|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, I have been given the opinion that some creatures are not allowed to make unarmed strikes.
This seems to stem from a wording here.
Specifically, this:
Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes.
With this, I ask:
1) If some creatures cannot make unarmed strikes, what qualifications need be met to do so?
2) If there is a limitation on which creatures can make unarmed strikes, is based on type, or access to natural attacks?
3) If the limitation is based on type, does the limitation carry over if their type is changed?
4) If the limitation is based off of shape, do Polymorphed creatures lose their ability to make unarmed strikes?
5) If the limitation is based off access to natural weapons, then do creatures who gain natural attacks lose the ability to make unarmed strikes?
6) If the limitation based off intelligence, do creature who take intelligence drain lose the ability to make unarmed strikes?
|
Universal Monster Rules
The following rules are standard and are referenced (but not repeated) in monster stat blocks. Each rule includes a format guide for how it appears in a monster's listing and its location in the stat block.
The answer is it's in their entry.
The reason? The book said so.
The limitations? design, philosophy, etc. Generally though it's the presence of articulate limbs capable of strength or finesse.
But let's look at the whole quote
Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do. See the natural attacks by size table for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.
All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
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)
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Does the creature in question have a "hand that can make a fist (punches are attacks with a fist) a foot (a kick is an attack with a foot) a articulate head (a headbutt is a attack with a head)
Do you have any particular creature that you do not think can make an unarmed attack that lacks a natural attack?
-edit- as to the stat thing, is there a stat requirement for any basic weapon proficiency? Answer is no, so why would any stat matter for proficiency in your own body? In particular see rule "all characters are proficient with unarmed strike"
I don't think that statement from the bestiary is exclusive. Creatures with no natural attacks can make unarmed strikes, but then, so can any creature.
1) If some can't make unarmed strikes (and I don't think there are any that can't) and you're using that line from the Bestiary as the sole rules source, then the qualifications to make an unarmed strike are "does not have a natural attack."
2) If there is a limitation (and I don't think there is), then it would be based on access to natural attacks.
3) I don't think there's any justifiable way it could be based on type.
4) I don't think there's any justifiable way it could be based on shape.
5) If there was a limitation based on access to natural weapons (and I don't think there is), then gaining natural weapons would disallow unarmed strikes, yes.
6) I don't think there's any justifiable way it could be based on Intelligence.
In summation:
I don't see any evidence for the position that there are some creatures incapable of making unarmed strikes. I am pretty sure all creatures can, and that line is simply reminding you that they can (the assumption is that unarmed strikes will always be weaker than natural attacks, since creatures rarely have class levels in Monk or Unarmed Fighter or whatever, so there's no reason to emphasize it as a possibility).
That said, if you are interpreting that line as excluding unarmed strikes from certain creatures, and I don't think you should, then the only justifiable criterion to use in judging is the presence or absence of natural attacks.
Under that reading (that I believe is incorrect), you can only make an unarmed strike if you have no natural weapons. I assume specific beats general for the case of say, a Tengu with Monk levels or something of that nature. But really, I just think the real answer is "every creature can make unarmed strikes."
It still only says that creatures without natural attacks can make unarmed strikes, not that creature with natural attacks can't.
Yeah, that's my point exactly. So, uh, they all can make unarmed strikes.
So, where do the limitations lie?
If you are (correctly, in my opinion) recognizing that saying creatures without natural weapons can make unarmed strikes, then I don't see where any limitations could lie.
If there are limits, I would like to know them.
What makes you think there are limitations?
|
|
It's clear that it says "any creature without natural attacks can make them like humans do"
Therefore however humans do it is how those creatures must.
humans make them as such
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
And probably other unlisted ways that anyone can reasonably articulate.
There's nothing in this requiring a grand thesis project on the intricacies of unarmed strike.
So, a Wildshaped Druid loses the ability to make unarmed strikes?
Where are you getting this restriction from? What is making you think anyone loses the ability to make unarmed strikes? Everything and everyone can make unarmed strikes.
The OP was quoting rules from d20pfsrd, which seems to differ somewhat from the Bestiary rules (on PRD):
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Nothing else grants other creatures any right to have ('possess') UAS attacks, even those with heads, feet, hands (or elbows/knees if monks).
