Unarmed Spring Attack?

[Infiniti2000]

But I think the RAW says that the other attacks are fine.

Spring Attack may explicitly mention melee weapon, but since the rules on unarmed attacks says they are much the same and lays out the exceptions, I believe that puts us right on the money.

Unarmed attacks are melee attacks, but you have yet to prove that they are melee weapons. I don't see how you can arbitrarily ignore the text that you agree is explicitly stated.

 

[billd91]

Unarmed attacks are melee attacks, but you have yet to prove that they are melee weapons. I don't see how you can arbitrarily ignore the text that you agree is explicitly stated.

So why is it that you are ignoring the following:
"Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:..."

SA says melee weapon and this passage says that unarmed attacks are like attacking with melee weapons. There's the connection. In the case of trip and disarm, it's true that you aren't striking for damage, but you are nevertheless still attacking with something defined above as being like a melee weapon with certain exceptions. And since sunder is still explicitlly striking for damage (though damage of an object rather than a creature) it's even more strongly implicated as being kosher.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So why is it that you are ignoring the following

I'm not. I've already stated that attacking with an unarmed strike is attacking with a melee weapon.

And since sunder is still explicitlly striking for damage (though damage of an object rather than a creature) it's even more strongly implicated as being kosher.

I agree, but note I never said sunder doesn't apply. Note that to sunder while unarmed, you have to use an unarmed strike because there are no other "unarmed attack" weapons.

In short, an "unarmed attack" is not a melee weapon. An unarmed strike (a type of unarmed attack), is.

 

[billd91]

In short, an "unarmed attack" is not a melee weapon. An unarmed strike (a type of unarmed attack), is.

I disagree (I would consider that interpretation overly pedantic) but I can see where you're coming from based on that rule interpretation.

 

[Infiniti2000]

How do you rule, then, in this situation? A monk receives a magic fang on his unarmed strike. Does the +1 apply to disarms, trips, and grapples? The disarm, trip, and grapple is not done with an unarmed strike, so no, right? But, by your previous argument, it would have to be in order to be consistent.

 

[pawsplay]

An unarmed strike is a weapon. See the weapon table in the PHB. It is not, however, an armed attack, unless you have IUS.

A grapple is probably not a weapon. Just by my reading, it appears to be a kind of melee attack that is not a weapon. And even if it were, lifting a heavy object, such as an unconscious person, is not an attack.

 

[billd91]

How do you rule, then, in this situation? A monk receives a magic fang on his unarmed strike. Does the +1 apply to disarms, trips, and grapples? The disarm, trip, and grapple is not done with an unarmed strike, so no, right? But, by your previous argument, it would have to be in order to be consistent.

Yes it would and I'm fine with that. As I see it, the monk gets magic fang put on one of his eligible body parts, all of which are covered under the same stats as "unarmed strikes", and gets that +1 to hit whenever he declares it's his enchanted part that's making the attacks. All other unarmed strikes he declares he's making with some other part of his body don't get the bonus.
It feels more in keeping with using magic fang on natural critters since you have to get their right claw, left claw, teeth, etc. individually. Otherwise, you get magic fang affecting the monk's whole body but not any other creature's whole body and that doesn't seem fair.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yes it would and I'm fine with that.

So, a monk/sorcerer could use greater magic weapon on his unarmed strike and apply that to his melee touch attack rolls with touch spells? Obviously, I don't agree but I am willing to leave it at that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The disarm, trip, and grapple is not done with an unarmed strike, so no, right?

Disarm is performed with a weapon; no reason that weapon can't be an unarmed strike.

Arguably, 'Grapple' is a weapon all of its own, since you must select a weapon to which to apply the Weapon Focus feat, and 'Grapple' is a valid choice. So you could theoretically Spring Attack, since you're taking the attack action with the weapon, 'Grapple', which can only be used against an opponent within your reach (and hence, a melee weapon).

However, moving into the opponent's space does not count as part of your movement for the round, so presumably it would not satisfy the 'must move at least five feet after the attack' requirement of Spring Attack; consequently, even if the grapple succeeded, you would have to forego Step 4 of the grappling process.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Disarm is performed with a weapon; no reason that weapon can't be an unarmed strike.

Sure.

Arguably, 'Grapple' is a weapon all of its own, since you must select a weapon to which to apply the Weapon Focus feat, and 'Grapple' is a valid choice.

Actually, I'd say that by that argument, grapple (and for that matter unarmed strike) is explicitly not a weapon. There would be no need to say "You can also choose..." if grapple were a weapon.