Do monk unarmed strikes count as natural weapons.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question: Do monk armed strikes count as natural attacks/weapons for effects that modify natural weapon damage? If yes, are the monks unarmed strikes classified as primary or secondary weapons?


Have you tried looking it up? Have you, in fact, done anything at all before coming here and asking?


Fistbeard McBeardfist wrote:
Have you tried looking it up? Have you, in fact, done anything at all before coming here and asking?

Question stems from a current thread asking about a Monk using Power Attack + Dragon Ferocity

I tried to write an unbiased question in a dedicated thread.
I agree the question is silly, but it is causing quite the heated discussion at the moment. A FAQ is likely the only way to resolve the debate.


yes and neither


Snowlilly wrote:

Question: Do monk armed strikes count as natural attacks/weapons for effects that modify natural weapon damage? If yes, are the monks unarmed strikes classified as primary or secondary weapons?

Given the total specific context of your question, the answer is no.

Natural weapons are not unarmed strikes. That's why Humans don't have natural weapons if all they do is punch, whereas a bear is definitely considered armed with it's claws.

So that means someone untrained who decides to punch a bear provokes an AOO for conducting an uninproved unarmed strike with a bear armed with natural weapons.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

Question: Do monk armed strikes count as natural attacks/weapons for effects that modify natural weapon damage? If yes, are the monks unarmed strikes classified as primary or secondary weapons?

Given the total specific context of your question, the answer is no.

Natural weapons are not unarmed strikes. That's why Humans don't have natural weapons if all they do is punch, whereas a bear is definitely considered armed with it's claws.

So that means someone untrained who decides to punch a bear provokes an AOO for conducting an uninproved unarmed strike with a bear armed with natural weapons.

Monk unarmed strikes count as both manufactured weapons and natural weapons for effects that improve or enhance either. The question proposed is; when enhanced by an effect, is the monk's unarmed strike treated as a primary or secondary natural weapon. In the case of Power Attack, that classification affects the interaction of the effect.

Per the Natural Attack rules, all attacks made without weapons fall into one of the two classifications.

It goes without saying that monks never provoke for making an unarmed attack.


Monks do not provoke because they have Improved Unarmed Strike, not because their attacks are natural weapons. (Which they're not)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magentawolf wrote:
Monks do not provoke because they have Improved Unarmed Strike, not because their attacks are natural weapons. (Which they're not)

But unarmed strikes are in the Natural Weapon group. Why wouldn't they be natural weapons?


natural weapon group is just the fighter grouping weapons together for bonuses. Notice how IUS is also in the close weapon group? Fighter weapon groups mean nothing except for things saying to look at the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Magentawolf wrote:
Monks do not provoke because they have Improved Unarmed Strike, not because their attacks are natural weapons. (Which they're not)
But unarmed strikes are in the Natural Weapon group. Why wouldn't they be natural weapons?

The problem isn't that they're not natural weapons. (They actually technically aren't, but a Monk's Unarmed Strike is treated as one.)

The problem is that they're not PRIMARY natural weapons. Unless it says it's a secondary or primary natural weapon, then it isn't, and because it's not quantified, you can't say that it counts as a PRIMARY natural weapon for the purposes of benefitting from feats like Power Attack, which specifically reference PRIMARY natural weapons.

In addition, if you tried to use unarmed strikes in conjunction with other natural weapons, your other natural weapons would be treated as secondary, whereas your unarmed strikes remain unchanged, because for other purposes, they are considered a manufactured weapon (and as such, revert all other natural attacks to secondary).

I hope that brings a final and solid answer to this ridiculous debacle...


Magentawolf wrote:
Monks do not provoke because they have Improved Unarmed Strike, not because their attacks are natural weapons. (Which they're not)
Natural Attacks wrote:
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks.

Emphasis mine.

Any attack made without a weapon is a natural attack. These attacks fall into one of two categories. Primary or Secondary.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


The problem is that they're not PRIMARY natural weapons. Unless it says it's a secondary or primary natural weapon, then it isn't, and because it's not quantified, you can't say that it counts as a PRIMARY natural weapon for the purposes of benefitting from feats like Power Attack, which specifically reference PRIMARY natural weapons.
Natural Attacks wrote:
Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls.

Monk unarmed strikes meet the definition for Primary natural weapons. They are made at full BAB and use the monk's full strength bonus.

Monk attacks do not meet the definition for Secondary natural weapons. They do not incur a -5 attack penalty or use 1/2 strength.

There are no other classifications within RAW.