Now, if a given stat-block lists UAS as an attack of that creature, they can make that attack because they explicitly have it.But UAS isn't usually listed on stat blocks, barring Monks - The given creature types just have a rule saying they DO have UAS weapons they can attack with, whether or not it is listed in the stat block, it is their legal capability which they can use. If it isn't granted by the stat-block, and isn't granted by the type, then there is nothing suggesting that UAS is a universal capability anymore than Disintegrating Eye-Beams are a universal capability. The rules tend to tell us what we can do (and it's parameters within the game), not specify everything we can't do. Since this is certainly a game action well modeled by the rules (not something glossed over like Death, etc) it seems even more prudent to demand explicit granting of capability to do "UAS attacks". Not that it's necessarily conclusive, but if every creature could make UAS attacks, it would be superfluous to specifically mention that these specific types can do so.
I guess it is unclear whether the quoted rule means ALL fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders can make UAS, or only those without natural weapons - Plenty of humanoids can have natural weapons including PC races, so clarifying that distinction seems relevant.
And of course, none of this changes the definition of UAS (punches and kicks and headbutts for most people, also elbows and knees for monks), so if there is a creature of the given types granted access to UAS who doesn't have any qualifing limbs/joints/head, then they cannot successfully make a UAS attack. That would go for a headless all-limb amputee, and for an Ooze with Monk level(s).
When Polymorphed into a form like a Bear or Ooze, those don't have UAS attacks by form, so even if you are proficient you don't have UAS weapons to attack with, similar to a humanoid with no head and no limbs. The Polymorph says you gain Natural Attacks of the form you turn into, and UAS is not a Natural Attack, so per RAW a Bear or Ooze that Polymorphs into Human form would still not have any UAS weapons, although obviously the rules' focus on human[oids] tends to mean they overlook possibilities like Oozes Polymorphing into Humans (where I would rule UAS attacks appropriate to the form are granted, including proficiency as per Polymorph).
|
|
We can't see that some disagree, I see only you.
I certainly think a Jello Cube can't, or that if you'd like you can call a natural attack a form of unarmed strike. (likewise it's also a natural attack) as they are both attacks with your body. Natural attacks just happen to be better suited either in ability to hit or to do damage or both. There's certainly no real reason to make a distinction except with how things interact with multiple attacks.
In that case alone is why we make a distinction between an unarmed strike and a natural attack, otherwise we'd simply invent locations to strike from until we ran out of body parts.
|
|
We can't see that some disagree, I see only you.
I certainly think a Jello Cube can't, or that if you'd like you can call a natural attack a form of unarmed strike. (likewise it's also a natural attack) as they are both attacks with your body. Natural attacks just happen to be better suited either in ability to hit or to do damage or both. There's certainly no real reason to make a distinction except with how things interact with multiple attacks.
In that case alone is why we make a distinction between an unarmed strike and a natural attack, otherwise we'd simply invent locations to strike from until we ran out of body parts.
Well, in 3.5, a "Jello Cube" could make unarmed strikes, as seen here.
I was unaware anything had changed.
In that case alone is why we make a distinction between an unarmed strike and a natural attack, otherwise we'd simply invent locations to strike from until we ran out of body parts.To be clear, in both PRPG and 3.5 Unarmed Strike is specified as certain specific body part 'weapons':
Unarmed Attacks (Combat/General, PRPG+3.5): Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts
Unarmed Strike (Monk, PRPG): A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.
Unarmed Strike (Monk, 3.5): A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet.
Somehow or another an idea that any part of your body coud be used for UAS infiltrated the collective consciousness and seems hard to extricate,
but per RAW it is only via these body parts... Thus if you don't have those body parts, UAS is meaningless for you.That's certainly the only thing I take away from all the game definitions of UAS that I know of.
I don't see any basis in 3.5 for why a Jello Cube would have UAS weapons to attack with - Monk class doesn't grant any attack forms EDIT: besides allowing knees and elbow to be UAS weapons (but it doesn't grant you knees and elbows), it just changes their effect and how they are used. Ultimately, Ooze don't have hands, feet, knees, elbows, or heads which are what you use to make UAS attacks when you HAVE the ability to make UAS attacks, and having Monk levels doesn't change that for Ooze any more than headless 4-limb amputee humans...
