Please excuse me if this is a simple misunderstanding on my part:
A monk's attacks, anyone with improved unarmed attack, casters of touch spells, and a character with natural weapons all fall under the same section of unarmed attacks, namely "armed" unarmed attacks, paraphrased from page 182 of the core book.
So keeping the above in mind, could someone please explain the distinction between a natural attack and an unarmed strike?
Specifically, if 'unarmed strike' is listed as a favoured weapon, does that encompass all unarmed attacks? Just "armed" unarmed attacks (which include the monk's attacks AND natural attacks as seen above)?
I thought maybe an unarmed strike is an "unarmed" unarmed attack, but that is clearly not the case when you read the improved unarmed attack feat which states you are treated as armed when making an unarmed strike.
As with my previous posts an official answer would be greatly appreciated, but any pointers to specific pages in specific books would also be great.
Thanks.
Natural Attacks are best defined here, as far as I can tell. They represent a creatures innate battle ability. Usually claws and teeth, but sometimes a natural affinity for punching you with giant fists (slam attack). Natural Attacks tend to follow their own rules, specifically a monster always gets to use ALL of his available natural attacks in every full round of attacks.
Unarmed attacks can usually be made from creatures that don't have built-in weaponry. A human's hand isn't designed with punching in mind. Monks, however, have trained their bodies to the point that their limbs ARE weapons. They're even treated as manufactured weapons for some purposes (Magic Weapon). Note, however, that they still use normal PC rules for attack progression, so the statement about their attacks counting as natural weapons should probably be ignored. More on that later.
Unarmed Strike as a favored weapon would include any non-weaponized body part being used to attack. So it would NOT count for a leopard's claws, but it WOULD count if that leopard wanted to ball up his paw and punch with it. (I've seen a declawed house cat punch out a larger dog this way. Seriously).
Then there're monks. According to the text, their attacks should be "treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon." From various other rulings, this should PROBABLY read: "is treated as both a manufactured weapon and an unarmed attack." A monk's attack is NOT a "natural weapon". In fact, a monk can't even flurry with natural weapons if he has them. Also, he can't use feats that enhance natural weapons. So, basically, ignore the whole "monk's have natural weapons" bit.
Unfortunately, I'm late for work, and will answer more later if need be.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, and I agree with what you are saying, except on one point.
Forgetting the monk, any character can take improved unarmed strike, which in effect "weaponizes" their unarmed attack. Then we are back to the same point where they wouldn't qualify in terms of the favoured weapon from above if they follow your reasoning.
Think of it this way, in the core rules a natural attack is a subset of unarmed attacks in the form of an armed unarmed attack. I.e. a natural attack is always an unarmed attack, but an unarmed attack is not necessarily a natural attack.
Taking your example (balled fist) further one could argue that if an unarmed attack deals bludgeoning damage it should be an unarmed strike, but that falls apart too since a claw attack counts as bludgeoning as well.
There are also instances in the core rulebook which reference both unarmed attack and unarmed strike as the same thing, such as the scorpion style feat for example.
Then there're monks. According to the text, their attacks should be "treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon." From various other rulings, this should PROBABLY read: "is treated as both a manufactured weapon and an unarmed attack." A monk's attack is NOT a "natural weapon". In fact, a monk can't even flurry with natural weapons if he has them. Also, he can't use feats that enhance natural weapons. So, basically, ignore the whole "monk's have natural weapons" bit.
All good except for this part.
A monk's unarmed strike class feature is a natural weapon for effects of feats, and spells.
It can be enhanced with the magic fang and greater magic fang spells for example (which won't work on unarmed strikes... only natural weapons).
As an aside though James has stated that there will be an errata on the improved natural attack feat found in the bestiary to specifically exclude the Monk's unarmed strike from being taken with that feat (broken promise here...) but other than that it's good for everything else.
All good except for this part.
Which part? The reasoning LordGriffin puts forward or the reasons I gave as to why it was flawed?
