Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

...Personally, I'd say that iterative unarmed strikes are limited to classes like the Monk (which explicitly can) or the Kensai (who may potentially treat his fists like all other weapons), or to any PC with a Feat that explicitly allows iterative unarmed attacks, but I don't know of anything RAW that supports it.



...
SINCE:
1) Magic Fang explicitly calls the fist a natural weapon (a rule from the same book as the Monk description) and...

2) Given that the Kensai explicitly calls the fist of a human a natural weapon (from a book subsequent to the 3.5PHB, and thus, the more recent expression of the rules)

THEREFORE:

3) The clause that describes the Monk's unarmed attacks "both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon" is NOT adding the property of "natural weapon" to the Monk's unarmed attacks- the Monk's fists already ARE natural weapons as evidenced by 1 & 2 above. The clause is instead adding the property of "manufactured weapon" to the Monk's unarmed attacks.

...

I like it!! The PHB does seem to indicate that unarmed attacks work "much like melee weapons" and so get iterative attacks, but overall they really do seem to be sort of a "special case" natural weapon.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I like it!! The PHB does seem to indicate that unarmed attacks work "much like melee weapons" and so get iterative attacks, but overall they really do seem to be sort of a "special case" natural weapon.

Why does Power Attack refer to "unarmed strikes or natural weapons" if unarmed strikes are natural weapons?

Why do the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, which don't apply to natural weapons, explain how they work with unarmed strikes?

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Why does Power Attack refer to "unarmed strikes or natural weapons" if unarmed strikes are natural weapons?

Why do the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, which don't apply to natural weapons, explain how they work with unarmed strikes?

-Hyp.

Because unarmed attacks are a special case of natural attacks, that's why. The rules work really, really well (I think) if you think of unarmed attacks as a special case of natural attacks.

And because this area of the rules is not well done.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because unarmed attacks are a special case of natural attacks, that's why. The rules work really, really well (I think) if you think of unarmed attacks as a special case of natural attacks.

So they're like natural attacks that use the manufactured weapon rules for everything?

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

So they're like natural attacks that use the manufactured weapon rules for everything?

-Hyp.

No - they are simply weird and not as well-defined as they could have been. Sometimes they are called out as special, sometimes they are treated like other regular weapons, sometimes they are actually labeled as natural weapons.

Like I said, a poor area of the rules, in general.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons...

I must admit I had never noticed this before...it simply never came up.

Still, I'd have to side with Artoomis on this one- its a mess. Perhaps they did intend the unarmed strike of a humanoid to be a special subclass of natural attack and just didn't make it clear. (If this is so, I can sorta see some logic to it, but don't agree with it- it gets very tortured very fast.)

The indisputible fact remains: There are at least 2 sections in 3.5Ed WOTC books that explicitly designate fists as natural weapons.

Thus, the onus is upon YOU to show me why those perfectly clear blocks of texts are wrong in this.

 

[RigaMortus2]

That has a huge implication as noted by Hyp. You can make additional attacks with natural weapons as secondary weapons -- they do not inhibit your manufactured weapon attacks. So, if "knuckles", "headbutt", "right knee", "left knee", "hip check", etc. are all separate natural weapons, a 1st level fighter with a longsword suddenly gets a whole lot of additional attacks, all at -5 without using the TWF penalties.

Obviously, at least I hope it's obvious, that's not the case.

No, you misunderstood... I am saying unarmed (fists) WOULD count as natural weapons. But unarmed (knuckles) would NOT. Nor do unarmed (headbutt, knee, elbow, etc.).

 

[glass]

Because in that section, you are assuming that the primary weapon is NOT a natural weapon, but a mechanical one. If you are mixing mechanical weapons with natural, and the mechanical is in the primary hand, you treat the natural weapon as light: it is an unenhanced body part- the issues of skill, balance and reach with that weapon are negated by a literal lifetime of use.

You missed the point. Natural weapons are never off hand attacks, they are secondary natural attacks. Therefore, if unarmed strike were natural weapons, their being light would have no bearing and they would not be discussed in the TWF section in any case.

