 385 attacks before irratives (Spiked Armor), you can expect to be beaten to death by the DM... Or be hit by an Ubercharging Fiendish Monstrous Centipede using the same shenanigans.


Edit:
Multiweapon fighting says hands, so it turns out you would need the spell for qualifying.
However, this just means you play a Druid that Wildshapes into a Monstrous Centipede, gets covered with blades, and then charges in. This assumes the DM allows this.
Another legal means would be to dip into Libre Mortis or another book with grafts that don't explicitly replace limbs, and grafting three or more arms to yourself.

[Zombimode]

and each off hand you possess.

This is questionable. First, there is no direct correlation between the number of "off Hands" and the number of Hand a creature has: you can make "off Hand" attacks without having Hands at all (with knee blades, braid blades etc., armor Spikes etc.)

Hecatoncheires can use all their Hands because they have an (Ex) ability that says they can do so. Do note the restriction however.

While Mariliths do not have a Special ability that specifically allows them to attack with multiple weapons, their ability to do so is at least mentioned in their description. Do remember that a Hydras ability to to use all heads for AoO is also not tied to a special ability, but a Hydra is still able to do so because their description says so.


Of course, the matter is not clear. But considering that Hecatoncheires, a creature which whole sthick is to have lots of arms and attack with all of them, have a restriction on how many attack they can make against a single creature, simply assuming that a creature that is not intended to make any attacks with it's appendages could do so with less restrictions is not something that would fly a my table.

[Darrin]

The issues of whether unarmed strikes are natural weapons and whether they can count as both primary and offhand attacks at the same time has already been debated to death. Whatever works best for your personal group, keep using that.

This trick works so long as you use Multiweapon Fighting, which gives you a number of offhand attacks equal to your total number of hands minus one. If you have TWF and shift forms into something with multiple hands, then TWF is replaced with MWF. However, if you want to avoid headache-inducing rules arguments, it's best if each hand is wielding a weapon, which avoids the problem of whether unarmed strike is a "single weapon" or can represent multiple striking surfaces. If you want to mix Flurry with MWF, then just make sure each hand is wielding a monk weapon.

The most dubious element here is whether Wild Shape Hands can create only a single pair of hands or can replace all available appendages with hands at the same time. I don't really see anything in the text that gives a specific limit to the number of hands you can create... but this really boils down to a DM's Call.

Neat trick, though. Definitely filing this one away for a future build.

[Jormengand]

"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."

Yes, thank you for telling me something which is also a consequence of there being no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

EDIT: "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature." Unless you're gonna tell me now that your hand is not physically part of you?

[Inevitability]

The issues of whether unarmed strikes are natural weapons and whether they can count as both primary and offhand attacks at the same time has already been debated to death.

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a) Rules of the Game seems to rather unambiguously resolve the first issue.


Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons.

[Fouredged Sword]

This needs more blood in the water stance for nigh infinite stacking +1's to hit and damage.

[Nebuul]

Monk unarmed strikes are considered manufactured and natural weapons for the point of enhancements only. A level 1 monk cannot get 5 attacks a turn by saying his hands, feet, and head are natural weapons. A monk using flurry of blows cannot benefit from multi-weapon fighting, as the monk is already considered to be using all limbs/appendages/etc for attacking.

[bekeleven]

Oh, are we trying to make unarmed strike rules resolve without rules contradictions now?

When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons

unarmed strike: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons.
If a monk misses an unarmed attack they are no longer legally flurrying.

[Darrin]

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a) Rules of the Game seems to rather unambiguously resolve the first issue.

Nope. That's probably the best example of Skip getting something completely wrong, and why the Rules of the Game articles should not be considered as having the same authority as the actual PHB text or official errata.

[Gruftzwerg]

Nope. That's probably the best example of Skip getting something completely wrong, and why the Rules of the Game articles should not be considered as having the same authority as the actual PHB text or official errata.

Can you provide any more info to your opinion? IIRC Skip is totally right with what he said.

