Monks & Psionics question

[satori01]

Of course they are, please cite where in the RAW it is listed they are not.
Magic Fang works on slam attacks, which are attacks with fists.
Natural Weapons are defined as any appendege on a creature that deals damage in combat.

I remember your genitals joke, but frankly if your genitals can deliver 1d3 points of subdual damage like a medium size creatures fist, then that constitutes a natural attack.

 

[Egres]

Of course they are, please cite where in the RAW it is listed they are not.
Magic Fang works on slam attacks, which are attacks with fists.
Natural Weapons are defined as any appendege on a creature that deals damage in combat.

I remember your genitals joke, but frankly if your genitals can deliver 1d3 points of subdual damage like a medium size creatures fist, then that constitutes a natural attack.

Do Unarmed Strikes follow the Natural Weapons's attack routine?

Do you remember that you can't make more Natural Weapons's attacks due to high BAB, don't you?

Do a human threaten the area around him with his fists?

Does the MM 3.5 list any Natural Weapon for the PHB races, like Dwarves or Elves?
They all have Unarmed Strikes, but not Natural Weapons. (by your reasoning every creature would have Natural Weapons.)

And, once again, the definiton of Natural Weapons tell us what Natural Weapons are.

But this doesn't mean that everything that meets that definiton is a Natural Weapon.

RAW + logic.


I always thought that Enworld was full of great rule lawers.

Where are they when you need them?

 

[Naathez]

Usually people apologize AFTER saying something. For a twist, i'll apologize BEFORE.

I apologize.

Now that that's out of the way. Is there nobody - nobody else - who finds debating whether a PUNCH is a melee weapon or just something that you use in melee and works like a weapon, quite just a little tiny eensy weensy bit... exaggerated?

Besides being , I believe, out of point with the thread, frankly I am starting to fear that referring to the RAW can in some ways prove damaging to good debating.

A. If the point is to prove " LOOK! the RAW is so silly , and self contradictory, WHAT were they thinking when they wrote it??!" ... well, frankly, been there, done that. In any case, the RAW, at least I think, does not state that a bow needs to have a string to be fired. But I'd think we'd all frown a little bit on a player saying that, since it's not stated, he can fire an unstrung bow. And I think that the fact a PUNCH (KICK, ELBOW STRIKE, HEADBUTT) is a melee weapon for ANY practical purpose is just as logical.
B. If the point is to decide whether powers, spells, and magical thingamabobs work on monk's natural attacks, well, I seem to remember RAW states they DO. And even if it doesn't do it in terms clear enough to satisfy any lawyer west of Timbuktu, its SPIRIT does.

People... I may be ranting, it's a harsh day. I apologized JUST for that reason. But I believe there's a point where discussing rules becomes sincerely.. absurd.


"A melee unarmed attack isn't a melee weapon. It's something that does the same job, it's something that beneficiates from the same effects, it's something that works exactly the same, but it's not a melee weapon."

...does nobody else see.. how pointless the WHOLE thing is? How it does NOT matter? What matters is that the SPIRIT of the rules and the game suggests that the ways to empower the combat tools a monk uses (unarmed attacks too) are the SAME used to empower a sword, a dagger, or a spiked chain. What matters is the GAME, what matters is the STORIES, what matters is NOT discussing whether I can call a MELEE weapon something i use from 5 feet away to strike you in the face.

I may be unpopular with what I said. I hope I was not rude. But truly, some rules debates (this one got picked as the spark that lit the powders) are... are out of place. Out of common sense.

20 GOTO "I apologize" Line.

 

[KarinsDad]

Are you proposing that Unarmed Strikes are not melee weapons, but you can still make melee attacks with them. As strange as it sounds, I think you're right. That would mean though, you could not use an Unarmed Strike when a melee weapon is required (as it may apply to spells, feats, or class abilities). Although I can not seem to find any instance where this applies (I am sure they are out there). For example, if Smite Evil required a melee weapon, you could not use Unarmed Strike. As it stands, it requires a melee attack, so it is a non-issue.

Unarmed Strikes are simple weapons.
Unarmed Strikes are unarmed attacks.
Unarmed Strikes are Light Weapons.
Unarmed Strikes are melee attacks.
Unarmed Strikes are NOT melee weapons.

Yes, Egres is right.

The two problems here are that there is not a section (tmk) on unarmed strikes in the equipment section like there is melee weapon sections, and that Unarmed Attacks is listed under Simple Weapons on the table.

But, Unarmed Strike is under Unarmed Attacks, not under Light Melee Weapons, One-Handed Melee Weapons, or Two-Handed Melee Weapons.

It isn't a Melee Weapon. It is an Unarmed Attack.

And, we have a lot of examples of the rules for unarmed attacks being somewhat different than the rules for melee weapons.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, there's one.

Unarmed Strike.

Actually, there are two (and possibly more in splat books).

Unarmed Strike and Gauntlets.


"Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

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


Melee attacks are NOT Unarmed attacks, regardless of the fact that Unarmed Attacks are in the table under Simple Weapons.