Is a natural attack the same as an unarmed attack?


Rules Questions


I came across a thread that stated natural attacks are not the same as unarmed attacks. Is that so? I know in the rulebook on pg 182 it describes them both but on table 8-2 under standard actions, it lists attack (melee), attack (ranged), and attack (unarmed),but no attack (natural). Are natural attacks melee or unarmed?? Could you please document your answer??


No they are not, nat attacks cout as claws, bites,gores and slames. May be a few more fists do not count


morningsunshine wrote:
I came across a thread that stated natural attacks are not the same as unarmed attacks. Is that so? I know in the rulebook on pg 182 it describes them both but on table 8-2 under standard actions, it lists attack (melee), attack (ranged), and attack (unarmed),but no attack (natural). Are natural attacks melee or unarmed?? Could you please document your answer??

Natural attacks are armed attacks. A creature without natural attacks can make only unarmed attack (unless attacking with a weapon of course).

See the entry of natural attacks in the bestiary monster universal rules.


Natural attacks are armed attacks. A creature without natural attacks can make only unarmed attack (unless attacking with a weapon of course).
See the entry of natural attacks in the bestiary monster universal rules.

I looked up where you suggested and on page 301 of the bestiary it says:"Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon)." Then on the next page it says about "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons.....(....must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched....)." But then a couple paragraphs down it says "some fey, humanoids,.....do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses...." So.... if you put all of this together, natural attacks would be considered melee attacks for the purposes of table 8-2 in the core rulebook? That would mean sorcerers with claws and wild shaped druids would also be making melee and not unarmed attacks??


Melee attacks are all attacks that aren't ranged. IE: you hit something close-up.

There are four melee attacks:
Melee weapon attacks
Natural attacks
Unarmed strikes
Touch attacks

Melee weapons are swords and maces. These are sometimes called 'manufactured melee weapons' to reinforce the point that they are a tool rather than something else. You need a hand or something and you smack your enemy with it.

Natural attacks are part of the creature's anatomy and are particularly suited to damage and attack other creatures. These include horns, long claws, tough hooves, and so on. These can be just as dangerous, and sometimes more dangerous, than manufactured melee weapons.

Unarmed strikes are melee attacks made using parts of the body not particularly suited to attacking, like a human fist, knee, foot, head butt, and so on. Because these attacks aren't really good in combat, they have drawbacks (unless you have powerful training: IE: monk)
Any creature can make an unarmed strike, but if the creature has natural attacks or manufactured weapons, those are likely to be better choices.

A creature can have a limb that can both hold a weapon and has a natural attack. Lizardfolk, for example, have hands with long claws on them. If they want to claw their enemies with both claws, the hands have to be empty. Alternately, a lizardfolk can hold a longsword in one hand, but looses the ability to claw with that hand.

The lizardfolk could also kick someone or head butt them or whatnot as an unarmed strike, but there's no real point to it.

Touch attacks are a special case where all you need to do is touch your opponent.
Touch attacks come up when you have a touch-range spell or supernatural effect, or possibly some kind of contact poison.
This is treated like an unarmed strike but with fewer drawbacks, because you don't have to imbalance yourself so much to make the attack. It also ignores armor, because you just need contact with SOMETHING.


morningsunshine wrote:
That would mean sorcerers with claws and wild shaped druids would also be making melee and not unarmed attacks??

Yes.

Unarmed strikes are basically the "natural weapons" of PC races, but they don't count as "armed" and thus provoke attacks of opportunity. Improved Unarmed Strike gets around that of course.

Monks at least consider their unarmed strikes as both natural and manufactured weapons for things like "magic weapon" and "magic fang" spells, etc. They do not count as natural weapons for the Improved Natural Attack feat though (this was stated to be included in a future errata).


morningsunshine wrote:
I looked up where you suggested and on page 301 of the bestiary it says:"Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon)."

Meaning that they have claws or fangs or something. Basically, they have a natural weapon, but the game does not use that term, rather calling it a "natural attack".

morningsunshine wrote:
Then on the next page it says about "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons.....(....must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched....)."

Because if you're holding a sword or axe in your hand you can't use your claws/talons to attack, but must use the weapon you're holding instead.

morningsunshine wrote:
But then a couple paragraphs down it says "some fey, humanoids,.....do not possess natural attacks.

Because they don't have claws (though sometimes my girlfriend's nails can get vicious when she's mad).

Humans and many demi-human beings lack claws/nails long enough to do more than cause a surface scratch, lack fangs/teeth/snouts large enough to bite you without putting themselves at-risk and so forth. Hence, no "natural attack".

There is a great scene in T.H. White's Once and Future King where he discusses this, when all animals chose their form and "natural weapons" at the beginning of time, but mankind decided to forego having any, instead keeping the same basic and generic embryonic form they initially possessed, so God gave them wisdom and intelligence instead.

morningsunshine wrote:
These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses...."