Quote:
In addition, if you tried to use unarmed strikes in conjunction with other natural weapons, your other natural weapons would be treated as secondary, whereas your unarmed strikes remain unchanged, because for other purposes, they are considered a manufactured weapon (and as such, revert all other natural attacks to secondary).

Monk unarmed strikes are only considered manufactured weapons and/or natural weapons for effects that enhance or improve manufactured weapons and/or natural weapons.

Monk unarmed strikes are not considered manufactured weapons and/or natural weapons for effect that diminish or penalize manufactured weapons and/or natural weapons.

Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Emphasis mine


So a Monk's Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon, but not, you know, a Natural Weapon. But it is considered a Natural Weapon, but not, you know, a Natural Weapon. But it's not, you know, considered a Natural Weapon when you use it with Natural Weapons.

edit: I was joking when I wrote this, but this is apparently the official ruling.

But joking aside, let's analyze this question.

Let's consider the ruling that an Unarmed Strike is a Primary Natural Weapon:

Unarmed Strike is a Primary Natural Weapon with special rules that cause it to provoke an attack of opportunity
- You do not get iterative attacks with your Unarmed Strike
- You get Str*1.5 with an attack with one (and exactly one) Unarmed Strike
- You can make an attack with an Unarmed Strike at -5 to hit and 0.5*str damage when attacking with a Manufactured Weapon

So, that would mean that a Monk...
- Could perform iterative attacks with a Manufactured Weapon and one attack with an Unarmed Strike at -5 to hit and 0.5*Str damage (but could not flurry while doing this)
- Could attack once for Unarmed Strike damage and get Str*1.5 while doing so.

The Monk isn't actually getting anything out of making a Natural Weapon attack while attacking with Manufactured Weapons (Flurrying is strictly better), and spending a feat (Improved Unarmed Strike) to get an extra attack doing 1d3+0.5*Str for Fighters et al isn't exactly game-breaking.

The actual problem is that if an Unarmed Strike qualifies as an attack that gets 1.5*Str and -1/+3 Power Attack when attacking exactly once, then a Monk would not be completely disadvantaged when not making a Full Attack. Does this sound right, or am I missing something?


I didn't read all of it but I think where you're going wrong is thinking that just because you can add 1.5x STR to an attack with Dragon Style, a monk's fist all of a sudden becomes a primary natural attack. It doesn't. If a 1st level Warpriest's deity's favored weapon is Dagger and the damage die is now 1d6 instead of 1d4 does that mean the Warpriest can now take Weapon Focus Short Sword and use it with the Dagger? Of course not.

Changing the damage type doesn't change what it is. If you couldn't use the Power Attack bonus before Dragon Style, you can't use it after it. Dragon Style hasn't changed what type of attack it is.


Snowlilly wrote:
Question: Do monk armed strikes count as natural attacks/weapons for effects that modify natural weapon damage?

Yes

Monk wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

I think it's pretty cut-and-dried.

Snowlilly wrote:
If yes, are the monks unarmed strikes classified as primary or secondary weapons?

Primary, pretty much. Secondary Natural Weapons suffer things like a -5 to attack and a dimished ST Mod Damage, and Monks suffer none of that.

But an Animal's sole Primary Natural Weapon, such as a Shark's bite, enjoys an added bonus that Monks' don't: +1.5 St mod to Damage. It would be entertaining to see someone argue they were entitled to the extra bonus on those grounds.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
natural weapons. (They actually technically aren't, but a Monk's Unarmed Strike is treated as one.)

Well-put.

Liberty's Edge

Unarmed strikes are treated as natural weapons for effects like Magic Fang and for their 'fighter weapon group'.

In most (all?) other ways unarmed strikes are NOT treated as natural weapons.


Snowlilly wrote:


Monk attacks do not meet the definition for Secondary natural weapons. They do not incur a -5 attack penalty or use 1/2 strength.

There are no other classifications within RAW.

That means ANY fist is a Primary Natural weapon, monk or not.

Really, I don't think you're going to get anyone to agree with you. I am positive it isn't RAI, and you have to do some pretty creative word twisting to come close to getting somewhat near RAW... which it isn't that either. You can keep arguing if you like, but you'll continue to get the same answers, so really your only option is try to convince your GM.


Jodokai wrote:
I didn't read all of it but I think where you're going wrong is thinking that just because you can add 1.5x STR to an attack with Dragon Style, a monk's fist all of a sudden becomes a primary natural attack.

Dragon Ferocity has nothing to do with primary/secondary.

A monk's unarmed strike is primary because, under core rules for natural attacks and monk unarmed strikes, he uses his full BAB and full strength.

