DR bypassing weapons

[AnthonyJ]

I believe a Golem's Slam attacks count as Natural Weapons.

And this is relevant because? Presumably a cold iron golem would have the special quality of 'strikes as a cold iron weapn'.

 

[Camarath]

And this is relevant because? Presumably a cold iron golem would have the special quality of 'strikes as a cold iron weapn'.

Silvered Weapon, Touch of Adamantine, and Align Weapon spells do not work on Natural Weapons. I thought you were responing to my post (the one directly above yours) in some manner but I was probably mistaken.

 

[the Jester]

Way, way back, an old Dragon described 'silveriron' weapons- a magical property that combined silver and cold iron. It was an article on low-level, barely magic weapons; but nowadays I'd say it's an alchemical process that's very expensive (since cold iron and silver are much more important than they were in the 1e days when this came out).

 

[The Little Raven]

Explains what a monks unarmed strike is no mention of using natural attacks or natural attack damage in any form.

Natural weapons are defined as a creature's body part that deals damage in combat. A monk's fist (elbow, head, knee, foot, etc.) is (A) a body part and (B) able to deal damage. Thus, it is a natural weapon.

States that natural physical weapons and Improved Unarmed Strike are different froms of "armed” unarmed attacks implying a distinction.

But only for the purposes of being considered armed... which means not provoking attacks of opportunity. That's the only difference between the two.

Weapon entry also makes no mention of using natural attack damage.

The weapon entry chart lists the unarmed damage for a Small or Medium creature, which means that it lists the natural attack damage for those creatures.

Also unarmed strikes use the attack rules for Manufactured Weapons rather than the rules for Natural Weapons. And allowing Natural Weapons to be used as Unarmed Strikes would allow full iterative attacks with any natural weapons as unarmed strikes plus the use of all natural weapons at -5 as secondary natural weapons.

Maybe you should read a little more carefully. A monk's unarmed strike can be enhanced by effects that enhance natural weapons AND manufactured weapons. Magic fang can be used on any character's unarmed strike, as it is a natural weapon. However, magic weapon can only be placed on a monk's unarmed strike.

The rules don't state that I can not use Intimidate to cause my opponent to have a heart attack and die but that does not mean that I can do so (outside of a house rule). The absence of a provision in the rules expressly forbidding an action does not mean that the rules allow that action. As far as I can see nothing in the rules would allow or seem to alllow you to use your natural weapon damage when making an unarmed strike so by default the rules do not allow it. I may have missed a rule that allows one to do as you are suggesting but I have not been able to find it.

Unarmed Attack = Natural Weapon. PERIOD. Simple. A Medium character's natural attack damage is 1d3 without any sort of improvement. His natural weapon is not a bite, slam, claw, or tail... it's an unarmed strike.

 

[Caliban]

Explains what a monks unarmed strike is no mention of using natural attacks or natural attack damage in any form.
Also no mention of using natural attacks or natural attack damage in any form.
States that natural physical weapons and Improved Unarmed Strike are different froms of "armed” unarmed attacks implying a distinction.
Weapon entry also makes no mention of using natural attack damage.
[/b]

Exactly. The rules don't discuss it one way or the other.

Also unarmed strikes use the attack rules for Manufactured Weapons rather than the rules for Natural Weapons.

Not really relevent to the question, IMO. We are discussing damage, not attack routines.

And allowing Natural Weapons to be used as Unarmed Strikes would allow full iterative attacks with any natural weapons as unarmed strikes plus the use of all natural weapons at -5 as secondary natural weapons.

Err, no. It would allow the use one of the PRIMARY natural weapons as iterative attacks, with any secondary natural weapons being used as normal at a -5. This is covered in the MM under combinging manufactured weapons and natural weapon attacks.

So if you have 2 claw (or 6 tentacles, or whatever) as your primary attack, you would give up all of those for the monk interative attack rate, plus flurry. Any secondary natural weapons would be used as normal, and any extra primary attacks would be lost as you can't combine flurry of blows with TWF or Multi-weapon fighting.