IMHO people pull the "FAQ / Sage is not reliable/wrong"-joker to much in the last time. Not everything is wrong. Imho it's a problem of a bigger getting part of the community accusing their lack of rule understanding. "If FAQ tells something that doesn't fit the common opinion, that FAQ had to be false again" can't be an argument to disprove it.

For the sake of my paranoia ^^, would you be so kind to explain your point or provide some rule source? Otherwise I won't buy into the "Faq has many wrong ruling"-joker.

PS: I hope I didn't sound offending. Just as said, I wanna know more about your opinion.

[Darrin]

Can you provide any more info to your opinion? IIRC Skip is totally right with what he said.


The crux of it can be boiled down to this:

PHB p. 250, under "Magic Fang":

"Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)" (emphasis added)

PHB p. 251, under "Magic Weapon":

"You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell." (emphasis added)

It's not entirely an obvious place to put this particular distinction, but the preponderance of evidence in the Core rules is that unarmed strikes are natural weapons (except when they aren't... it's... kinda a problem the designers kept running into, and it gets worse as you go outside the Core rules.)

Curmudgeon also liked to add the example of the Fanged Ring in Dragon Magic, which has Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike), but I don't find that quite as compelling as what's in the Core rules.



IMHO people pull the "FAQ / Sage is not reliable/wrong"-joker to much in the last time. Not everything is wrong.


There is an official process to update the game rules. The FAQ is part of that process, in that we tend to see a ruling or clarification there first, but for me personally, it's not an official rules change until it's enshrined in an official errata document. That tells me the designers thought it was important enough to actually change the rules.

If you have a different criteria that works well for your group, then by all means, continue to use that.

[SirNibbles]

Yes, thank you for telling me something which is also a consequence of there being no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

EDIT: "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature." Unless you're gonna tell me now that your hand is not physically part of you?

It's a matter of how closely it fits.

A cat has 4 legs and a tail. A dog has 4 legs and a tail. They are not the same.

If you go through the properties of an Unarmed Strike vs a Natural Weapon (see post above), there are more differences than similarities.

Additionally, I went through every single occurrence of the phrase 'Natural Weapon' in the PHB and found that there are more instances where Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strikes are called out as being different than there are of them being the same. (That's my counter to the Magic Fang argument).

Link to my post of every occurrence of 'Natural Weapon' in the PHB:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21581314&postcount=81
The first quote from that post actually mentions that not all creatures have natural weapons. That's strange, since every creature can make unarmed strikes.

__

As Darrin said, this has been debated to death and people still disagree. This is thanks to the rules contradicting themselves multiple times. I'm personally of the opinion that if you can punch with your left hand and stab with a dagger in your right hand, you should be able to punch with both hands.

Based on my interpretation, a creature with 100 usable hands can make 99 off hand attacks, just as a Marilith with 6 hands can make 5 off hand attacks.

[Gruftzwerg]

k, lets try to bring some light into this diffuse area of rules:




PHB p. 250, under "Magic Fang":

"Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)" (emphasis added)
The sentence in parentheses refers to monks Unarmed Strike that counts as "other natural weapon". See monks US ability in the PHB. Monks US may count as natural weapon for the purpose of determining spells/effects. To clarify, only monks (and those with the same ability) may enchant their US as natural weapons. Everybody else not.
And the reasoning of the sentence is to clarify that the monk may still deal nonlethal dmg with his US, nothing else.


PHB p. 251, under "Magic Weapon":

"You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell." (emphasis added)
here is the clear bug where the misinformation is spread from. The first sentence is referring to unarmed strikes as if they would count as natural weapons in general, but they don't unless you are a monk. Just reffering to it, doesn't turn it into a rule.
The same mistake was done with the Abjurant Champion, where the original rule text of the bonus AC for abjuration AC spells reffers to Mage Armor (was errataed later). That didn't turn Mage Armor into an Abjuration spell. It just caused confusion, nothing more. And the same is here the chase.
The sentence doesn't tell you to handle unarmed strikes as natural weapons, it just did make a wrong reference (which wasn't errataed sadly..). So in the end it's still only the monks US which may count for spells and effects as natural weapons.



