Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[glass]

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.

No they don't have unarmed strikes, they can use unarmed strikes, just like any other creature that can move.

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

Like a club, and unlike a claw?

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.

Except by being in the 'equipment' chapter, you mean?

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

Again, indicating that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are separate things.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

...Again, indicating that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are separate things.


glass.

And, once again, those on my side of the argument understand all of that and ALSO understand that, in mutliple places within core rules and beyond, that unarmed attacks are sometimes referred to as natural weapons.

If you think of unarmed weapons as natural weapons only for the purpose of enhancing (and penalyzing, I suppose) through spells, feats, etc., it works very well.

A sort of "special category" of natural weapons.

When though of this way, ALL the rules work and one does not need to toss out the references of unarmed attaclks as natural weapons.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Me
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

Glass
Again, indicating that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are separate things.

No. It does not eliminate the possibility that the drafter of that section considered unarmed strikes to be a kind of natural weapon.

For example, when a lawyer drafts a document that refers to "natural heirs, children, decendants, and..." he isn't saying that those are seperate things. "Children" are a subset of "Descendants" (which can include grandchildren, etc.) and both are a subset of "natural heirs" which can include many blood relatives (like uncles, parents, grandparents, and cousins) depending on who died when.
+++

Glass
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?

Me
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.

Glass
No they don't have unarmed strikes, they can use unarmed strikes, just like any other creature that can move.

The MM is, at best, inconsistent.

Traditional (Core) PC races only have weapon attacks listed in their stat blocks. The Centaur only gets use hooves during a full attack.

Among giantkind, Ogres and Ettins (listed INT 6) have only weapon stats, but meanwhile all of the standard Giants (who are smarter & more civilized) have natural attacks AND weapons listed in their stat block.

Djinni & Efreeti (who are depicted with falchions) only have slam attacks listed, but Janni have only weapon attacks listed. Doppelgangers also have only natural attacks listed, even though the description clearly states they use weapons when disguised.

Balors list natural attacks & weapons, but pit fiends do not - though both creature descriptions make note of the use of weapons.

None of them- all presumably "creatures that can move" - has an unarmed strike listed.

 

[Caliban]

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.

Then you haven't bought Dragon magazine in about a year. Dragon # 323 is when Andy Collins took over the column.

 

[Caliban]

If you think of unarmed weapons as natural weapons only for the purpose of enhancing (and penalyzing, I suppose) through spells, feats, etc., it works very well.

A sort of "special category" of natural weapons.

When though of this way, ALL the rules work and one does not need to toss out the references of unarmed attaclks as natural weapons.

I think this is probably the best way to handle it, but it's not some thing that is actually stated in the rules anywhere. You are creating a new rule to correct inconsistencies in the text (which is what an intelligent DM does).

The fact is that the rules treat unarmed strike inconsistently, depending on the viewpoint of whoever authored that section of the rules, that feat, or that Prc. For whatever reason, these inconsistencies have never been caught in editing or errata.

This is one of those cases where "designer intent" appears to be in conflict with itself.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Me
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.

Glass
Except by being in the 'equipment' chapter, you mean?

Last I checked, no PC has to buy or find fists, can buy or find extra ones that will just attach (Hand of Vecna aside), list fists on encumberance, or risks accidentally misplacing them/having them stolen in normal game play.

In no meaninful sense are unarmed attacks equipment.

If you have to stretch THAT far, you're really distorting the rules to justify your viewpoint.

 

[glass]

In no meaninful sense are unarmed attacks equipment. If you have to stretch THAT far, you're really distorting the rules to justify your viewpoint.

I didn't put them in the Equipment chapter, the designers did.

Why did they do this? Because in everyway that an unarmed strike is considered a weapon at all, it is considered a manufactured weapon! No distortion required.


glass.

 

[glass]

None of them- all presumably "creatures that can move" - has an unarmed strike listed.

Well if I'm right, they wouldn't would they? They list natural weapons, and/or most commonly used manufactured weapons. Since unarmed strike is neither, it is not listed.

Of course, if unarmed strike were a natural weapon, it would be listed for every creature. This is the biggest single piece of evidence against the 'unamarmed strike are natural weapons' camp.

While we are on the MM, also note that some creatures get x1.5 Str bonus because they only have one natural weapon. Only, if unarmed strike is a natural weapon, then they don't only have one!


glass.

 

[glass]

If you think of unarmed weapons as natural weapons only for the purpose of enhancing (and penalyzing, I suppose) through spells, feats, etc., it works very well.

You realise that if you have to 'think of them as natural weapons' for certain purposes, then they are not actually natural weapons, right? Are you coming over to our side of the argument?


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

You realise that if you have to 'think of them as natural weapons' for certain purposes, then they are not actually natural weapons, right? Are you coming over to our side of the argument?


glass.

Not really, no.

Unarmed attacks are natural weapons with most of the properties of manufactured weapons - that is, a special category.

It's weird, but it's the only way to make ALL the rules work together and it works just fine.