Are a commoner's (not monk's!) unarmed strikes natural weapons?

[Egres]

I heard that some people think that unarmed strikes (normal, not monk's 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.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My question - can a baboon, say, make an unarmed strike?

-Hyp.

 

[Seeten]

I choose not to believe that a monk's fist is demonstrably different than a commoner's fist, and thus I apply the rule that a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon to a commoner, to an aristrocrat, to a fighter with IUS, and to a Battle Dancer.

Thus my vote is the same, and my rules citation is still the monk.

Further reasoning, the reason this rule is listed under monk, imo, is the monk is the definitive unarmed combatant in the rules.

 

[Egres]

Further reasoning, the reason this rule is listed under monk, imo, is the monk is the definitive unarmed combatant in the rules.

So, you think that a commoner fights with his unarmed strikes like a monk?

Besides the Role PoV, I can't see any rules support to your point of view.

My question - can a baboon, say, make an unarmed strike?

Yes, of course.

Some peole will argue, however, that this doesn't mean that an unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon: in fact, they will say that they are just a different kind of natural weapons, that follow diferent rules.

 

[Mistwell]

So, you think that a commoner fights with his unarmed strikes like a monk?

Besides the Role PoV, I can't see any rules support to your point of view.

Is there rules support against that point of view?

 

[Seeten]

A Commoner's Fist *is* a natural weapon, via logic, it certainly isnt unnatural, and there is a rules precedent for it to be considered Natural, via the monk. If I dont consider it natural, I move next to manufactured, which it is decidedly not, and then from there, what am I left with?

Also, no, I dont think he fights like a monk any more than I think a commoner with a morning star fights like a fighter. I just think he uses the same weapon.

 

[Egres]

Is there rules support against that point of view?

From the SRD:

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. 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.

Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

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.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

If you'll find something similar for all the other classes, I'll agree with you: otherwise, I'll not buy that.

In fact, by your reasoning we could say that every class has Detect Evil at will, like a Paladin.

 

[Seeten]

Wait, does Improved Unarmed Strike say "You can only attack with your fist"? Let me go look that up...

 

[Egres]

A Commoner's Fist *is* a natural weapon, via logic, it certainly isnt unnatural, and there is a rules precedent for it to be considered Natural, via the monk.

Actually, a blank statement doesn't help this debate.

An unarmed strike doesn't need to be categorized either as a natural weapon or a manufactured one: is simply an unarmed strike, a subset of unarmed attacks.

What's the problem with that?

Besides that, the fact that the monk's unarmed strike acts in a special manner doesn't make the normal unarmed strike like it: heck, in fact you are making a class feature a general rule.

Poor monk: by your reasoning he fights with his unarmed strike just like any other!

 

[Seeten]

It does not. So, aside from the monk's class ability to do extra damage with unarmed strikes, my response is "Yes."