Curmudgeon also liked to add the example of the Fanged Ring in Dragon Magic, which has Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike), but I don't find that quite as compelling as what's in the Core rules.
In chase of the Fanged Ring the answer is even simpler than one might think. The problem here is, that the people assume that all bonuses need to synergy and add up together, but I don't see any rule/reason to back this up. Depending on what you are/have (US or monk US, natural attacks or not) you'll get different benefits. Wouldn't be the sole magic item that works this way imho.



There is an official process to update the game rules. The FAQ is part of that process, in that we tend to see a ruling or clarification there first, but for me personally, it's not an official rules change until it's enshrined in an official errata document. That tells me the designers thought it was important enough to actually change the rules.
Since it is only a bad/wrong reference and nothing that changes the actual rules, I assume they thought it ain't a big deal. The spell can only use "specific trumps general" for the spells effect. It doesn't have any permission to provide any new global/general rules. Maybe that's the reason why it wasn't errataed. Cause by RAW it didn't have the chance to change anything (globally) to begin with.

I hope I could bring some more light into this diffuse topic (or more confusion^^).

PS: since I am not a native English speaker..^^ I am not sure if I put my thoughts into the right words here. We'll see later if I was comprehensible enough^^

[Darrin]

I'm personally of the opinion that if you can punch with your left hand and stab with a dagger in your right hand, you should be able to punch with both hands.

Based on my interpretation, a creature with 100 usable hands can make 99 off hand attacks, just as a Marilith with 6 hands can make 5 off hand attacks.

The rules that allow you to make an "offhand" attack are the TWF rules. It has nothing to do with your physical form or the number of appendages a creature may have. Any creature, regardless of the number of hands they have, may make a primary attack with a weapon and use the TWF rules to also make one offhand attack during the same round.

If you have three or more hands and want to make additional offhand attacks with your other hands, then you need to have the Multiweapon Fighting feat to do that.

The Marilith has Multiweapon Fighting, but if you manage to disarm all of the manufactured weapons its wielding, it can use all six arms to make six slam attacks, as per the rules for natural weapons in the Monster Manual.

The only example I can think of where having two fists count as two separate weapons is for the Kensai's Signature Weapon ability, but I chalk that up to a badly worded 3.0 ability that the editors didn't fix in the 3.5 version.

[The_Jette]

k, lets try to bring some light into this diffuse area of rules:


The sentence in parentheses refers to monks Unarmed Strike that counts as "other natural weapon". See monks US ability in the PHB. Monks US may count as natural weapon for the purpose of determining spells/effects. To clarify, only monks (and those with the same ability) may enchant their US as natural weapons. Everybody else not.
And the reasoning of the sentence is to clarify that the monk may still deal nonlethal dmg with his US, nothing else.

You missed the part where a fist was listed as a natural weapon. Unarmed attacks are counted as natural weapons. The Monk's Unarmed Strike, specifically, counts as both a natural weapon and a created weapon. Anyone else's, even someone with the feat Improved Unarmed Strike, only counts as a natural weapon. You seemed to be arguing counter to that. If I was mistaken in what you were arguing, I apologize.

Edit: Also, I don't see the point of this argument, as it doesn't really cover what's being asked.

[Gruftzwerg]

You missed the part where a fist was listed as a natural weapon. Unarmed attacks are counted as natural weapons. The Monk's Unarmed Strike, specifically, counts as both a natural weapon and a created weapon. Anyone else's, even someone with the feat Improved Unarmed Strike, only counts as a natural weapon. You seemed to be arguing counter to that. If I was mistaken in what you were arguing, I apologize.

