A commoner Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons?

[Egres]

I heard that some people thiunk that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, "with some exceptions".

What's your point of view?

Here's a little list of arguments from both sides.

Unarmed strikes are natural weapons:

What is it, exactly? Is it a manufactured weapon? Is it just an anomalous exception to the normal order of things that nobody acknowledges? No. It's a natural weapon. It's a physical part of the creature, it benefits from magic fang and metaphysical claw and the kensai's ability to enhance natural weapons, and it does not benefit from magic weapon or align weapon unless you're a monk.

There are three exceptions applied to the unarmed strike that I've explained repeatedly, but hey, I got time.

1) Unarmed strikes gain iterative attacks. This is to make the combat rules more consistent for new players. It may also be because the iterative attack system was devised before the natural attack system and they just never made a conversion.
2) Unarmed strikes draw attacks of opportunity. This is a realism measure; an untrained, unarmed human is at a severe disadvantage against an armed one. The AoO reflects this.
3) Unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage. This is also a realism measure; fist fights between to untrained slobs generally aren't lethal. They can be, but then an unarmed strike can deal lethal damage if you take a –4 to hit, just like any nonlethal weapon.

A single feat, Improved Unarmed Strike, is used to represent the training necessary to level the playing field between an unarmed character and an armed one. Not completely; there's still the base damage disparity, but at least you don't draw AoOs anymore.

Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons:

Here are lists of the similarities and differences between unarmed strike and all other natural weapons. (Many have been mentioned already, but I'll put them all.)

Differences:
- Deals nonlethal damage
- Provokes AoO
- Can be used for iterative attacks
- Can be used for off-hand attacks
- Cannot be used for secondary attacks
- Can be modified/enhanced by wearing gauntlets
- Can be used in a flurry
- Can deliver ki attacks
- Does not help to qualify for multiattack (one assumes)
- Can be made with any part of your body

Similarities (that are different from manufactured weapons):
- Can be used to deliver touch spells
- Does not require any equipment (and cannot be disarmed)
- Acts as a light weapon but benefits from power attack
- Benefits from magic fang and similar spells
- Benefits from an amulet of mighty fists


It seems to me that the list of differences is long enough that considering unarmed strikes as natural weapons is kind of unappealing. I'd probably consider them as a special type of manufactured weapon first, but I think the best is calling them a third weapon type of their own.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I do not think Unarmed should be treated as nbatural weapons or manufactured weapons for the purpsoes of enchanting and such. They tried to simplify the strike and really made it a mess. I simplify by banningthe monk, for that among many other reasons.

But by the rules, I would say not a natural weapon.

 

[Thanee]

It's a simple ('manufactured') weapon.

Bye
Thanee

 

[3d6]

Have you ever noticed that the unarmed strike is a simple weapon, and monks don't have proficiency with simple weapons?

I voted that unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons. There isn't a single rules quote indicating that they're natural weapons, so the obvious conclusion is that they're not natural weapons. They seem to be in their own category, but they work mostly like manufactured weapons.

 

[Thanee]

Monks are special, they do not make unarmed strikes.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Seeten]

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.

Thats about all I have to say on it.

 

[Egres]

I see there are 10 votes for the "they are" option, but I don't see any argument supporting it.

Maybe they are troll-votes?

 

[Seeten]

I see there are 10 votes for the "they are" option, but I don't see any argument supporting it.

Maybe they are troll-votes?

The post right above yours, from me, contains the argument supporting it, and my vote was one of the "They are" votes.

 

[Mistwell]

We are not commenting because this is one of the most heated debates we have had here at EnWorld. It seems to be generally 50-50 on the opinions in the past, and so far this poll is tracking that. There are great, reasoned arguments on both sides. But really, since there is such a division, to the point where I believe some threads were closed because of the heated opinions on it, I think people are going to be a bit reluctant to get into it once again.

For me, the heart of the issue does in fact come down to this rule: "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." The debate tends to be over "what is an effect" more than anything else.

 

[Egres]

The post right above yours, from me, contains the argument supporting it, and my vote was one of the "They are" votes.

?

I'll admit I can't see your point.

We are talking about normal unarmed strikes, not monk's unarmed strikes.

Do you consider a commoner unarmed strike a natural weapon?!?

For me, the heart of the issue does in fact come down to this rule: "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." The debate tends to be over "what is an effect" more than anything else.

Read above.