If you could, answer this that would be most helpful I think: When is an unarmed attack an unarmed strike? It is not because of the "weaponized" reasoning set out above as that can be proven not to work.
The fact is there is no black and white distinction made in the rules, which is why I kinda would like an official answer, or better yet, a small note on this in an errata.
Do you happen to know when that errata will be out? Or is it sort of up in the air?
Thanks.
This section in particular:
"this should PROBABLY read: "is treated as both a manufactured weapon and an unarmed attack." A monk's attack is NOT a "natural weapon". In fact, a monk can't even flurry with natural weapons if he has them. Also, he can't use feats that enhance natural weapons. So, basically, ignore the whole "monk's have natural weapons" bit. "
I was addressing the part where he stated that the monk's unarmed strike isn't a natural attack, which isn't true. The words about the uarmed strike being a natural attack are in there on purpose and not a mistake.
In fact there are three types of attacks in pathfinder:
Natural attacks -- an unarmed strike is NOT a natural attack.
Unarmed Strikes -- These are attacks made by creatures without natural weapons and are not natural attacks. Natural attacks are not unarmed strikes since that would create a self exclusion situation (unarmed strikes =/= natural attacks so if natural attacks == unarmed strikes then natural attacks =/= natural attacks... which is a logical No No).
Manufactured attacks -- These are attacks with weapons. These are neither Natural Attacks or Unarmed Strikes.
Actually there are black and white distinctions made on this, they are in the combat section... I'll post a link in a few minutes as an edit.
Alright for your convience of reading:
Unarmed Strikes:
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).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
Natural Attacks:
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.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
Completely different animals.
Thanks, but if you read my post I do quote from that exact same passage so yes, I have read it :)
My confusion comes in here: natural and monks attacks are listed under unarmed attacks, special case to be true, but unarmed attacks nonetheless.
So while you are correct that there are three types of attacks, natural attacks as per the rules are unarmed attacks.
Unarmed Strikes -- These are attacks made by creatures without natural weapons and are not natural attacks. Natural attacks are not unarmed strikes since that would create a self exclusion situation (unarmed strikes =/= natural attacks so if natural attacks == unarmed strikes then natural attacks =/= natural attacks... which is a logical No No).
If you could please quote the page number in the core book which this is quoted from that would solve all my problems right then and there and would be very appreciated! Frankly I feel kind of embarrassed that I missed it.
Thanks for your time with this.
This is a square is a rectangle sort of thing...
All Natural Attacks are "unarmed" but not all unarmed attacks are natural attacks.
All Unarmed strikes are "unarmed" attacks, but not all unarmed attacks are Unarmed strikes.
So what we have is a flow chart:
Is it an attack? (Y)
Is it an armed attack? (N)
Is it a natural attack OR an Unarmed strike?
Both of which are "Unarmed" attacks, but that doesn't mean they have to be in each others category. An Armed attack is EITHER a natural attack OR an Unarmed strike EXCEPT in the case of the monk.
You'll notice that each part (Unarmed strikes and Natural Attacks) are covered in their own sections without referencing each other.
In fact the Unarmed strike specifically says that it is like attacking with a weapon where as the natural attack doesn't. This is because they are in fact separate things.
Remember in pathfinder (and 3.5) unless otherwise stated a thing is it's own thing.
All good except for this part.
A monk's unarmed strike class feature is a natural weapon for effects of feats, and spells.
It can be enhanced with the magic fang and greater magic fang spells for example (which won't work on unarmed strikes... only natural weapons).
*deep breath* Ooookay. Now go back and actually READ those spells, please. Here's a link in case you get lost.
I apologize for being rude, but I have little patience when people correct me without doing their research (I get upset with myself when *I* don't do the research as well, so it goes both ways.)
Anyway, those two spells specifically mention that they work with unarmed strikes in addition to natural attacks.