Edit: Also, I don't see the point of this argument, as it doesn't really cover what's being asked.

k, another (..) chase of bad/wrong reference. IMHO it should have been "claws" what would fit well into the line and not "fist". But again the same as with "Magic Weapon" or Abjurant Champion. The spelltext can only trump general text, but not introduce new general rules. It doesn't even tell you "to handle it that way". It just only makes a bad/wrong reference. Nothing changed.

To sum it up:
No Spell or Item description will provide change gobal/general rules, they can only refer or trump them within their own authority range (the specific spell/effect/item rules).

Do you have maybe other arguments based on general rule text? (again, just kindly asking)

the point of this argument: I like to be good informed about rules. And I think we (and most here in the forum) share this behavior. Cause I could ask you the same: "Why did you feel the need to point out that FAQ & Sage are not always right/RAW?" Cause you feel that being good informed about rules is important I guess? =)

[SirNibbles]

The rules that allow you to make an "offhand" attack are the TWF rules. It has nothing to do with your physical form or the number of appendages a creature may have. Any creature, regardless of the number of hands they have, may make a primary attack with a weapon and use the TWF rules to also make one offhand attack during the same round.

If you have three or more hands and want to make additional offhand attacks with your other hands, then you need to have the Multiweapon Fighting feat to do that.

The Marilith has Multiweapon Fighting, but if you manage to disarm all of the manufactured weapons its wielding, it can use all six arms to make six slam attacks, as per the rules for natural weapons in the Monster Manual.

The only example I can think of where having two fists count as two separate weapons is for the Kensai's Signature Weapon ability, but I chalk that up to a badly worded 3.0 ability that the editors didn't fix in the 3.5 version.

From Multiweapon Fighting (Feat): "A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting."

MWF just reduces the penalties. You don't need it to fight with multiple off hands.

__

Gruft, I too immediately thought of Abjurant Champion's Mage Armor. Sometimes the people making classes/spells/etc. aren't on the same page as the people who wrote the rules.

[Darrin]

From Multiweapon Fighting (Feat): "A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting."

MWF just reduces the penalties. You don't need it to fight with multiple off hands.

I stand corrected. Sorry, I should have read the entire text of the feat. So yes, you'd get 99 offhand attacks. Penalties would be pretty severe, but somewhere around 5% of those offhand attacks would be
20's.

[MHCD]

Discussion regarding natural weapons and unarmed strikes aside, one of the more effective means of making use of all those attacks would be Wraithstrike.

Since this seems more like a fun thought exercise anyway, you may as well get a custom item of at-will (or continuous) Wraithstrike, and go to town. Interestingly, high touch AC opponents like the iconic Monk might still be the most frustrating melee opponents - but that's fitting with classic martial arts duels in media, right? Dozens of blocks, dodges, and minor impacts all around, with relatively few significant impacts.

[SirNibbles]

What would be the best way of picking up Multiweapon Fighting?

Dungeon Magazine #136, page 61 has the template Obah-Blessed which gives our base form two extra arms (and thus +4 on grapple checks), +2 Str, +4 Dex, +2 Con, +4 Cha, and Multiweapon Fighting for a +2 LA.

The template can be applied to any creature with no more than four arms.

This needs to be combined with a non-humanoid race (or a template that changes your type) in order to qualify for Fangshields Druid (whether or not you go with Obah-Blessed).

What race would work best?

[Darrin]

What would be the best way of picking up Multiweapon Fighting?


Just take TWF. It automatically switches to MWF when you shift to a form with three or more hands.



Dungeon Magazine #136, page 61 has the template Obah-Blessed which gives our base form two extra arms (and thus +4 on grapple checks), +2 Str, +4 Dex, +2 Con, +4 Cha, and Multiweapon Fighting for a +2 LA.


Insectile (Savage Species) adds another four arms for LA +2. However... you can't wild shape into a form that has a template, so I don't think Obah-Blessed or Insectile would give you extra arms once you wild shape into a centipede.



What race would work best?

