Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Deset Gled]

I believe the error in the FAQ was the assumption that a vampire's energy drain requires a Slam... rather than a Slam or any other natural attack he possesses.

I believe this is another case of the FAQ getting its editions screwed up (just like the incorrect answers on weapon sizing). In 3.0, the rule was "living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack suffer 2 negative levels."

 

[eamon]

You propose that since Flurry, unlike Haste, doesn't mention stacking, it should be possible. Rapid Shot also doesn't mention stacking. Do you believe that a two-weapon fighter with the Rapid Shot feat gains one extra ranged attack per round, or two - one with each hand?

Indeed not. If you view flurry as not an ability of an attack sequence but of an entire round (which in itself is still a vague concept for some multi-headed/brained creatures), it's not as unclear. In any case I was suggesting clearer wording, not that this should actually be possible ;-). TWF is odd enough...

 

[eamon]

First question - is unarmed strike a natural attack? It's debatable - and debated. I'm inclined to say no, despite implications in the Magic Weapon spell to the contrary. For example, a natural weapon gains 1.5x Str bonus to damage if its the only natural weapon the creature possesses. There are creatures with a single bite or gore attack who gain 1.5x... despite possessing an unarmed strike. If unarmed strike were a natural weapon, the bite or gore would not be the only one they possessed. (Along with such considerations as unarmed strike using iterative attacks, which natural weapons do not, and so on.)

I think you're right, and further, that any literal interpretation of the rules can only conclude that an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon in the strict sense of the word. However, my feeling is that the words "natural weapon" are often used where they mean "body-part used as a weapon". A natural weapon is a game term, and the latter is not. The monk text stating that the unarmed attack can sometimes be considered a natural weapon reflects that; namely that actually the difference between an unarmed strike and a natural weapon is smaller than it seems. They chose conservatively, stating that only for effect that improve a natural weapon is the monk's unarmed strike considered a natural weapon. That's unfortunate; as far as I can tell the goal is to have the unarmed strike be considered a manufactured weapon for the purposes of determining the number and type of attacks, and as both for all other purposes - which might just come down to the same thing; but might not. For instance, if a creature had a "repel living matter" spell which rendered it immune to being struck by natural weapons of living creatures, then this is clearly not an "enhancement" of said natural weapons, and the monks fists should not fall in that category (illogically). A spell which instead of improving the natural weapons, reduced their damage dealt by a bit (soften natural weapon, say) would also fall outside of a strict reading but within what I think is the spirit of the rule.

It seems that the point is that unarmed strikes are body-parts used as weapons but are not body-parts inherently suited to being weapons. It's just an unfortunate distinction (the distinction between unarmed strikes and natural weapons) - necessary, perhaps, because of the rules on iterative attacks, but unfortunate nontheless.

 

[Cameron]

Reasonable inference.

I'm applying reasonable inference rules in both cases, and disagreeing that the FAQ's reading - "There's no such thing as an off-hand attack" means "There's such a thing as an off-hand attack, but only if you use the off-hand attack rules" - can be reached through any reasonable inference.

-Hyp.

Define reasonable.

 

[Cameron]

Hey, Hyp. Still waiting for your answer on this one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hey, Hyp. Still waiting for your answer on this one.

Sorry - first I'd seen it.

In the same way that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is described - if a reasonable person could make the inference, it's a reasonable inference. If the inference couldn't be made by a reasonable person, it's not a reasonable inference.

It's my belief that a reasonable person can't infer the rule "There is such a thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, wherein half Str bonus is added to damage" from the rule "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes."

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

Sorry - first I'd seen it.

In the same way that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is described - if a reasonable person could make the inference, it's a reasonable inference. If the inference couldn't be made by a reasonable person, it's not a reasonable inference.

It's my belief that a reasonable person can't infer the rule "There is such a thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, wherein half Str bonus is added to damage" from the rule "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes."

-Hyp.

Really? Personally, I haven't yet been so arrogant as to consider my view the only reasonable one in the world. Which is why I think "reasonable" is anything but when it comes to hard and fast rules.


Which, by the way, was the point of my question: You cannot *prove* "reasonable".

 

[Hypersmurf]

Really? Personally, I haven't yet been so arrogant as to consider my view the only reasonable one in the world.

I don't think mine is the only reasonable one in the world; but I do think that the FAQ's isn't among them.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I don't think mine is the only reasonable one in the world; but I do think that the FAQ's isn't among them.

-Hyp.

Once again, you are trying to use a subjective, hand-waving rationale to solve an objective issue. That is simply not done. That is why I asked you to define "reasonable". You can't do so conclusively because it is a subjective thing. It is an impossible task.

However, like a good Kiwi, you do so anyway, because you believe that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation of anything. Typical, isn't it?

 

[Umbran]

However, like a good Kiwi, you do so anyway, because you believe that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation of anything. Typical, isn't it?

However, like a good poster on EN World, you want to step away from broad generalizations and suggestions that an individual holds an opinion because he's part of a particular group.

We have some rules around here about how people should address each other - they're supposed to be civil, polite, and respectful. It is well-proven that smilies will not save you from sounding snide, or from seeming to use nasty stereotypes. If it sounds bad without the smilies, it'll sound bad with them, too.

In general, you're talking to intelligent people. Treat them as such, and do not suggest that they are otherwise. To do less is less than civil. If you've got a question about this, please take it to e-mail with any of the mods - our addresses are in a thread stickied to the top of the Meta forum.