But again, we were discussing damage, not attack routines, so that's not really germaine to the issue at hand.

The rules don't state that I can not use Intimidate to cause my opponent to have a heart attack and die but that does not mean that I can do so (outside of a house rule). The absence of a provision in the rules expressly forbidding an action does not mean that the rules allow that action.

It doesn't mean they disallow it either, if it's a reasonable extension of the existing rules, but is not covered by them. Your example is not a reasonable extension of the existing rules (except possibly in an epic game).

As far as I can see nothing in the rules would allow or seem to alllow you to use your natural weapon damage when making an unarmed strike so by default the rules do not allow it.

I disagree. By default the rules simply do not cover the situation. That does not mean it is not allowed, if it can reasonably extrapolated from the existing rules.

I may have missed a rule that allows one to do as you are suggesting but I have not been able to find it.

There is also no rule that disallows it. It's simply not covered. So we look at what seems reasonable and what seems balanced.

It doesn't seem reasonable that a creature with natural weapons who becomes a monk simply cannot use those weapons when making monk attacks. (There are many martial arts that are based on mimicing natural attack forms, after all.)

It doesn't seem balanced that you would get a bonus on damage, or add the damage together, so we don't do that.

It does seem reasonable that you could make your monk unarmed strike with your natural weapons if you have them, just as a monk without natural weapons can use the monk special weapons as if they were unarmed strikes.

In most cases, 1st level monk unarmed strike damage is equivalent to the natural weapon damage for a creature of the same size.

So the only real benefit is being able to do (S/B/P) damage without using a monk special weapon. Hardly seems unbalanced or unreasonable, especially since a PC monk with natural weapons will usually be an ECL + race.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unarmed Attack = Natural Weapon. PERIOD. Simple.

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.

A character making a melee attack with an unarmed strike is not considered armed.

A character making a melee attack with an unarmed strike does provoke attacks of opportunity.

A character does not threaten any space it can reach with an unarmed strike.

Characters do receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using unarmed strikes.

Unarmed striked are, however, weapons that are physically part of a creature.

One out of five ain't bad, right?

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Exactly. The rules don't discuss it one way or the other.

The rules explain how to use an Unarmed Strike. What you are suggesting has no part in the ability as it appears in the rules that means that you would need to add to it to allow what you are suggesting.

Err, no. It would allow the use one of the PRIMARY natural weapons as iterative attacks, with any secondary natural weapons being used as normal at a -5. This is covered in the MM under combinging manufactured weapons and natural weapon attacks.

So if you have 2 claw (or 6 tentacles, or whatever) as your primary attack, you would give up all of those for the monk interative attack rate, plus flurry. Any secondary natural weapons would be used as normal, and any extra primary attacks would be lost as you can't combine flurry of blows with TWF or Multi-weapon fighting.

But again, we were discussing damage, not attack routines, so that's not really germaine to the issue at hand.

Are you saying that one could only use one's primary natural attack weapon with an Unarmed Strike? Why? I thought you said that you could use any natural attack with an Unarmed Strike. Why would the normal "any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks" clause not apply since Unarmed Strikes clearly uses the manufactured weapons attack rules? Why would you not get to make all your Unamred Strike attacks as your manufactured weapon using any natural weapon or combination of natural weapons you wished and then add all of your usable natural weapons as secondary natural attacks?

Also since you brought balance and resonableness into this discussion it seems to me that the potential impact of your assertion is indeed quite germane.

It doesn't mean they disallow it either, if it's a reasonable extension of the existing rules, but is not covered by them. Your example is not a reasonable extension of the existing rules (except possibly in an epic game).

You believe your extension is resonable. If I believed my extension was resonable I would have just as much rule support as you do.

I disagree. By default the rules simply do not cover the situation. That does not mean it is not allowed, if it can reasonably extrapolated from the existing rules.

