PeachEternity's page

Thank you all once more. I appreciate your help and its helped me learn the game mechanics a bit more.

So I talked to the group today and they are running 1e. Thank you guys for your help on this. I definitely appreciate it.

This definitely sounds like 1e.

1. Wrath of the Righteous was a 1e campaign.
2. Natural weapons were only a thing in 1e.
3. Clawed tengu were only a thing in 1e.

Best to clarify that for your own purposes, though, so you don't build an unusable character.

I double checked today they are using 1e.

Thank you all so far for your answers. I will check in with the group to see if we are doing 1e or 2e. While I'm thinking we are using 2e there may be a communication error happening if one is thinking 1e rules vs 2e rules.

I will let you guys know in an update tomorrow.

As a beginner player and game master I appreciate the help.

This appears to be a 1e question given the WOTR reference.

Unarmed strikes are completely their own thing. It has its own entry on the weapon table, and even explicitly says that it does not count as a natural weapon (though monks change the rules slightly).

Ultimate Combat also has the "Feral Combat Training" feat which allows you to take feats that require improved unarmed strike and apply them to a specific natural weapon instead. This wouldn't be necessary if the two were meant to be interchangeable.

Given that Unarmed Strikes are nebulous, you could call it a claw swipe, but it is not your claw or beak attack, nor do your separate claw or beak attacks naturally benefit from the modifiers to IUS.

The key thing here is the natural 'weapon' part of weapon, imo. Each one is its own unique weapon. Asking if bonuses to your unarmed strike apply to your beak attack is sort of like asking if putting Flaming on your greatsword also let you deal fire damage with a dagger too.

PF2 makes this slightly sillier by removing the concept of natural weapons entirely and turning unarmed attacks into something else that for reasonable purposes are written as and function like weapons but aren't actually weapons and are instead ??? and we just kind of collectively choose to ignore the clumsiness there because we all mostly know how it's supposed to work.

Thank you so much. I believe we are doing second edition but will double check my sources to be sure. Either way this has helped a good deal.

Yeah, please clarify if your question is actually for 1st Edition or 2nd Edition, because the rules are drastically different.

If you are playing 2E, then unarmed strikes and natural attacks aren't distinct categories like there were in 1E.

However, you specifically mention the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, which is 1E only thing, in which case Natural Attacks are explicitly not Unarmed Strikes and don't benefit from anything that affects unarmed strikes without special language saying that happens (see Feral Combat Training).

We are going by second edition I believe. Sorry that I didn't clarify that in the original post but will find out tomorrow.

I run a type of teaching campaign using Wrath of the Righteous and at the moment my primary DM for the campaign and one of the players have an ongoing debate about whether Unarmed Strike affects Natural Weapons.

Example: Player wants to play a Tengu Monk, a race having claws as natural weapons, and feels that the claws (and beak) should benefit from the improved unarmed strike feat and thus get the damage bonuses to his claws as he would from a true unarmed strike (punch, kick or shoulder tackle).

Both individuals are using the books to back their reasoning and both sound accurate but I as a beginner Game Master (and the final say in such discussions) would like clarification for the Natural Weapon vs Unarmed Strike discussion.

Do natural weapons such as claws still get treated as Unarmed Strikes for monks thus receiving the attack bonuses?