Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Cameron]

Sorry, Hyp, but the FAQ itself begs to differ. It is all well and good trying to split hairs and try to spin things your way (which you are very good at, btw, and at verbal misdirection and fogging up issues; take that as a compliment from one who loves to watch politicians and TV people do it), but the official ruling is that you can TWF unarmed strikes, which means that your individual fists can be different weapons.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Like the blink spell, the magic fang spell does not quite get some of it's references correct.

A fist is not a natural weapon unless you are a monk, in spite of the poor wording of the magic fang spell.

So to enhance the fighter's unarmed strike, do I use Magic Weapon, or Magic Fang?

Magic Weapon says "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang)." If the reference is wrong and unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon, does that mean that Magic Weapon is the right spell to cast on the Fighter, while Magic Fang will have no effect?

So you are saying if you buy two gauntlets (non-spiked), which per the RAW are sold individually and are considered regular unarmed strikes except the damage is lethal, you would not let someone use TWF to hit with the two gauntlets?

Right. They're still using one weapon; if they use their unarmed strike in the form of a punch, they'll deal lethal damage due to the gauntlets; if they use their unarmed strike in the form of a kick, they won't.

Sorry, Hyp, but the FAQ itself begs to differ.

It does that sometimes.

The FAQ seems to be inconsistent on this point. It goes to pains to explain that if you use a weapon in the flurry, you can't make an off-hand attack with it. But doesn't apply that same logic to unarmed strikes.

-Hyp.

 

[kigmatzomat]

So you are saying if you buy two gauntlets (non-spiked), which per the RAW are sold individually and are considered regular unarmed strikes except the damage is lethal, you would not let someone use TWF to hit with the two gauntlets?

Right. They're still using one weapon; if they use their unarmed strike in the form of a punch, they'll deal lethal damage due to the gauntlets; if they use their unarmed strike in the form of a kick, they won't.

How can you have one "weapon" but multiple "forms"? The only other thing in the rules that would match this are double weapons, which, by definition, can be used with two-weapon fighting.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How can you have one "weapon" but multiple "forms"? The only other thing in the rules that would match this are double weapons, which, by definition, can be used with two-weapon fighting.

I'd suggest that daggers, halberds, and scythes are another example of a single weapon that can be used in different ways - dealing piercing damage or slashing damage depending on how the weapon 'halberd', for example, is used.

In the case of the person wearing a gauntlet, we have a single weapon that can deal lethal or non-lethal damage depending on how the weapon 'unarmed strike' is used.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

So to enhance the fighter's unarmed strike, do I use Magic Weapon, or Magic Fang?

Rather than defend your position, you attack mine. And you try to play the question game with me. You know how I feel about that. I'll play along for now though.

Magic fang is used to enhance an unarmed strike, because the spell references it. The spell's creator clearly wanted it to work on fists, they just incorrectly referenced them as natural weapons. Just like the Kensai prestige class.

Unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons - You dont threaten, you provoke an AoO when you attack, you get iterative attacks, you don't do lethal damage, and you can't make an unarmed strike as a secondary attack in addition to your weapon attacks. None of these are qualities of natural weapons.

Unarmed strikes aren't manufactured weapons either - they aren't manufactured, they don't do lethal damage, etc.

The rules treat Unarmed strikes as a less effective cross between both manufactured weapons and natural weapons. Most spells and effects treat them as natural weapons by default, presumably because they are more similar to natural weapons than manufactured weapons.

However, because they use iterative attacks instead of "primary/secondary" attack forms like natural weapons (among other reasons), I think it is more correct to allow a non-monk PC to use the TWF rules with two different unarmed strikes. It can be fist+headbutt, fist+fist, Fist+elbow, fist+kick, etc.

It's not a clear cut section of the rules, but that interpretation seems the most fitting to me. Obviously you don't agree, but I'm ok with that.

 

[Cameron]

Right. They're still using one weapon; if they use their unarmed strike in the form of a punch, they'll deal lethal damage due to the gauntlets; if they use their unarmed strike in the form of a kick, they won't.
-Hyp.

Umm... You are contradicting yourself there, Hyp. By your definition of unarmed strike, it doesn't matter if it is a kick or a punch, a spiked *gauntlet* will make *all* your unarmed strikes lethal as it is the same weapon.

Which is it? Either it is the same weapon and the spiked gauntlet would make your kicks lethal, or it isn't and you can TWF with it. You can't have both.

Your choice.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

Umm... You are contradicting yourself there, Hyp. By your definition of unarmed strike, it doesn't matter if it is a kick or a punch, a spiked *gauntlet* will make *all* your unarmed strikes lethal as it is the same weapon.

Which is it? Either it is the same weapon and the spiked gauntlet would make your kicks lethal, or it isn't and you can TWF with it. You can't have both.

Your choice.

Only monks can explicitly make unarmed strikes with anything other than fists, I think. I think this is also why Monk gain a special ability called Unarmed Strike that encompasses IUS, not IUS. Nowhere does unarmed strike indicate you can kick with it.

 

[Caliban]

Only monks can explicitly make unarmed strikes with anything other than fists, I think. I think this is also why Monk gain a special ability called Unarmed Strike that encompasses IUS, not IUS. Nowhere does unarmed strike indicate you can kick with it.

Um, it says it in the first sentence of the Attack (unarmed) description in the Combat section...

Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

No reference to monks or any specific class.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

Um, it says it in the first sentence of the Attack (unarmed) description in the Combat section...

Ah, you're right, I was hasty. I only looked up the weapon entry for unarmed strike and the feat description for IUS.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah, you're right, I was hasty. I only looked up the weapon entry for unarmed strike and the feat description for IUS.

It's in the weapon entry for unarmed strike as well... but only in the PHB, not the SRD.

Umm... You are contradicting yourself there, Hyp. By your definition of unarmed strike, it doesn't matter if it is a kick or a punch, a spiked *gauntlet* will make *all* your unarmed strikes lethal as it is the same weapon.

Gauntlet, not spiked gauntlet.

I think the gauntlet makes your unarmed strike deal lethal damage... but not if you don't use it.

If you're kicking, you're attacking with an unarmed strike without using the gauntlet. If you're punching, you're attacking with an unarmed strike, using the gauntlet.

When the whip says "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack", there's an implicit 'with the whip' following 'you don't threaten'. If I'm using a whip and a shortsword, I still threaten with the shortsword, despite the whip stating "you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack".

Similarly, to me "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes" is applicable if you're actually using the gauntlet when you make your attack with unarmed strike.

-Hyp.