As I wrote before, there may not be a rules justification for a certain creature (say, a bear) to have any UAS attacks, but if a given stat-block says they do have UAS attacks, then they do, because the stat-block is defining the creature. How that works with an Ooze is problematic though, because listing UAS attack stats is one thing, but if UAS inherently uses 'punches/kicks/etc' and they don't have any such limbs then they have no real means to use UAS, similar to if a human was holding weapons in those limbs, or had all those limbs amputated.
Of course, there is a Feat to allow Flurrying with Natural Weapons for Ooze who wish to "Flurrooze".
quandry go here for where I'm quoting
well, this is really weird, but look at this page: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/universalMonsterRules.html
i'm not sure what the difference is between that and your URL: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalMonsters/universalMonsterRules .html#_natural-attacks\
but the 'fey, etc' section is obviously missing in yours... i'm not sure how you navigated to your URL,
i discovered mine simply thru the pop-down menu from the Bestiary link...
|
|
What aspect? That you need a foot, hand, or head to perform it?
-edit-Do you need told that you need a hand to hold a sword? At this mundane a level of questioning you might as well be asking how we hold our breath, how we hold an object, how we verbally communicate, how a backstab "stabs in a critical place"
|
|
What aspect? That you need a foot, hand, or head to perform it?
-edit-Do you need told that you need a hand to hold a sword? At this mundane a level of questioning you might as well be asking how we hold our breath, how we hold an object, how we verbally communicate, how a backstab "stabs in a critical place"
Don't be a jerk.
|
|
Then pay attention to what's being said to you.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Then there's Quandry explaining form dependency by and large.
Every rule indicates at a min a punch, a kick, or a headbutt.
For you to ask for "further clarity" on it, is asking us to explain a kick, a punch, a headbutt.
It's too much, you seem bright enough to know this. You either earnestly need the most basic of concepts explained or you're being deliberately dense.
|
|
I'm saying at your table.
You seem the only one that cares to make a distinction over this.
Most if not all GMs will say "roll to hit, use your unarmed strike" without caring where it's coming from. You on the other hand are too worried about exactly what the book says to worry about the narrative, and creativity the rules are designed to promote.
I'm sorry they don't explain it to your taste, but it's explained well enough for 99.9999% of the players.
|
|
Do me a favor, you're not a student I need to be teaching things in advance and I'll tell you what I tell students that ask for obvious answers handed to them.
"you tell me, go find out the answer then come back, you already know enough to be able to see it easily enough"
Your proficiency doesn't change when you wild shape, you are still proficient in everything you were before. Likewise unarmed strikes are dependent on the ability to kick punch or head butt (in the strictest RAW kind of view that you seem to stubbornly hold to)
|
|
I've never claimed it was limb-agnostic, that was your schtick.
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
These are the "defined" unarmed strikes. If you want to be anal-retentive about rules, this is what you work with.
|
|
Oh, but reading this, suggests otherwise.
Specifically:
Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
|
|
No no no. you're applying something to this debate that does not matter. And to top it off you're using it wrong again
(I knew this was where you were likely going, thanks for the candid answer to "just get to the point you're trying to steer this to")
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike....
This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike.
Then the FAQ ends in the part you chose to selectively quote.
The FAQ doesn't change that for unarmed strikes you need discrete locations to do an unarmed strike with. It just says "since it doesn't matter to a monk doing flurry (TWF) we're going to have any spell that would enhance an unarmed strike just universally affect all unarmed strikes they would do."
Of course they didn't write it this way, they wrote it the way they did. It was clear that the FAQ is only in response to the question and is only limited to spell interactions.
Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
A halberd is a single weapon. If you enchant it the entire weapon is enchanted, we don't quibble over if it's the blade or the shaft, or the grip, or the tassel or whatever. We say any attack with it is enchanted, this now applies to unarmed strikes.
Now I know your issue is that you can TWF and only pay for a enchantment but a person wielding a double weapon has to pay twice. I guess those are the breaks? A monk with the flurry ruling doesn't care, and every other class is using a sub-optimal option anyhow damage wise, and AoMF is the cost of enchanting a double weapon on both ends.
|
|
just to clearly put the whole FAQ question out there
Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?
As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.
This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
Magic Fang:
...Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.
