Unarmed strikes for monk and Hamatulatsu: Piercing weapon or not?

[Xenorcus]

I was thinking about doing a multi-class character as a monk/duelist. I read up on the Hamatulatsu feat and it allows the unarmed strikes to deal piercing damage. Here is my concern...

Does the feat make them Piercing weapons or weapons that deal piercing damage?

[Talonhawke]

Is there a reason that matters?

But you have a choice on which type of damage you deal. You would simply now have a B or P for damage type.

But seriously is there a reason it matters?

[Starglim]

In what circumstance does it make a difference? This is important to interpret the intention of the rule. And, you know, to allay my suspicion of weird leading questions.

In isolation, I'd say the monk's attacks are in every way typical unarmed strikes, except that he can choose to do piercing damage.

[Xenorcus]

My reason was because most of the Duelist's abilities require a light or one-handed piercing weapon, like the parry and the precise strike. I was thinking that, because of the feat, I could use the unarmed strikes for these abilities, but I could be misreading something too.

[Talonhawke]

Yes they would count for the duelist ability.

[StabbittyDoom]

Many duelist abilities rely on wielding piercing weapon(s). This is why it matters.

IMO: If you can deal piercing damage with the weapon (without taking improvisation penalties), it is now a piercing weapon. (If you have catch off guard, I'd remove the improvisation clause as well.)

RAW: *shrug*

[Xenorcus]

Thanks. I did not mean to have any misleading and suspicious questions...kinda new to the posting on the message boards and it did not filter well.

[Starglim]

In that case, a weapon that does piercing damage is a piercing weapon. Precise strike seems appropriate. There is already a published means to parry weapons while unarmed, but since a monk could just as easily take that feat chain, it doesn't seem problematic for him to get Parry from the duelist class.