I do not agree that it can be reasonably extrapolated from the existing rules.

There is also no rule that disallows it. It's simply not covered. So we look at what seems reasonable and what seems balanced.

I believe that if you want to allow something not covered in the rules that would be a house rule. There is nothing wrong with making house rule (I use quite a few of them my self). But to say that the rules allow something because they do not disallow it, is in my opinion misguided. The rules allow what they say they allow.

It doesn't seem reasonable that a creature with natural weapons who becomes a monk simply cannot use those weapons when making monk attacks. (There are many martial arts that are based on mimicing natural attack forms, after all.)

It doesn't seem balanced that you would get a bonus on damage, or add the damage together, so we don't do that.

It does seem reasonable that you could make your monk unarmed strike with your natural weapons if you have them, just as a monk without natural weapons can use the monk special weapons as if they were unarmed strikes.

In most cases, 1st level monk unarmed strike damage is equivalent to the natural weapon damage for a creature of the same size.

So the only real benefit is being able to do (S/B/P) damage without using a monk special weapon. Hardly seems unbalanced or unreasonable, especially since a PC monk with natural weapons will usually be an ECL + race.

I agree it does not seem that unresonable but that does not mean that it is allowed in the rules.

 

[Camarath]

Natural weapons are defined as a creature's body part that deals damage in combat. A monk's fist (elbow, head, knee, foot, etc.) is (A) a body part and (B) able to deal damage. Thus, it is a natural weapon.

But only for the purposes of being considered armed... which means not provoking attacks of opportunity. That's the only difference between the two.

The weapon entry chart lists the unarmed damage for a Small or Medium creature, which means that it lists the natural attack damage for those creatures.

Maybe you should read a little more carefully. A monk's unarmed strike can be enhanced by effects that enhance natural weapons AND manufactured weapons. Magic fang can be used on any character's unarmed strike, as it is a natural weapon. However, magic weapon can only be placed on a monk's unarmed strike.

Unarmed Attack = Natural Weapon. PERIOD. Simple. A Medium character's natural attack damage is 1d3 without any sort of improvement. His natural weapon is not a bite, slam, claw, or tail... it's an unarmed strike.

An Unarmed Attack not the same thing as a Unarmed Strike. An Unarmed Attack is "a melee attack with no weapons in the hand" and an Unarmed Strike is "a successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons."(glossary). An Unarmed Strike is an kind of Unarmed Attack, as is an attack with a natural weapon, but a Unarmed Attack is not necessarily a Unarmed Strike. It appears (from the attacking with out weapons quote) to me that when making an Unarmed Strike you do not use a weapon of any kind (natural or manufactured) because how can you attack without weapons if you consider Unarmed Strike its self to be a weapon (natural). I believe a monk can use and enhance his body as a weapon but it does not actually count as a weapon. I would find it very odd indeed for an Unarmed Strike to be a natural weapon when it does not follow the rules for attacks with natural weapons (US uses manufactured weapon rules for attacks) and has no stated exemption from those rules.

 

[Caliban]

I agree it does not seem that unresonable but that does not mean that it is allowed in the rules.

Make up your mind. First you say it's not a reasonable extrapolation from the existing rules, then you say it sounds reasonable.

If it's reasonable, and doesn't seem unbalanced, why are you argueing about it?

It sounds like you are argueing just for the sake of argueing.

*shrug* Have fun nitpicking. I'm done wasting my time on this.

 

[Camarath]

Then why are you bitching about it? Jeez.

You don't sound like much fun to game with.

You sound like you were not enjoying our exploration of the rules.
For me there is a big gap between the rules as they are written and the rules as I use them ingame. I try to interpt the rules strictly and literally, if I can, and then if I don't like were that takes me I just make house rules. This particular point is not really that important to me, other then as point of temporary interest and contention. I just like to debate the rules, especially in rule forums. To some extent debating the rules is a game in and of itself IMO. If you don't want to debate this any more I understand.