SO, all you need to do to remove confusion is to remove "natural attack" from the Monk's descriptor. If a monk's attacks WERE "natural attacks", then he couldn't even use his own flurry of blows! He COULD take Improved Natural Attack, AND all of his attacks would be at his highest attack bonus (as per any other natural attack progression). None of this is true. THEREFORE a monk's unarmed strike IS NOT a natural attack, and the text in the monk description is just plain wrong.
In the end, natural attacks are completely separate form unarmed attacks. Weapon Focus (Natural Attacks) would NOT be comparable with Weapon Focus (Unarmed).
A monk's attacks are "unarmed" AND "weapons" (like swords), but are NOT "natural attacks".
All Natural Attacks are "unarmed" but not all unarmed attacks are natural attacks.
Again, this is incorrect. Natural Attacks are ONLY Natural Attacks. Unarmed is unarmed. Period.
My confusion comes in here: natural and monks attacks are listed under unarmed attacks
Where, exactly are you seeing this, please? I don't see it under weapons, and don't know where else to look.
Camper JOe wrote:
My confusion comes in here: natural and monks attacks are listed under unarmed attacks
Where, exactly are you seeing this, please? I don't see it under weapons, and don't know where else to look.
On p.182 of the Core Rulebook. Under 'armed' unarmed attacks.
"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."
So it is NOT a natural weapon but it counts as one for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance natural weapons (it is also not a manufactured weapon but is treated as such for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance those too).
It wouldn't matter if they were however since the Flurry of Blows ability specifically states you can flurry with your unarmed strikes (this would be an exception based clause of course).
Proof:
"Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes..."
By "unarmed" I meant "Not with a manufactured weapon" which is true.
But in the end I think we agree:
An Unarmed strike is NOT a natural attack.
A Natural Attack is NOT an Unarmed strike.
And the monk's unarmed strike has a couple of special exemption statuses worked into it, as does the flurry of blows ability.
Thank you Tanis.
I guess I can see where the confusion lies. Natural Attack is indeed mentioned under the subheading of "Unarmed Attacks". HOWEVER, I think it was only being used an an example of being "armed" without having any actual weapons. This is different then the game term of "unarmed". *rubs forehead*.
That seems to be where a lot of the confusion lies. "Unarmed" as the game term is a specific kind of weapon. Then there's the generic term "unarmed", which refers to "not having a weapon". Natural attacks are "unarmed" ONLY in that they don't use a manufactured weapon.
Grr ... I really hate to keep having to correct the rulebook, but I really think it's best if you just remove the reference to "natural attacks" from that section. It was (obviously to me) meant as an unrelated example. Unrelated because natural attacks ARE ALWAYS "ARMED", which is the whole point of the example, by the way.
"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."
So it is NOT a natural weapon but it counts as one for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance natural weapons (it is also not a manufactured weapon but is treated as such for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance those too).
It wouldn't matter if they were however since the Flurry of Blows ability specifically states you can flurry with your unarmed strikes (this would be an exception based clause of course).
I can see where you're coming from. However, the current wording creates more confusion that MY version. Treating monk attacks as "natural weapons" opens up at least 3 problems, all of which need to be specifically accounted for. Those being: attack progression, flurry of blows and Improved Natural Attack. If you completely remove the reference to natural attacks from the monk descriptor, then ZERO exceptions are needed (that I can see). It's much, MUCH cleaner and makes more sense in the context of the rules.
Well originally in the beta testing JB stated that all the feats that worked with unarmed strike in 3.5 would be allowed to work with unarmed strike in pathfinder. Since then Paizo has decided against that, so until they decide that one specific exemption had to be made everything was hunkydory on the feat side of things.
The Attack progression for the monk is a mess anyways -- I understand what/why they did what they did, I don't agree with it though (there was a reason this was taken out in the move from 3.0 to 3.5) so it's not really a thing with the unarmed strike.
Finally remember that the monk's unarmed strike is not a natural attack -- it simply counts as one for spells and effects. Flurry of blows would have that specific line in it anyways since unarmed strikes are technically not a monk weapon (they don't have monk beside them in the weapon chart or in their descriptor)... you can simply flurry with them anyways.
