One thing I hope they fix/do better (wording)

[sirwmholder]

...a human monks fist not natural even though it is stated that it counts as both a natural and manufactured weapon...

That would be the problem in trying to sort this out logically... nothing can be itself and it's opposite at the same time... 9th Wizard Rule.

William Holder

 

[Brother MacLaren]

You're right that is what I'm going for because I've had the knock out drag down fights about how exactly is (for instance) a human monks fist not natural even though it is stated that it counts as both a natural and manufactured weapon. The sides won't meet and I've accepted that.

I'd look at it from a game balance point of view. Let's say that I'm the DM and in my world, with the types of challenges faced and the types of opponents faced, I think the monk is going to be very useful without Improved Natural Attack. I'd just tell the player "Well, it can be interpreted either way, so it's a judgment call. I don't think you're going to need that edge in this game, so I'm ruling against it."
If I thought my particular game was such that the monk would be underpowered, I'd tell the player, "Well, it can be interpreted either way, but I think the monk could do with a bit of a boost, so you can use the feat."

And that should be the end of it. The DM rules based on what is best for his game. No legalistic arguments about the wording. No appeals to what was printed in Sage Advice.

Similarly for the lance "1-handed or 2-handed" argument. If I want the visual of a cavalry charge to be knights with shields on the left arm and lances couched in the right, then I have to give the lance the benefit of a 2-handed weapon when used mounted in one hand. Otherwise, the standard visual is a much less effective manner of attack than carrying the lance in 2 hands. So in the interests of my game, I rule accordingly, and just ignore the semantic debates.

 

[RigaMortus2]

With everything being encounter based, the only thing I hope they definately define is what exactly an encounter is. When it starts, and when it ends. Something other than "this is up to your DM to decide".

 

[DreamChaser]

I don't see why you need to distinguish between natural and unarmed... aren't fists sort of a natural weapon for humans?

I think you're right Voss, Unarmed fighting will probably not be that supported in phb 1 (reserved for the monk, perhaps?)... Or maybe the unarmed strikes fit into one of the fighter weapon categories?

In 3x it is important. Natural attacks do not get iterative attacks and gain the benefit of strength based upon whether they are primary or secondary (vs. on / off hand).

Unarmed attacks are a form of melee attack that benefits from iterative attacks and are always considered "on hand" for purposes of strength bonus.

In 4e, this will be irrelevant as they have already indicated that iterative attacks are gone. Thus, the only real difference between unarmed attacks and natural attacks will be the attacker.

DC