Magic Weapon:
...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.
|
|
The creature can have natural attacks and they can still make an unarmed strike.
Every character (as stated above) is proficient in unarmed strikes.
Unarmed strikes in the most literal RAW interpretation requires "punches, Kicks, or headbutts"
If we can assume the wildshape morphs them into a animal that has a head, foot, or hand... they can.
Improved Unarmed Strike (Combat)
You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
So clearly the feat doesn't care even if you're able to make an unarmed strike, when you're unarmed you do not provoke and are considered armed. A druid wildshaped into a potatoe would still threaten. Although when an attack of opportunity(AoO) is provoked, they'd have no attack most likely to perform the AoO with.
I never have said anything about agnostic either.
I think the idea may have come from all UAS attacks (fist, kick, butt, elbow/knee) being equivalent power-wise in terms of damage, crit, abilities tying into UAS, amulet of mighty fist enhancing them the same, and now Magic Fang enhancing them the same (although remember that a Feat CAN be written that requires a certain mode of it: e.g. fist) ...in other words the 'agnosticism' comes from each of the given UAS attacks being nigh-identical in terms of power, so for most purposes it doesn't matter which one you are choosing... but in fact you do still have to choose one of the given UAS weapons to make a UAS with. That doesn't make all parts of your body UAS attacks, and it doesn't mean there is just one unitary UAS attack. A similar sort of conflation is the idea that ALL parts of your body are potential UAS attacks kind of fed into that belief as well, i.e. if you can NEVER EVER run out of body parts then it seems like there isn't any separate distinct UAS attacks... but that's not the case per RAW.
I think you addressed the wording of the Magic Fang FAQ in a way I didn't do before Lantzkev, I've written how the logical justification just literally isn't a viable logical justification of the conclusion, but you reached to the greater point, even if Paizo (SKR) didn't fully state the complete line of reasoning: A monk doesn't care how they rule on this, because Paizo has already let the monk Flurry with just a single weapon. So, *to make Magic Fang work equivalently in end-result for Monks and any other UAS user*, they make Magic Fang (and probably other spells like Keen) enhance all UAS weapons together... Since it's not like other Nat Wpns: having more UAS doesn't give you more attacks on it's own, enhancing them all isn't some 'free giveaway' (you have to use 2WF to gain extra attacks). Now, I might still have some personal quibbles regarding the implications of that and some broader design choices re: Amulet of MF (higher costing vs. Magic Fang affecting all UAS for 'price of 1'), and would probably recommend separating Amulet of Mighty Fist from Amulet of Magic Fang for that reason, but as a rules question about UAS itself (how many, etc), there just isn't more to say.
Incidentally, I am of the opinion that even if creatures such as Animals do not normally have UAS attacks (due to the line that only humanoids, fey, etc without natural attacks can), that taking a Monk level does let them do so, since the class ability is repeating that they can make UAS attacks with punches, kicks, elbows, knees (not mentioning headbutts strangely), so as long as the form has that anatomy it should be OK. For a creature like a bear I MIGHT disallow punches since they can't really make a fist, but everything else they have the body part for (and they only need one for a Monk Flurry). A Jellyfish on the other hand, same as a headless 4-limb amputee human, doesn't have the anatomy to apply UAS. Some aquatic species would have a hard time qualifying for punch/kick/elbow/knee, although you could be very charitable and allow a flipper... probably the easiest route would be to recognize (just a tad outside RAW) that Monks's UAS ability can head-butt also, and a fish or dolphin form Monk can also do that. I also rule that a human Druid polymorphed into a Bear can't make UAS attacks while in Bear form because the Bear doesn't normally have those attacks... But if the Druid has monk levels, then he also can rely on the 'indepenent' allowance of making UAS with punches, kicks, elbows, and knees, to make UAS attacks in Bear form.
|
|
I've already stated how the feat improved unarmed strike, if you want to ignore the words "threatens even when unarmed" you can.
In the case of a mindslaver spore, it's clear that while you threaten we're stuck with that "no unarmed attack" to strike with case.
A mindslaver mold’s sole physical attack is to launch a spore pod the size of a sling bullet.
The form you have picked deliberately precludes any ability to attack with an unarmed attack. And also a mold doesn't even have a head.