As a druid? Anthropomorphic bat, maybe. Jermlaine. Muckdweller. If you want something medium-sized: neraph, elan, synad.

Hmm. Dolgrim (ECS) might be worth a look... Dual Consciousness (Ex) allows them to ignore penalties on one offhand attack. Not really sure if that applies to multiple offhand attacks.

[The_Jette]

k, another (..) chase of bad/wrong reference. IMHO it should have been "claws" what would fit well into the line and not "fist". But again the same as with "Magic Weapon" or Abjurant Champion. The spelltext can only trump general text, but not introduce new general rules. It doesn't even tell you "to handle it that way". It just only makes a bad/wrong reference. Nothing changed.

To sum it up:
No Spell or Item description will provide change gobal/general rules, they can only refer or trump them within their own authority range (the specific spell/effect/item rules).

Do you have maybe other arguments based on general rule text? (again, just kindly asking)

the point of this argument: I like to be good informed about rules. And I think we (and most here in the forum) share this behavior. Cause I could ask you the same: "Why did you feel the need to point out that FAQ & Sage are not always right/RAW?" Cause you feel that being good informed about rules is important I guess? =)

So, your entire argument is that the PHB is wrong? This isn't a splatbook that had an incorrect blurb somewhere that didn't need correcting. It's a core rulebook which sets up the basic rules for the entire game. So, your opinion is that unarmed attacks which are flat out ruled as natural weapons in the Player's Handbook is still not a natural weapon because "they must be wrong"? Listen, if you have some errata somewhere that states that the Core Rulebook is wrong, please show it to us. Otherwise, your argument is completely based on what your opinion of how the rules should be, and as such is just a house rule. And, I should point out that I don't say things like that lightly.

[Bronk]

So, your entire argument is that the PHB is wrong? This isn't a splatbook that had an incorrect blurb somewhere that didn't need correcting. It's a core rulebook which sets up the basic rules for the entire game. So, your opinion is that unarmed attacks which are flat out ruled as natural weapons in the Player's Handbook is still not a natural weapon because "they must be wrong"? Listen, if you have some errata somewhere that states that the Core Rulebook is wrong, please show it to us. Otherwise, your argument is completely based on what your opinion of how the rules should be, and as such is just a house rule. And, I should point out that I don't say things like that lightly.

None of that matters though. Jormengand was right earlier... Unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons for attacking purposes, and monks are specifically prohibited from using unarmed strikes as an offhand weapon with itself.

[The_Jette]

None of that matters though. Jormengand was right earlier... Unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons for attacking purposes, and monks are specifically prohibited from using unarmed strikes as an offhand weapon with itself.

For clarity's sake let me just say, you are 100% correct. I disagree with the premise of the OP's idea that turning what are essentially feet into hands would allow a druid/monk wildshaped into a centipede to get a hundred attacks with the monk's unarmed strike bonus. The extra attacks that monks get from fury of blows aren't determined by the number of limbs the monk has, and you can't use a monk's unarmed damage in place of natural weapon damage while using a full attack with natural weapons. I was debating the claim that the PHB is wrong just because the other person doesn't think it should be that way. A fist can be enhanced with Magic Fang just as much as a bite attack, or a claw attack. It just usually doesn't do you any good if you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike, since you get an AoO against you. This particular rule never made any sense to me, given that punches are faster than sword strikes. But, I don't have to agree with RAW, just admit that it's there.

[Darrin]

So, your entire argument is that the PHB is wrong?

No. His argument was that a "general rule" should not be found within a spell effect, or if a rule is found in a spell effect then it shouldn't be considered a general rule. It's more of a hierarchy issue. The Combat section should define the general rules that apply to unarmed strikes. Spell effects should be mostly exceptions to those general rules. Spell effects are a subset of the Magic chapter, which gives general rules for magic rather than combat or weapons. If you're looking for a general rule on unarmed strikes, why on earth would you look at a spell effect for that sort of thing?