Dragon Ferocity changes the strength bonus from x1 to x1.5, allowing his natural attacks to qualify for the x1.5 damage mod on Power attack.


Jodokai wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:


Monk attacks do not meet the definition for Secondary natural weapons. They do not incur a -5 attack penalty or use 1/2 strength.

There are no other classifications within RAW.

That means ANY fist is a Primary Natural weapon, monk or not.

Really, I don't think you're going to get anyone to agree with you. I am positive it isn't RAI, and you have to do some pretty creative word twisting to come close to getting somewhat near RAW... which it isn't that either. You can keep arguing if you like, but you'll continue to get the same answers, so really your only option is try to convince your GM.

Strike, Unarmed wrote:
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons.

Monks have a specific exception. Their unarmed strikes do count as natural weapons for effects.

Some effects, e.g. Power Attack, resolve based on the categorization of the natural attack. There are only two possible categorizations and all natural weapons must fall into one of them. This is clearly defined under the Natural Attack rules.


If a creature has 1 and only 1 natural weapon, that natural weapon is a primary one. Even though Tails are normally Secondary Natural Weapons, a Stegosaurus Tail is a Primary Natural Weapon.

Unless the Monk in question is a Tengu, I don't see how his Unarmed Strikes can be treated as anything other than a Primary Natural Weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Magentawolf wrote:
Monks do not provoke because they have Improved Unarmed Strike, not because their attacks are natural weapons. (Which they're not)
Natural Attacks wrote:
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks.

Emphasis mine.

Any attack made without a weapon is a natural attack. These attacks fall into one of two categories. Primary or Secondary.

It helps to look at the whole section.

Quote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Any attack made without a weapon is an unarmed attack.

If we now look at natural attacks.

Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Monks unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, so they are not natural attacks. They are not primary or secondary, because they are unarmed strikes. They do count as a natural weapon for effects and spells, but it does not specify primary or secondary, so it is neither.

Natural weapons fall into 2 groups, primary or secondary.
A monk unarmed strike is not a natural weapon, but can be treated as one for effects and spells.
Because power attack requires a primary natural weapon, and a monk unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon, it does not apply.


We already have a debate thread for this topic. It has already been linked.

PLEASE DO NOT DEBATE HERE.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Pretty sure an unarmed strike is not considered a "primary natural weapon" for that purpose.


Claxon wrote:

We already have a debate thread for this topic. It has already been linked.

PLEASE DO NOT DEBATE HERE.

Some of us have the courtesy not to necro a two year old thread the was never structured for FAQing and never resolved.


Tarantula wrote:


If we now look at natural attacks.
Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb
...

You are defining, for the most part, the mechanics used in combat with natural attacks.

Natural Attacks wrote:
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.

Emphasis mine.

This is the full definition for Natural Attacks, from the Universal Monster Rules.


they are natural weapons but they are neither primary nor secondary as they are also treated as manufactured weapons


Snowlilly wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


If we now look at natural attacks.
Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb
...

You are defining, for the most part, the mechanics used in combat with natural attacks.

Natural Attacks wrote:
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.

Emphasis mine.

This is the full definition for Natural Attacks, from the Universal Monster Rules.

Monks do not possess a natural attack. They have an unarmed strike, that can count as a natural attack for effects and spells.

Much like a Druid with the Share Spells ability and their animal companion.
The animal companion is an animal type creature. Share spells allows the druid to cast any spell with a target of You on their animal companion, even if it would not affect animal type creatures. It doesn't make the companion humanoid, but it allows the spell to affect them as if they were.

The monk unarmed strike is an unarmed strike. It counts as a natural attack for spells and effects that enhance or improve natural attacks. This allows a monk to benefit from a spell like Strong Jaw or Lead Blades equally well. It does not change what type of weapon the monk has (unarmed strike).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

We already have a debate thread for this topic. It has already been linked.

PLEASE DO NOT DEBATE HERE.

WHAT AN ODD THING TO SAY.

Scarab Sages

Snowlilly wrote:


Natural Attacks wrote:
Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls.

Monk unarmed strikes meet the definition for Primary natural weapons. They are made at full BAB and use the monk's full strength bonus.

Monk attacks do not meet the definition for Secondary natural weapons. They do not incur a -5 attack penalty or use 1/2 strength.

There are no other classifications within RAW.

You're taking this quote out of context. The text quoted is not a definition, it is the rules on how primary and secondary attacks work. The definition of which attacks are primary and secondary appear in the natural attacks table listed on the Universal Monster Rules section of the PRD.