Creatures with Natural Weapons use different attack bonuses for primary and secondary attacks, generally do not suffer off-hand penalties and so forth.

For example, a creature with attacks of Claw/Claw/Bite (or 2 Claws plus Bite) makes three (3) attacks in a melee round on a Full Attack action, but doesn't need a BAB of +11 to do so like a Character would. Because these are natural attacks rather than iterative attacks they do not suffer the -5 BAB per consecutive attack penalty a character would. Also, the creature does not have to designate an "off-claw" but instead attacks with both claws using the same bonuses. It only needs to designate whether the Claws or the Bite are its primary vs. secondary attack form (this is the natural attack corollary to "off-hand", but without the heavy penalties).

However, if you don't have natural attacks and are instead using your fists, then they get treated like weapons. I might have two fists and a big mouth, but I don't get an attack routine of "2 Fists & Kiddie-Bite" because they are unarmed attacks rather than natural attacks. As such, they are resolved as if they were melee weapon attacks with the normal rules for BAB, iterative attacks, off-hand attacks and so forth, with the caveat that unless I have the Improved Unarmed Fighting feat they also provoke Attacks of Opportunity.

morningsunshine wrote:
So.... if you put all of this together, natural attacks would be considered melee attacks for the purposes of table 8-2 in the core rulebook?

Yes.

Note that "Deliver a Touch Spell" is not on the list, however any creature holding the charge of a touch spell is considered "armed" for the purposes of provoking AoOs. Casting the spell may still provoke an AoO, but delivering it does not.

morningsunshine wrote:
That would mean sorcerers with claws and wild shaped druids would also be making melee and not unarmed attacks??

Generally speaking, yes.

Note that unless the spell or effect says otherwise, the sorcerer will generally be considered "armed" and making a melee attack rather than "possessing a natural attack" which would seem to imply that (s)he would get 2 claw attacks per round like an animal or monster. Basically, the sorcerer still only gets their normal attack(s) at their normal BAB(s) and is still subject to all off-hand attack rules, but now is considered "armed", does not provoke AoOs, does lethal rather than non-lethal damage and deals damage appropriate to their claws rather than fists or weapon.

Again, the spell text should note any changes, and whether the sorcerer is considered "armed" or "using a natural weapon".

HTH,

Rez

[edit]
Semi-ninja'd since I took a while writing this ... still, I hope the specific Q&A breakdowns help.
[/edit]


Very succinct, Rez! I can't explain it any more thoroughly than you just did.

I will add that some rules and effects apply in the same way to both natural attacks and unarmed strikes, such as the magic fang spell.

Liberty's Edge

Rezdave wrote:
Note that unless the spell or effect says otherwise, the sorcerer will generally be considered "armed" and making a melee attack rather than "possessing a natural attack" which would seem to imply that (s)he would get 2 claw attacks per round like an animal or monster. Basically, the sorcerer still only gets their normal attack(s) at their normal BAB(s) and is still subject to all off-hand attack rules, but now is considered "armed", does not provoke AoOs, does lethal rather than non-lethal damage and deals damage appropriate to their claws rather than fists or weapon.

Actually, the draconic claw ability DOES specifically say it is treated as a natural weapon and allows 2 claw attacks per round as such.

PFSRD wrote:
Claws (Ex): Starting at 1st level, you can grow claws as a free action. These claws are treated as natural weapons, allowing you to make two claw attacks as a full attack action using your full base attack bonus. Each of these attacks deals 1d4 points of damage plus your Strength modifier (1d3 if you are Small). At 5th level, these claws are considered magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR. At 7th level, the damage increases by one step to 1d6 points of damage (1d4 if you are Small). At 11th level, these claws deal an additional 1d6 points of damage of your energy type on a successful hit. This is a supernatural ability. You can use your claws for a number of rounds per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.

Emphasis added.


Michael Johnson 66 wrote:

Very succinct, Rez!

AND
some rules and effects apply in the same way to both natural attacks and unarmed strikes, such as the magic fang spell.

Thanks.

I just reviewed magic fang. It's not clear whether the spell cast on the fists of someone without Improved Unarmed Fighting would negate AoOs or not. DM judgement call, really, though I can see a clear case for it not changing provocation.

R.

[edit]

StabbittyDoom wrote:
Rezdave wrote:
Note that unless the spell or effect says otherwise ...
Actually, the draconic claw ability DOES specifically say it is treated as a natural weapon and allows 2 claw attacks per round as such.

Thanks for making my point, again, after I already did, I guess.

Grammatically, "actually" doesn't really fit, since you're neither disagreeing with nor correcting me. [/snark]

:-)

[/edit]

Liberty's Edge

Whoops, guess I misread >.<
Sorry about that.


NP :-)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is a natural attack the same as an unarmed attack? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.