I guess this is another example of where the rules would benefit from one or two sentences extra just to clear up any confusion.
Everyone "knows" that natural attacks aren't unarmed strikes, but no one can prove it conclusively because of the errors / ambiguity in the rules. It's a shame that when trying to clarify rules we need to use 'my version' and 'in my opinion' so much, but I guess thats what the GM is for :)
I guess also that at this stage it's also too much to hope for any kind of clarification / errata in the APG for this and / or the monk issues?
1,000 XP to everyone for effort :)
1,000 XP to everyone for effort :)
WOOHOO! Level up!
1,000 XP to everyone for effort :)WOOHOO! Level up!
Of course the guy who contributes almost nothing to the encounter still gets full xp. It's always the way, innit?
Finally remember that the monk's unarmed strike is not a natural attack -- it simply counts as one for spells and effects. Flurry of blows would have that specific line in it anyways since unarmed strikes are technically not a monk weapon (they don't have monk beside them in the weapon chart or in their descriptor)... you can simply flurry with them anyways.
Okay, sure, I understand that. My question to you, then, is what spells and/or effects require this statement? Magic Fang? Works on unarmed attacks anyway. What exactly is an "effect", anyway? Feats obviously aren't effects, or INA would work. I ... honestly can't think of ANY examples where a monk benefits from "counting" his attacks as "natural" ones. So, if there's no point ... why bother confusing people at all? Please provide examples, because I'm genuinely curious.
Of course the guy who contributes almost nothing to the encounter still gets full xp. It's always the way, innit?1,000 XP to everyone for effort :)WOOHOO! Level up!
I've got max ranks in Ride (coat-tails) lol
feats are effects, it's that JB and the Paizo crew have specifically exempted INA. It's not that feats aren't allowed, it's that they decided to specifically not allow INA.
feats are effects, it's that JB and the Paizo crew have specifically exempted INA. It's not that feats aren't allowed, it's that they decided to specifically not allow INA.
Example please? How about the only other natural attack feat. Multiattack, anybody? So, I can take this feat so that my level 20 monk has the following attack progression? 18/18/16/16/16/16/16?! DAMN! Y'know what? I think I'm going to stop arguing with you, because this "natural attack" thing kicks ass.
Oh, wait, the term "secondary attack" only seems to apply to the special rules I mentioned for natural attacks. It doesn't even seem to apply in the context of iterative attacks. BUT ... my monk CAN take it for his unarmed strikes, right? It's not on the exception list, right? NEAT!
*sigh* Please name at least ONE example where calling a monk's unarmed attacks "natural attacks" makes any sense whatsoever?
LordGriffin you aren't making any sense. I'm not even sure what you are arguing about. Yes there is a lack of things that benefit natural attacks currently, no you couldn't take multiattack since you don't meet the prerequisites for it (i.e. 3 or more natural attacks).
I'm not really sure what you are getting upset about. The monk's unarmed strike is treated as if it's a natural weapon. No there currently isn't anything out there that benefits the monk in this way yet.
All in all this conversation that you seem to be having doesn't even below here: This is the rules forum, for answering question about rules -- not posting up what you think should be the rules, or what your house rules would/could/should be. I'm just trying to help make sure that everyone is clear about what the rules are -- not what you want them to be.
There is a certain amount of confusion as to what, exactly a "natural attack" is. Part of that confusion stems from the fact that monk attacks are "treated as natural attacks" I'm trying to point out that there's absolutely no reason for this. In fact, it should probably be ignored completely because it doesn't mesh with any of the rest of the rules, nor does it benefit from them in any way.
Yes, what I'm arguing for is technically a suggestion to have something changed. In the meantime, I felt I might help clarify what a natural attack is, and what monks do are in NO way natural attacks. They gain nothing by even "treating" their attacks as "natural". By removing the reference, many things get cleared up and make more sense.
This topic exists because there is confusion. I submit my cure for some of that confusion.