Specifically, primary natural attacks are defined as a bite, claw, gore, slam, sting, or talons. Unarmed Strikes - monk or otherwise do not appear there, because they are not natural attacks.


Tarantula wrote:
Any attack made without a weapon is an unarmed attack.

Per RAW, not so. A Grapple is an attack made without a weapon, and yet it is not an unarmed attack. I know this to be true because the Amulet of Might Fists, which enhances Unarmed Attacks, does not enhance Grapples. I am proud to say I was instrumental in forcing Paizo Publishing to make a ruling on that matter.

Tarantula wrote:
Monks unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, so they are not natural attacks. They are not primary or secondary, because they are unarmed strikes. They do count as a natural weapon for effects and spells, but it does not specify primary or secondary, so it is neither.

Well, unarmed strikes are weapons, and they are natural, but they are not natural weapons. But they count as such for effects that benefit them. Everything else that counts as a Natural Attack counts as either a primary or a secondary one, but are MUS an exception?

They would be exceptional either way, because all other things that count as Natural Attacks specify whether they count as primary or secondary, and MUS don't.

And there is the point I already raised, which is that if you have a solitary natural attack, it is primary even if it is normally secondary (such as the Stegosaurus Tail), and it gains +1.5 X the St Mod. MUS don't.

Dragon Ferocity wrote:
While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks.

The rules surely considered the possibility that someone might play a Human Monk with no other Natural Attacks, and following the other rules, the description would surely account for extra +0.5 ST Mod normally due to a solitary Natural Attack. But they don't. And I'm feeling compelled to conclude that that means that MUS, while treated as Natural Attacks, are treated as neither Primary nor Secondary. They are the square root of Secondary Natural Attacks, even though that is just not rational.


Imbicatus wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:


Natural Attacks wrote:
Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls.

Monk unarmed strikes meet the definition for Primary natural weapons. They are made at full BAB and use the monk's full strength bonus.

Monk attacks do not meet the definition for Secondary natural weapons. They do not incur a -5 attack penalty or use 1/2 strength.

There are no other classifications within RAW.

You're taking this quote out of context. The text quoted is not a definition, it is the rules on how primary and secondary attacks work. The definition of which attacks are primary and secondary appear in the natural attacks table listed on the Universal Monster Rules section of the PRD.

Specifically, primary natural attacks are defined as a bite, claw, gore, slam, sting, or talons. Unarmed Strikes - monk or otherwise do not appear there, because they are not natural attacks.

1. The Universal Monster Rules are what I have been quoting, "any attack made without a weapon." Very first sentence.

2. Reread the table; final entry = other.

3. Monks have a specific rule applied to their unarmed strike, counts as a natural weapon for effects.

4. When an effect is dependent on natural weapon classification, we refer back to the first paragraph of the Universal Monster Rules. All natural weapons must be classed as either primary or secondary. The characteristics of each are clearly defined.

Scarab Sages

Other = secondary. Even if you were right, the table defines them as secondary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You are extrapolating the rules to beyond breaking point.

Unarmed strikes are explicitly not natural attacks. The rules at every point make a distinction between the two. Reading the UMR on natural attacks and applying that to unarmed attacks is bordering on disingenuous.


dragonhunterq wrote:

You are extrapolating the rules to beyond breaking point.

Unarmed strikes are explicitly not natural attacks. The rules at every point make a distinction between the two. Reading the UMR on natural attacks and applying that to unarmed attacks is bordering on disingenuous.

The general rule is that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.

The specific rule for monks is that their attacks count as natural weapons for effects.

Some effects check to see if the natural weapon is primary or secondary.
RAW clearly states all natural weapons are classified as one or the other.

There is very little extrapolation, the dots are laid out in a straight line for anyone to connect.


Imbicatus wrote:
Other = secondary. Even if you were right, the table defines them as secondary.

Other = all natural weapons not otherwise listed on the table.


Snowlilly wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Other = secondary. Even if you were right, the table defines them as secondary.
Other = all natural weapons not otherwise listed on the table.

yes but then it is also stated other natural attacks are secondary natural attacks


Unarmed strikes by and large follow the rules for manufactured weapons. They let you attack based off of your base attack bonus , two weapon fight with your left and right fist, and combine with natural weapons in ways natural attacks can't.

But obviously you can't cast magic weapon on a normal persons fist.

So to your question, i have to ask, what do you plan on doing with it?


Snowlilly wrote:


4. When an effect is dependent on natural weapon classification, we refer back to the first paragraph of the Universal Monster Rules. All natural weapons must be classed as either primary or secondary. The characteristics of each are clearly defined.

