Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

One last question for the 'natural weapons = unarmed strikes' crowd:

Is a grapple a natural weapon? After all, you use your body, right?


glass.

"Grapple" is not a weapon, it's an attack action.

 

[Artoomis]

You are begging the question. Your argument that 'fist' is synonymous with 'unarmed strike' assumes it's own conculsion.

No, the second sentence above (from Magic Fang) clearly incudes unarmed strikes with natural weapons - regardless of whether "fist" is a natural weapon or not.

So do I, but where you have references to unarmed strikes in spells that direcctly contradict the primary source (either the combat chapter or the equipment chapter, take you pick), it isn't possible.

But I already showed how you CAN reconcile them by considering unarmed strike to be a sopecial case of natural weapons.

You won't be surprised to learn, I think you were right first time.


glass.

Yes, I know you think so. I think the way I look at it now if far more elegant. Really, it does not make all that much difference. All I'm really saying is that when it comes to enhancing natural weapons, unarmed attacks count in there, too - which is how the spells are written. Simple, eh?

 

[Infiniti2000]

"Grapple" is not a weapon, it's an attack action.

Is as much a weapon as a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon. You can take weapon focus (grapple).

 

[Artoomis]

Is as much a weapon as a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon. You can take weapon focus (grapple).

That's because grapple in another "special" thing. The rules specifically allow you to take weapon focus (grapple) but, despite that, it's clearly NOT a weapon.

Grapple is a "special attack" just like Aid Another, Bull Rudh, Charge, Disarnm, etc.

It just so happen that Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization let you choose grapple as if it were a weapon, but they are NOT referred to as weapons. So, it's special.

If you like, you could consider Grapple to be a weapon, but ONLY for weapon focus and weapon specialization feats. That's pretty clear.

A monk's unarmed strike is MUCH more like a weapon - but not quite the same as any other weapon. It's special - but it can be enhanced like a manufactured weapon or natural weapon (well, except for making it into a magic item).

 

[Lamoni]

One final Post to this thread...

Do human monks qualify for Improved Natural Attack? (or dwarves, halflings, etc.)

No, by the RAW 45
Yes, by the RAW 103

That's 70% vs 30%. If this was Who wants to be a Millionaire and they just polled the audience, going with the 103 would be a safe bet.

No, but I'd still allow it: 20
Yes, but I don't allow it: 9

Of those with house rules, more than 2/3 house rule in favor of it. So even if going with the audience above turned out to be a bad choice, it is the fault of the question makers. If it isn't the right answer, then the rules should be changed so that it is.

 

[Anubis]

Hypersmurf, you never did answer me about the Sage. Since when was Andy Collins the Sage? In the issues of Dragon I have, the author of that column is Skip Williams.

Oh, and about Weapon Focus, you can take Weapon Focus (ray) as well, and rays quite obviously aren't considered weapons. Weapon Focus can be applied to many things, not just weapons. It's applied to anything where an attack roll can be made.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Power Attack refers to 'natural weapons or unarmed strikes'. If they are the same thing, PA is wrong.

Actually, the language of PA is evidence of 1 of 3 options:

1) the "lawyer-speak" that I mentioned before- that is, listing all synonyms or near-synonyms in order to cover all of the bases.

2) evidence of the mentality that unarmed strikes are a special subset of natural weapons, so should be listed seperately.

3) unarmed strikes are a unique attack in the rules that are neither natural weapons NOR manufactured weapons.

EDIT: You have also studiously ignored the fact that elves, dwarves, halflings, etc (who all have unarmed strikes) are not listed as having any natural weapons in the MM. How do you reconcile that one?

See 2, above.

Besides, the MM entries don't even list the unarmed strike for any of those races, presumably because the unarmed strike is a weapon of last resort for most members of the species. By your logic, they don't have unarmed strikes, either.

Being intelligent, tool-using creatures, they would tend to use weapons first (because mechanical weapons typically have superior reach & damage as compared to their natural weapons).