Also, how would "3 or more attacks, that are treated as natural" NOT count for the prerequisites of "3 or more natural attacks?"
My 2cp in this Monk discussion are as follows:
* INA has been errata'd out as Abraham Spalding said
* Multiattack is a moot point since none of the monk's unarmed attacks count as off-hand attacks (unarmed class feature under the monk class), so even with a weapon in one hand his second hand would not be a secondary attack. Or am I misreading / misinterpreting this?
* All other feats, and every spell I've come across either includes effect that function on both unarmed attacks and natural attacks, or if they are specific to natural attacks they specify which attack, ie. claw or bite.
What all that boils down to is that saying a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural attack for feats, effects, etc. is redundant.
Unless someone can show a specific example where it would come into play, beneficially or perhaps maybe as a hinderance?, there is really no need for it and could (should?) be omitted.
Thank you Camper Joe. I thought I was talking into the darkness, there! Did you have any other questions that pertain to this topic?
Nah I'm good.
I do think this thread evolved a little more than I had hoped since I was initially interested purely in the natural attack aspect, but it definately took a logical next step well within the context of the topic.
Although I genuinely would appreciate an example as stated in my previous post. If someone later comes across one please feel free to necro this thread.
Thanks for the help / patience :)
INA has been specifically excluded from being used by a Monk, because otherwise it would be available as an effect on a Monk's unarmed strikes since they are, as you quoted, treated as natural attacks. I understand that. What I don't understand is why? To use a charge on the nerf-bat? What is the reason?
And Multiattack would be fine for a non-humanoid monk who'd have his primary natural attack available at -2 instead of -5 (because, IIRC, using natural attacks and "normal" attacks in the same round would make the natural attacks secondary).
I, too, would like to see examples of other feats, spells, and effects targeting natural attacks (other than INA/MA and MF/GMF).
INA has been specifically excluded from being used by a Monk, because otherwise it would be available as an effect on a Monk's unarmed strikes since they are, as you quoted, treated as natural attacks. I understand that. What I don't understand is why? To use a charge on the nerf-bat? What is the reason?
Two possibilities come to mind. The first is that it's overpowered. However, an average of +1 damage per attack isn't exactly game breaking. The other possibility is that Monk attacks aren't really meant to be treated as natural attacks, and the devs targeted the wrong rule. They should have changed the monk descriptor and not how it interacts with various rules.
One reason it may have been omitted is that it can stack with itself. If a monk so chose he could burn every feat he had on this, although why would he in reality? Let us see...
A human monk at 11th level would deal 12d6 per hit, assuming he burnt all his character feats on INA. That is pretty broken, so seeing it like that, I would tend to agree in banning the feat for monks.
One reason it may have been omitted is that it can stack with itself. If a monk so chose he could burn every feat he had on this, although why would he in reality? Let us see...
A human monk at 11th level would deal 12d6 per hit, assuming he burnt all his character feats on INA. That is pretty broken, so seeing it like that, I would tend to agree in banning the feat for monks.
Please ignore that, I forgot to look at the BAB requirement for the feat. Either way, the progression of the feat is better than simply linear.
Hypethetically, if the feat were legal, you would probably have to keep track of your monk's unarmed damage, use it as the base, and keep track of how many times you took the feat. Everytime your base damage increases you consult the feat's progression list and adjust accordingly.
It could get complicated and in my opinion a little over-powered.
The other possibility is that Monk attacks aren't really meant to be treated as natural attacks, and the devs targeted the wrong rule. They should have changed the monk descriptor and not how it interacts with various rules.
Totally agreeing with you, there. In 3.5 it was allowed, and I don't remember reading anything about its overpower-ness.
Personally, I'd get rid of the difference between unarmed attacks and natural attacks. That would solve some of the most heated debates here. Humanoids would get a 1d3 Slam attack in the same way an unarmed Giant gets a Slam attack. Monk levels would only improve the relevant damage (as well as INA, knuckles dusters, and magical effects). All monsters would get the equivalent of Improved Unarmed Strike (in order to solve the main difference between unarmed attacks and natural attacks: incurring AoOs).