You are correct, all natural weapons have to be defined as primary or secondary... except a monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon, and so doesn't have to be and is not defined as a primary or a secondary weapon. If something requires it to be a primary or secondary, it doesn't work, because it is neither. This is further backed up by the fact that a monk doesn't get 1.5 STR by default, and can make multiple attacks with BAB.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Chess Pwn wrote:
yes and neither

+1


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Unarmed strikes by and large follow the rules for manufactured weapons. They let you attack based off of your base attack bonus , two weapon fight with your left and right fist, and combine with natural weapons in ways natural attacks can't.

But obviously you can't cast magic weapon on a normal persons fist.
...

That's an interesting choice for your example

Magic Weapon wrote:
You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

As I read that, it says that all Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons. Not just 'treated as' Natural Weapons, but actually Natural Weapons. As far as the spell is concerned, what makes a Monk's Unarmed Strike different from an average person's Unarmed Strike is that it is also considered a manufactured weapon. I have to say that isn't the way I thought this worked, but there it is.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Any attack made without a weapon is an unarmed attack.
Per RAW, not so. A Grapple is an attack made without a weapon, and yet it is not an unarmed attack. I know this to be true because the Amulet of Might Fists, which enhances Unarmed Attacks, does not enhance Grapples. I am proud to say I was instrumental in forcing Paizo Publishing to make a ruling on that matter.

Grapple is a combat maneuver that is not made with a weapon (typically). It is not done with unarmed attack, as evidenced by the mighty fists not benefiting grapple checks. Some combat maneuvers are or can be done by weapons (trip, sunder as examples) but not all of them are.


Quote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Would you make the argument that unarmed strikes are manufactured weapons?


Every single statblock with unarmed strikes ever published makes it unambiguously clear that unarmed strikes don't qualify for 1½*Str for being singular primary natural attacks.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There really needs to be a 'This is not a FAQ' button.


Fistbeard McBeardfist wrote:
Every single statblock with unarmed strikes ever published makes it unambiguously clear that unarmed strikes don't qualify for 1½*Str for being singular primary natural attacks.

Unless the person is using Dragon Ferocity.

CBDunkerson wrote:
There really needs to be a 'This is not a FAQ' button.

If you are confident in your position, you have nothing to lose by requesting a FAQ.

The only risk is the risk of having a response that takes a position other than the one you are advocating. Are you so uncomfortable with you position that you feel a need to discourage on official response?


Lady-J wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Other = secondary. Even if you were right, the table defines them as secondary.
Other = all natural weapons not otherwise listed on the table.
yes but then it is also stated other natural attacks are secondary natural attacks

Any natural weapon can be primary or secondary, depending on the situation.

A monk's unarmed strikes are most certainly not secondary; they do not suffer a -5 attack penalty nor do they use a x.5 strength modifier.

Liberty's Edge

Snowlilly wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
There really needs to be a 'This is not a FAQ' button.
If you are confident in your position, you have nothing to lose by requesting a FAQ.

Not true.

Every such question which gets taken up is another week (or more) delay on getting an answer for something I'm actually interested in.


Gisher wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Unarmed strikes by and large follow the rules for manufactured weapons. They let you attack based off of your base attack bonus , two weapon fight with your left and right fist, and combine with natural weapons in ways natural attacks can't.

But obviously you can't cast magic weapon on a normal persons fist.
...

That's an interesting choice for your example

Magic Weapon wrote:
You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

As I read that, it says that all Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons. Not just 'treated as' Natural Weapons, but actually Natural Weapons. As far as the spell is concerned, what makes a Monk's Unarmed Strike different from an average person's Unarmed Strike is that it is also considered a manufactured weapon. I have to say that isn't the way I thought this worked, but there it is.

And that is the only location it's like that. So either we believe that one singular spell is worded incorrectly or we believe every other place is worded incorrectly.

If a monk has a bite attack and the make an unarmed strike, the bite is treated as a secondary natural attack, if unarmed strike was a natural attack they would both be primary


Fistbeard McBeardfist wrote:
Every single statblock with unarmed strikes ever published makes it unambiguously clear that unarmed strikes don't qualify for 1½*Str for being singular primary natural attacks.

That would be because unarmed strikes are considered light weapons. A stat block for a monk with Dragon Ferocity might be different.

Quote:
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Unarmed Strikes are manufactured weapons and not natural weapons. How a spell like Magic Weapon classifies Unarmed Strikes does not change what they are.

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Do monk unarmed strikes count as natural weapons. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.