I have some problems with this:

1) The Combat section doesn't do a very good job of defining how unarmed strikes are supposed to work.

2) There's no indication from the designers that they intended to organize these rules in this sort of hierarchy.

[Gruftzwerg]

No. His argument was that a "general rule" should not be found within a spell effect, or if a rule is found in a spell effect then it shouldn't be considered a general rule. It's more of a hierarchy issue. The Combat section should define the general rules that apply to unarmed strikes. Spell effects should be mostly exceptions to those general rules. Spell effects are a subset of the Magic chapter, which gives general rules for magic rather than combat or weapons. If you're looking for a general rule on unarmed strikes, why on earth would you look at a spell effect for that sort of thing?

ty for pointing out what I tried to tell (with my 3rd language english^^).


I have some problems with this:

1) The Combat section doesn't do a very good job of defining how unarmed strikes are supposed to work.

2) There's no indication from the designers that they intended to organize these rules in this sort of hierarchy.

1) well, because of the bad layout how it is written and formatted.. The info's about US are split over the entire combat section and refer to some extend to the monk class US ability entry (which aren't in the combat section..). If you than add the confusion due to some wrong references of some spells descriptions (no new general rules; and compared to the monks US, the combat section isn't referring to the spells description) you have your confused community who doesn't get how to handle it.

2) Sure? I already explained with "specific trumps general", why this is the intention. All the evidence about hierarchy is there. The rules about Core books is also a clear hierarchy indicator. Just think about it how many hierarchy is involved in 3.5, it's more than you seem to think imho.

[The_Jette]

ty for pointing out what I tried to tell (with my 3rd language english^^).



1) well, because of the bad layout how it is written and formatted.. The info's about US are split over the entire combat section and refer to some extend to the monk class US ability entry (which aren't in the combat section..). If you than add the confusion due to some wrong references of some spells descriptions (no new general rules; and compared to the monks US, the combat section isn't referring to the spells description) you have your confused community who doesn't get how to handle it.

2) Sure? I already explained with "specific trumps general", why this is the intention. All the evidence about hierarchy is there. The rules about Core books is also a clear hierarchy indicator. Just think about it how many hierarchy is involved in 3.5, it's more than you seem to think imho.

You keep referring to information in the book being wrong. What is your basis for calling it wrong? If you have other references in the Player's Handbook, DMG, etc, as to why the information in the book is wrong, then please reference it. Otherwise, it's just opinion. Also, the spell mentions fists as natural weapons in an off-hand way, indicating that the writers assumed that people understand that fists are natural weapons. So, one can extrapolate from that the idea that it wasn't ever supposed to be anything else.

[Gruftzwerg]

You keep referring to information in the book being wrong. What is your basis for calling it wrong? If you have other references in the Player's Handbook, DMG, etc, as to why the information in the book is wrong, then please reference it. Otherwise, it's just opinion. Also, the spell mentions fists as natural weapons in an off-hand way, indicating that the writers assumed that people understand that fists are natural weapons. So, one can extrapolate from that the idea that it wasn't ever supposed to be anything else.

as Darrin tried to explaine it to you, instead of me.

Why would you look for general US combat rules in the Magic chapter? The spells are just "referring" and not providing new general rules. All you need to know about US is in the combat section + the combat section references (like in the chase of the monks US).

So unless you can point me out a sentence in the Combat section that refers to the Magic chapter where US is more detailed explained (I guess/hope this describes your view on the situation), Spell descriptions won't have any right to provide new general Combat rules.
Spells can just refer to other rules or give you specific rules for the spell itself. As an example, as said: the combat section refers to the monks class ability (which is in the class section) and thus the class ability becomes part of general combat rules.

The same thing can be said about magic item descriptions. They (can) provide specific rules altering general ("Combat" in our chase) rules. They can reference general rules, but if they make a mistake while doing so, it doesn't become a rule by RAW. It never had the permission to be able to do so.

The rule is "Specific Trumps General" and not "Specific Becomes General".