Note also that the Monk's attack penalty for Flurry of Blows (-2 for each attack in the flurry) is functionally identical to the penalty for fighting 2 weapon style with a light off-hand weapon (-2 for primary and off-hand) except that the Monk gets more attacks.

And it is also functionally identical to the penalty for being shaken (except that that penalty also applies to saves and damage rolls). Your point is?

Here we spot the animal known as the Raging Damifino!

What are you talking about?

Personally, I'd say that iterative unarmed strikes are limited to classes like the Monk (which explicitly can) or the Kensai (who may potentially treat his fists like all other weapons), or to any PC with a Feat that explicitly allows iterative unarmed attacks, but I don't know of anything RAW that supports it.

And you'd be wrong. From the SRD: [sblock]Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.[/sblock]Note that 'Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon'. And that it does not note any exceptions regarding iterative attacks. Note, also, that unarmed strikes are on the weapons table in the equipment chapter.

True- but the spell still defines a fist as a natural weapon.

It says fist can be natural weapons, which they can for creatures with slam attacks. It does not mean anyone who has fists has natural weapons.


glass.

 

[glass]

The indisputible fact remains: There are at least 2 sections in 3.5Ed WOTC books that explicitly designate fists as natural weapons.

Thus, the onus is upon YOU to show me why those perfectly clear blocks of texts are wrong in this.

They imply that fists can be natural weapons. They can: golem fists are, for example. However, unarmed strikes are not fists, they are not physically anything at all that you can point at, they are attacks using any (non-specified) part of the body.

As for CW saying that human fists are natural weapons. I don't have my copy with me, but if it does in fact say that it is wrong. It contradicts the PHB, which is the primary source.


glass.

 

[FoxWander]

Where does that 'before' come from?

Look at the Magic Fang example again. The target is 'living creature touched'. Notice, no natural weapons are required to be the target of the spell. The spell is cast, and comes into effect - its effect is to enhance a natural weapon. The effect exists - is there a natural weapon to which it can apply? For a monk, for the purposes of that effect, the answer is yes.

For the feat example, the monk wants to take the feat. Until he does so, there is no effect that improves natural weapons to be considered. A feat not taken is like a spell not cast - nothing.

Unlike Magic Fang, which can be cast regardless of the existence of natural weapons, INA cannot be taken by someone who does not have a natural weapon. Because there is no effect that improves natural weapons to be considered - a feat not taken is no effect at all - NWE doesn't come into play.

For the lizardman monk, the answer is different. He has a natural weapon, so he can take the feat. He has the feat. The feat is in play, and now has an effect - to improve a natural weapon. Since for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons, a monk's unarmed strikes count as such, that effect can apply to the lizardman's unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

I can give you one example where the "before" is implied. Something that we're all missing in all this talk about the monk's NWE- that they also have Manufactured Weapon Eqivalency. So here's Magic Weapon...

Magic Weapon
Transmutation
Level: Clr 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1, War 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Weapon touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)

Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

I take it that no one will argue that this spell cannot be cast on a Monk.

The target of the spell (it's "prerequisite" as you've argued before) is "Weapon touched". For this to be cast on a monk, his unarmed strike must be considered a [manufactured] weapon by one of two reasons...

1- it is a manufactured weapon (MW) because the spells effect will improve a MW, therefore the monk fulfills the "prerequisite" before the effect exists because of MWE (this has been my argument in regards to NWE and INA)

OR

2- it is always considered a MW, regardless of any "potential" effect, and therefore fulfills the "prerequisite" because it already is a valid target.

Of these, #2 is the one explicitly spelled out in the text of the spell. "A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell." This phrase is quite important because it actually refutes (and eliminates the need for) my own argument. A monk's unarmed strike is always considered a weapon, whether natural or manufactured, and thus can be enhanced by effects that enhance either.

So there you go, a human monk (with +4 BAB) CAN take INA, because he already meets the "natural weapon" prereq. Just like his unarmed strike is a valid target for Magic Weapon because it's already considered a [manufactured] weapon.



PS. - And just as a side note, Magic Weapon throws another kink in the growing 'just what in the heck is a natural weapon' argument with this bit- "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."