"Unarmed" damage for natural weapons

[Hypersmurf]

But do the rules state explicitly anywhere that "unarmed" != "natural"?

An unarmed strike deals non-lethal damage. A natural weapon does not.

An unarmed strike provokes an AoO. A natural weapon does not.

An unarmed strike can be used with iterative attacks. A natural weapon cannot.

An unarmed strike can be part of a flurry of blows. A natural weapon cannot.

Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are completely separate entities.

-Hyp.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

But do the rules state explicitly anywhere that "unarmed" != "natural"? Why should, e.g., a giant eagle's talons do 1d6+4 lethal when attacking a PC but only 1d4 nonlethal when grappling a PC with those same talons?

Doesn't Str apply in either case?

In our last session, we had trouble hitting some skeletons. Unusually high AC for skeletons. Anyway, dire ape druid got tired of missing, so grappled and inflicted damage. By the RAW, this would be nonlethal damage, and would not affect undead. This would also be true for a bear form grapple that was not started with the Improved Grab via a normal claw attack.

Odd. You cannot crush a skeleton to powder in a grapple, no matter how big and strong you are. (Neither my DM nor I knew of this interpretation).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Odd. You cannot crush a skeleton to powder in a grapple, no matter how big and strong you are. (Neither my DM nor I knew of this interpretation).

Why, certainly you can.

"If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on your grapple check."

-Hyp.

 

[buzz]

An unarmed strike deals non-lethal damage. A natural weapon does not.

Except when the creature takes the -4 pealty to deal nonlethal damage, or whent he unarmed strike is an "improved" one or the user takes the -4 penalty to do lethal damage.

An unarmed strike provokes an AoO. A natural weapon does not.

Except when that unarmed strike is "improved".

An unarmed strike can be part of a flurry of blows. A natural weapon cannot.

Can you point me to where this is stated explicitly? I mean, if you can use those funky monk weapons with FoB, why not the claws that are growing out of your paws?

Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are completely separate entities.

In some rule instances, it seems so, but the logic of this still seems bizarre. I'm also still waiting for someone to cite me an actual rules passage that contradicts Skip's articles.

 

[dcollins]

I must admit, even though it's not explicit in the book, I also use Skip's interpretation that "unarmed strike = natural weapon attack" for creatures with natural weapons. Among other things, it makes it a bit simpler to just use the one damage statistic throughout combat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Except when the creature takes the -4 pealty to deal nonlethal damage, or whent he unarmed strike is an "improved" one or the user takes the -4 penalty to do lethal damage.

Certainly, but that just goes further to show the point - an unarmed strike is different to a natural weapon, and it requires special circumstances for them to share even basic functions.

Can you point me to where this is stated explicitly? I mean, if you can use those funky monk weapons with FoB, why not the claws that are growing out of your paws?

Because "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons." Natural weapons aren't listed.

Compare this to Power Attack: "You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks)."

You can add the bonus from Power Attack to 1. unarmed strikes, or 2. natural weapon attacks; you can flurry with 1. unarmed strikes, or 2. special monk weapons.

See how 'natural weapon attacks' are not one of the things allowable in a flurry?

I'm also still waiting for someone to cite me an actual rules passage that contradicts Skip's articles.

Well, nobody thought to make a note in the PHB that "If Skip attempts to change grapple mechanics in a future article, pay no attention." You won't find the rule contradicted explicitly, because he's adding an entirely new mechanic that didn't previously exist.

Whether or not it 'seems logical' that a monstrous spider without Improved Grab can use its bite damage for the 'Damage your Opponent' option, it's not supported by the rules.

Cite me an 'actual rules passage' that supports Skip's articles.

-Hyp.

 

[buzz]

Because "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons." Natural weapons aren't listed.

But how do I know that's not just because the description of the monk class is assuming a PC race is taking it?

Whether or not it 'seems logical' that a monstrous spider without Improved Grab can use its bite damage for the 'Damage your Opponent' option, it's not supported by the rules.

Based on the inferences you've made. AFAICT, the rules don't directly address this in any way. Ergo, when WOtC puts an article on it's site that says "this si how this would work", I tend to want to go with that.

Cite me an 'actual rules passage' that supports Skip's articles.

I can't. LIke I said, I can't find anything other than his column that directly addresses the issue. FWIW, I emailed the Sage, and will see what he says.

The main thing I'd like explained to me is how a creature with claws and fangs fights "unarmed".

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But how do I know that's not just because the description of the monk class is assuming a PC race is taking it?

It doesn't matter.

The main thing I'd like explained to me is how a creature with claws and fangs fights "unarmed".

In this case, the spider is *not* trying to bite whatever it's holding. It's trying to wrap its legs around it, squeezing it to death, and beating it on the floor. It does 1d8+Strength subdual damage.

If, instead, the spider wants to bite what it's holding, it can do that, too.

There is a list of actions you can take while grappling. Here are the two you need to read:

Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks.

You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons.

Damage Your Opponent: While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers). If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on your grapple check.

Exception: Monks deal more damage on an unarmed strike than other characters, and the damage is lethal. However, they can choose to deal their damage as nonlethal damage when grappling without taking the usual –4 penalty for changing lethal damage to nonlethal damage.

If the spider wants to bite, he uses the "Attack your Opponent" action. If he wants to wrestly, he uses the "Damage Your Opponent" action.

If he does the first, he takes a -4 penalty on his attack roll, and does normal bite damage. If he does the second, he makes a grapple check and does 1d8+Str subdual damage - unless he takes a -4 penalty, in which case he does normal damage.

The Sage, as it happens more often than not, is completely out to lunch.

 

[Len]

But how do I know that's not just because the description of the monk class is assuming a PC race is taking it?

Them's the only monk rules we got. In the absence of special rules for non-PC-race monks, we have to go by the regular rules.

The main thing I'd like explained to me is how a creature with claws and fangs fights "unarmed".

A cat does it by retracting its claws. I don't know a spider does it. In a grapple, maybe by squishing you with some of its legs.

 

[kjenks]

Caeleddin and Skip Williams have it wrong. Hypersmurf and Patryn have it right.

An unarmed strike deals non-lethal damage. A natural weapon does not.

An unarmed strike provokes an AoO. A natural weapon does not.

An unarmed strike can be used with iterative attacks. A natural weapon cannot.

An unarmed strike can be part of a flurry of blows. A natural weapon cannot.

Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are completely separate entities.

-Hyp.

Another difference: a sole natural weapon does 1.5x Str bonus on damage; an unarmed strike does not.

(And, guys, an unarmed strike usually inflicts "nonlethal" damage in 3.5e, not "subdual" -- that's SOOOO 3e!)