I hope I could make the difference clear.

edited: to clear some parts up that could be otherwise misleading.

[Darrin]

You keep referring to information in the book being wrong. What is your basis for calling it wrong?

No, that's not what he said. It's not what the PHB says, it's how it's organized and where the text is located. General rules should be located prominently in the chapters that pertain to that particular activity. They should not be buried in an obscure effect in a chapter that isn't really related to what you're trying to do. He's trying to say, a piece of text wedged into a spell description should not be considered a general rule that should have been clarified in a different chapter. Whatever text you find in magic fang/magic weapon, that text should really only apply to situations where you're casting that spell. He's saying it shouldn't give you the general rules about how you deal with unarmed strikes. As in, if you're trying to determine whether an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, you'd check the Combat section or the Monster Manual rather than dig into an obscure paragraph hidden in a spell description.

However, I'm having trouble with Gruftzwerg's concept of "Specific Trumps General", and this may be an artifact of the two of us thinking in different languages. To my mind, the rules don't appear to be organized in a clear hierarchy where I can determine whether a piece of text is "general" or "specific" based on what chapter or section it appears in the book. I see too many examples of where the designers buried general rules in obscure places. Another example: natural weapons are always considered light weapons. This *should* be mentioned either in the Equipment section (under weapons), the Combat section (under damage), or in the Monster Manual glossary. But the only place this is mentioned in the Core rules is under the Weapon Finesse feat in the Feats chapter.

Sometimes the designers bury important rules in obscure places, either because they're sloppy, they are convinced the general rule was written down somewhere else, the editor didn't catch it, or some bizarre consequence of the editing/layout process mucked things up. Yes, it's confusing and frustrating, but on the upside, it gives us something to argue about in internet forums.

[The_Jette]

as Darrin tried to explaine it to you, instead of me.

Why would you look for general US combat rules in the Magic chapter? The spells are just "referring" and not providing new general rules. All you need to know about US is in the combat section + the combat section references (like in the chase of the monks US).

So unless you can point me out a sentence in the Combat section that refers to the Magic chapter where US is more detailed explained (I guess/hope this describes your view on the situation), Spell descriptions won't have any right to provide new general Combat rules.
Spells can just refer to other rules or give you specific rules for the spell itself. As an example, as said: the combat section refers to the monks class ability (which is in the class section) and thus the class ability becomes part of general combat rules.

The same thing can be said about magic item descriptions. They (can) provide specific rules altering general ("Combat" in our chase) rules. They can reference general rules, but if they make a mistake while doing so, it doesn't become a rule by RAW. It never had the permission to be able to do so.

The rule is "Specific Trumps General" and not "Specific Becomes General".

I hope I could make the difference clear.

edited: to clear some parts up that could be otherwise misleading.

I've never claimed that the magic section sets any rules. All I claim is that fists are listed in the PHB as a viable option for Magic Fang. Since it's listed as an option for a spell that only affects natural weapons AND there's no other claim in the Player's Handbook stating that a fist, which is definitely a part of a humanoids body, is not a natural weapon, then you have no leg to stand on in claiming that it's not a natural weapon. The Combat Section of PHB does not state that a fist is not a natural weapon, but you're claiming that it does. Back that claim up with some references. Even if it's just the description of what a spell can affect, there is at least some reference to it being a natural weapon. Unless you can show something refuting it, why are you making your claim. You have to have come to this conclusion somehow. If it's more than just "well, I feel that it should be this way" then show us the reference. Otherwise, you're not looking at rules as written. You're looking at "rules as I see it."

[Gruftzwerg]

However, I'm having trouble with Gruftzwerg's concept of "Specific Trumps General", and this may be an artifact of the two of us thinking in different languages. To my mind, the rules don't appear to be organized in a clear hierarchy where I can determine whether a piece of text is "general" or "specific" based on what chapter or section it appears in the book. I see too many examples of where the designers buried general rules in obscure places. Another example: natural weapons are always considered light weapons. This *should* be mentioned either in the Equipment section (under weapons), the Combat section (under damage), or in the Monster Manual glossary. But the only place this is mentioned in the Core rules is under the Weapon Finesse feat in the Feats chapter.

