Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Hypersmurf]

Anyways, I am inclined to believe that an unarmed strike might have iterative attacks due to monks having it.

So if an unarmed strike can make iterative attacks, and
Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons, and
The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon,

doesn't that suggest that the weapon used to make iterative attacks, unarmed strike, is not a natural weapon, and thus not a fist?

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

So if an unarmed strike can make iterative attacks, and
Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons, and
The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon,

doesn't that suggest that the weapon used to make iterative attacks, unarmed strike, is not a natural weapon, and thus not a fist?

-Hyp.

No. It means that the rules do not consider it a natural weapon, and that it is not treated as a natural weapon in terms of iterative attacks. However, I fail to see how this has got to do with the idea that you cannot use natural attacks after a Flurry. Unless you are now trying to categorise unarmed strikes as natural weapons, and thus we can Flurry with natural attacks after all?

 

[Hypersmurf]

No. It means that the rules do not consider it a natural weapon, and that it is not treated as a natural weapon in terms of iterative attacks. However, I fail to see how this has got to do with the idea that you cannot use natural attacks after a Flurry. Unless you are now trying to categorise unarmed strikes as natural weapons, and thus we can Flurry with natural attacks after all?

I don't consider unarmed strike a natural weapon. But whether or not I do, I have no problem with the idea of Flurrying with a natural attack... as long as that natural attack is an unarmed strike or special monk weapon. If we define an unarmed strike as a natural weapon, then it is a natural weapon which is an unarmed strike or special monk weapon, and thus there's no conflict with Flurry. But that wouldn't mean that you could use a bite along with a Flurry, since bite is a natural weapon which is not an unarmed strike or special monk weapon.

As for what that last post referred to, it was aimed at the idea that the weapon a monk attacks with is 'unarmed strike', not 'fist', or 'two fists', or 'two fists and a knee'. Whether he makes three right jabs, or a right jab/left cross/wheel kick, or headbutt/headbutt/uppercut, the weapon he uses in all cases is 'unarmed strike', three times.

-hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I don't consider unarmed strike a natural weapon. But whether or not I do, I have no problem with the idea of Flurrying with a natural attack... as long as that natural attack is an unarmed strike or special monk weapon. If we define an unarmed strike as a natural weapon, then it is a natural weapon which is an unarmed strike or special monk weapon, and thus there's no conflict with Flurry. But that wouldn't mean that you could use a bite along with a Flurry, since bite is a natural weapon which is not an unarmed strike or special monk weapon.

As for what that last post referred to, it was aimed at the idea that the weapon a monk attacks with is 'unarmed strike', not 'fist', or 'two fists', or 'two fists and a knee'. Whether he makes three right jabs, or a right jab/left cross/wheel kick, or headbutt/headbutt/uppercut, the weapon he uses in all cases is 'unarmed strike', three times.

-hyp.

Perhaps. But a longsword is a longsword is a longsword. If you can wield two longswords, why can't you wield two unarmed strikes, both of which happened to be different fists? Just because an item is a member of a set doesn't mean that you must use the entire set to bludgeon someone. You can use different members as discrete items.

Remember, a donkey is an ass, but an ass is not always a donkey (or something to that effect...).

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you can wield two longswords, why can't you wield two unarmed strikes, both of which happened to be different fists?

The fist isn't the weapon.

We don't consider the blade and the point of my dagger to be two separate weapons. Whether I stab with the point or slash with the blade, there's only one dagger.

Whether I punch with a fist or kick with a foot, I'm still using my unarmed strike - the unarmed strike is the weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Einolf]

The fist isn't the weapon.

We don't consider the blade and the point of my dagger to be two separate weapons. Whether I stab with the point or slash with the blade, there's only one dagger.

Whether I punch with a fist or kick with a foot, I'm still using my unarmed strike - the unarmed strike is the weapon.

-Hyp.

(I'm gonna get verbally pummeled here probably . . .)

Aren't you comparing different things? The blade and point of the dagger ARE one weapon. Just like a RIGHT-HANDED punch, elbow, or shoulder. But, if you have a second dagger in another hand, that's a second weapon, like your LEFT-HANDED punch, elbow or shoulder.

P.S. I'm probably just fighting for this because I'm currently playing a monk.

 

[SadisticFishing]

All of you is part of your unarmed strike.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Aren't you comparing different things? The blade and point of the dagger ARE one weapon. Just like a RIGHT-HANDED punch, elbow, or shoulder. But, if you have a second dagger in another hand, that's a second weapon, like your LEFT-HANDED punch, elbow or shoulder.

I'd say if I have one dwarf, he has one unarmed strike. But if I have a second dwarf, he has a second unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

doesn't that suggest that the weapon used to make iterative attacks, unarmed strike, is not a natural weapon, and thus not a fist?

-Hyp.

Do you use the blink spell to tell you how incorporeal and ethereal states work? Or do you use the actual rules in the DMG on those two things? I personally don't use spells to tell me the basic rules of the game, I use the appropriate section of the rules.

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. (

Natural weapons are generally things like claws, horns, hooves.

If a creature can use their bare fist (or whatever) as a natural weapon then they get a Slam attack. No PC race in the PHB get's a slam attack.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Punching with both hands would use iterative attacks, not TWF. Unless you were using another weapon in addition.

-Hyp.

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?

The alternative is that if someone buys a single gauntlet for the left hand but is holding something in said left hand, they would be able to make an unarmed strike with any other part of the body and still doing lethal damage because the gauntlet "lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes" and a person has but the one unarmed strike in your opinion.