One reason it may have been omitted is that it can stack with itself.
It can??? I don't remember reading this. If it could, I'd agree with you on this. Let's see...
Feat Descriptions (Feats page)
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.INA (Monster Feats page)
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms. The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category.
No mention that it can stack with itself. Reading it closely, it doesn't even stack at all (meaning that you shouldn't be able to get it on two different types of attack). Strange, that.
It can???
Yeah I guess I missed the forrest for the trees on that one.
Then there really is no point in banning that feat for monks, an extra point or two on average is not game breaking.
This does bring up another pet peave though, one which I have with two-handed fighters as well. There are really very few feats for such characters, natural attacks and two-handed weapon wielders. I would have loved some kind of feat tree for them, something similar to the TWF tree, maybe not as big, but something.
How would one progress either of those two characters as compared to TWF, PBS, even mounted combat feat trees?
</rant>
1,000 XP to everyone for effort :)
Of course the guy who contributes almost nothing to the encounter still gets full xp. It's always the way, innit?
At the higher levels the INA adds more than a simple +1 to damage. Once the dice start getting to the 1d8 size the die increase from INA is worth more than just a +1 to damage... and that bonus gets spread out over the monk's up to 11 hits. So I think it was specifically nerf from an "overpowered" angle.
At the higher levels the INA adds more than a simple +1 to damage. Once the dice start getting to the 1d8 size the die increase from INA is worth more than just a +1 to damage... and that bonus gets spread out over the monk's up to 11 hits. So I think it was specifically nerf from an "overpowered" angle.
Oops. You are correct. Adding an d6 or d8 would give an average +3 or +4 bonus damage per attack. Yeah, that IS obviously more than other classes could get (compare to weapon specialization).
The main question on this side-topic still exists, though. Is there ANY reason, whatsoever, to treat monk attacks as "natural"? Beneficial? Detrimental? Anything at all?
Also, Camper Joe, I just figured out something that you said that had been confusing me.
* Multiattack is a moot point since none of the monk's unarmed attacks count as off-hand attacks
Were you, by chance, looking at "Multiweapon Fighting" as opposed to "Multiattack"?
As of right now there isn't (a reason to treat monk's unarmed strike as a natural weapon). At points in the past (in 3.5) there were. In the future there could be things that benefit the monk from this again.
However the level 10 power to treat your unarmed strikes as lawful currently has no use in the system either, does that mean it should be removed?
I think my only problem with your argument is the fact you are relying on the reasoning that, "It's not useful now so why keep it."
Which is fallacious, just because it isn't immediately useful (and it was up until last month when they announced that they were officially going to exempt INA it was useful for that at least) doesn't mean there isn't plans for it in the future, or that we should ditch it which would prevent those future plans.
Several of the items/ spells might instead get errata'd to only be useful with natural weapons, which would leave out the unarmed strikes normally.
Honestly I think the easiest way to handle it would be to roll the unarmed strikes into the natural attacks, however such discussion would be better placed down in the houserules/suggestions forum instead of the rules forum.
A note on the multiattack:
Monks don't meet the prerequisites for it since they don't have multiple natural attacks (they only have the unarmed strike which acts as a natural attack for spells and effects)... however if somehow they did qualify for it they could concievabl fight with a weapon(s), and make an attack with their unarmed strike in addition the weapon attack at only a -2 penalty to hit instead of the -5 penalty they would take right now.
However I don't really see this happening for several reasons:
1. It's confusing... basically being an expensive way to almost but not quite "flurry" (and it wouldn't be to the same benefit) with a weapon other than a monk weapon.
2. It's very expensive... I can't see anyone with the multiple natural attacks wanting to do this as it's class level/ feat intensive and again confusing.
Personally, I'd get rid of the difference between unarmed attacks and natural attacks.
Done. It's here.