Sometimes the designers bury important rules in obscure places, either because they're sloppy, they are convinced the general rule was written down somewhere else, the editor didn't catch it, or some bizarre consequence of the editing/layout process mucked things up. Yes, it's confusing and frustrating, but on the upside, it gives us something to argue about in internet forums.
emphasis added

dunno how it looks in the English version of the PHB, I own a german 3.5 PHB.
I can find the info under:

Equipment > Weapon > Weapon-categories > light weapon, 1-handed weapon & 2-h weapon:

There is a line (in the german phb) where it states that unarmed strikes are always considered to be light weapons.

Dunno if it is really missing in the english version or it's just you don't seeing the forest due to many trees (happens to all of us, crawling through the rules..^^).

[The_Jette]

emphasis added

dunno how it looks in the English version of the PHB, I own a german 3.5 PHB.
I can find the info under:

Equipment > Weapon > Weapon-categories > light weapon, 1-handed weapon & 2-h weapon:

There is a line (in the german phb) where it states that unarmed strikes are always considered to be light weapons.

Dunno if it is really missing in the english version or it's just you don't seeing the forest due to many trees (happens to all of us, crawling through the rules..^^).

Natural Weapons are also considered light weapons. The only time this comes up is for the purpose of determining TWF penalties, if you can use power attack, bonus/penalty for trip/disarm/sunder. I had a DM who let me use sunder on an arm, as if it were a weapon. That was definitely not RAW, though.

[Gruftzwerg]

Natural Weapons are also considered light weapons. The only time this comes up is for the purpose of determining TWF penalties, if you can use power attack, bonus/penalty for trip/disarm/sunder. I had a DM who let me use sunder on an arm, as if it were a weapon. That was definitely not RAW, though.

they are considered as light weapons for TWF/PA/trip/disarm/sunder and nothing else (unless it explicitly states as in the mentioned chases).

reason:
Light weapon, 1-h and 2-h weapons are weight/effort categories, that you need to wield an external weapon, in its primary role.
The mentioned feats/combat maneuvers just makes use of these categories for determining bonuses/penalties and thus "consider natural weapons as light weapons".
If you go "strict by RAW" this doesn't turn NA into light weapons. They just counts as one for the special chases mentioned. Nothing more, nothing less.

edit: Sundering NA
while not explicitly covered in the rules, it's not as RAW would disallow you to do so. The problem is that RAW doesn't provide stats about NA/Body parts (HP?, hardness??). If your DM is "willing" to cover those missing rules up, RAW doesn't forbid you to sunder NA. It's just that you can't force your DM to cover those missing rules.. So you have no right to demand it by RAW..

(and again I am in the land of RAW, where all common sense seems to fail again..^^)

[The_Jette]

they are considered as light weapons for TWF/PA/trip/disarm/sunder and nothing else (unless it explicitly states as in the mentioned chases).

reason:
Light weapon, 1-h and 2-h weapons are weight/effort categories, that you need to wield an external weapon, in its primary role.
The mentioned feats/combat maneuvers just makes use of these categories for determining bonuses/penalties and thus "consider natural weapons as light weapons".
If you go "strict by RAW" this doesn't turn NA into light weapons. They just counts as one for the special chases mentioned. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's exactly my point. And, it doesn't turn unarmed attacks into light weapons, either, for the exact same reasons.

[Gruftzwerg]

That's exactly my point. And, it doesn't turn unarmed attacks into light weapons, either, for the exact same reasons.

yeah, UA just "count as" light weapon. That's at least what my german PHB tells me.

and "count as" is not the same as "are / to be".

e.g. Half-Elves are not humans and not elves (than they would have the other racials), they just count as humans and elves.