They further assume that the creature will have X feat and Z weapon and armor and class. MM entries are typical exemplars of the species- they are not definitive or exclusive.

A subset or special case that follows none of the rules for natural weapons?

It does follow some...they are blunt damage and have an x2 crit modifier.

So do I, but where you have references to unarmed strikes in spells that direcctly contradict the primary source (either the combat chapter or the equipment chapter, take you pick), it isn't possible.

The equipment chapter of the PHB puts unarmed strikes on the weapons chart, and gives a description of what an unarmed strike is on p121. The description in no way contradicts the glossary definitions of natural weapons on p310.

The combat chapter of the PHB has the following to say:

"Effects that modify weapon damage apply to the unarmed strikes and the natural physical attacks of creatures" p134

It mentions things about unarmed attacks not threatening adjacent attacks and provoking AOOs unless IUC is involved p137

On p139, it distinguishes unarmed strikes from attacks with melee weapons, but NOT from natural weapons.

On p141-2, it talks about unarmed strikes and natural weapons in conjunction with touch attacks- but makes no game mechanical difference between the two, much like some books would say "he (or she)" when referring to a human being (instead of using one pronoun or the other) in an egalitarian fashion.

P146 has the rules for nonlethal damage, and repeatedly mentions unarmed strikes, but not natural weapons. Despite this, one would assume that even a natural weapon could deal nonlethal damage under the rules as mentioned in the section Nonlethal damage with a Weapon that deals Lethal Damage. (And having been bitten (gently) by wildlife, I can assure you that this is possible.)

P160 has the rules for 2 Weapon fighting (including an explicit mention of unarmed strikes), which as has been pointed out, differ from the rules for attacking with a weapon and a natural weapon.

No "bright line" delineates unarmed strikes from natural attacks here- its a mishmash.

Is as much a weapon as a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon. You can take weapon focus (grapple).

Grapple, despite being a potential focus for certain Weapon Feats, is NOT mentioned anywhere in the chapter, but is instead listed as a combat maneuver. Ergo- being mentioned in the equipment chapter is not dispositive of whether something is a weapon or not for the purpose of certain Feats.

Natural weapons do lethal damage, do not make iterative attacks, and are generally specialized for that purpose: claw, horn, hoof, fang.

Hooves are NOT specialized to do damage- they are designed to aid in running over hard ground, to aid the animal in cutting on dirt, etc. It is designed for motion, and the animal is pressing it into service for a weapon of last resort- that is, when the animal has no avenue of escape. The fact that a hoof is hard, relatively sharp, and attached to powerful muscles makes it ideal for propelling an animal over plains, broken land, etc...and also happens to make it dangerous.

Similarly, most animals (herbivores, at least) do not use their bite as a primary weapon- camoflage, excellent hearing, nearly 270+deg. fields of vision, and running away are their primary survival mechanisms. A bite, like the hoof, typically a weapon of last resort- adapting a tool that aids in eating to the task of defense or attack.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Let's say I'm a wizard, there is a monk and a mountain in front of me. I cast Magic Weapon. Now, if I touch the mountain the spell does nothing. The mountain is not a weapon and therefore cannot be affected by the spell- it is not a valid target.

Oh yeah? Tell that to a Titan!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hypersmurf, you never did answer me about the Sage. Since when was Andy Collins the Sage? In the issues of Dragon I have, the author of that column is Skip Williams.

Some months now.

From the Rules of the Game articles:

About the Author
Skip Williams keeps busy with freelance projects for several different game companies and was the Sage of Dragon Magazine for many years.

From andycollins.net:

Andy Collins works as a roleplaying game developer for Wizards of the Coast. He's also the official "Sage," answering D&D rules questions every month in the pages of Dragon Magazine.

-Hyp.

 

[glass]

"Grapple" is not a weapon, it's an attack action.

Exactly, just like unarmed strike!


glass.